Search Inquiry Documents

On Friday, 31 October 2025, the Waitangi Tribunal released He Tangata, he Whenua: The Citizenship Report (Wai 3513) in pre-publication format. The inquiry was granted urgency in the Waitangi Tribunal’s inquiry programme, with the hearing being held in September 2025. The Tribunal panel comprised Judge Alana Thomas (presiding), Professor Tafaoimalo Tologata Leilani Tuala-Wareen, Professor Emeritus David Williams, and Ken Williamson.

The Citizenship Act 1977 provides for four types of citizenship – citizenship by birth, descent, grant, and special grant – but it limits citizenship by descent to one generation. This means that children of parents with citizenship by descent who are born overseas are not automatically New Zealand citizens and must apply for citizenship by grant or special grant. The Act makes no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi or the status of Māori as tangata whenua. Claimant John Ruddock (Ngāpuhi) was born in Australia and became a New Zealand citizen by descent through his Māori mother. However, despite their whakapapa, Mr Ruddock’s children are not New Zealand citizens under the Act as they were born in the United States. A range of others have been affected, and some gave evidence, including actress Keisha Castle-Hughes (Ngāti Porou, Tainui, Ngāpuhi).

Overall, with only passive and culturally inappropriate mechanisms and procedures in place to ensure that overseas Māori are not disconnected from their tūrangawaewae, the Tribunal found that the Crown breached the Treaty principles of partnership, active protection, rangatiratanga, good government, equal treatment, and options.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown enter into consultation with Māori to provide for the co-design of, or full reflection of Māori views in, amendments to the Citizenship Act 1977:

• to include an acknowledgement of the status of Māori as tangata whenua;
• to include a provision requiring the Act to give effect to the Treaty of Waitangi and its principles; and
• to establish a tikanga pathway to citizenship that allows for hapū and iwi to assess whakapapa evidence.

The Tribunal also made three further recommendations for the Crown to action immediately while the above consultation is taking place:

• amend section 8(2)(e) of the Citizenship Act 1977 to include ‘or te reo Māori’;
• provide Mr Ruddock with citizenship by grant if he wants it; and
• extend citizenship by descent to two generations for Māori.

On Friday 14 May 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Interim Stage One Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry. The claim was brought by Te Kapotai, a hapū based in the Bay of Islands and alleged that the Crown had breached te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles by:

• removing the statutory requirement under section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 that required School Boards of Trustees to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi; and
• de-prioritisng te Tiriti o Waitangi, te reo Māori, and mātauranga Māori in the national curriculum through the refresh of the New Zealand Curriculum/Te Mātaiaho.

The panel that heard the inquiry comprised presiding officer Judge Rachel Mullins and members Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime.

This report concerns the Crown’s decisions, agreed by Cabinet on 23 February 2026, to amend treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020 (‘the Act’) to the ‘take into account’ standard, to remove dispute resolution service operators’ treaty obligations, and to replace references to ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ with a reference to both texts. An additional three purpose provisions are subject to further decisions by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Paul Goldsmith.

With amending legislation to be introduced this parliamentary term, the Tribunal prepared its report expeditiously so it can inform important decisions Ministers will be making during legislative drafting.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s approach to the reforms breached the treaty principles of partnership, active protection, and good government and caused prejudice to Māori. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately halt the advancement of the proposed amending legislation, take steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship, and, if changes are objectively needed to the Act’s treaty provisions, engage meaningfully with Māori in their co-design.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had a duty to engage meaningfully with Māori on these reforms. This reflects the constitutional significance of amending treaty provisions; that the change was not neutral – it proposed to downgrade the strength of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in the Act, or even remove them entirely; and the unique context of education where the Crown has particular obligations to actively protect taonga Māori, including te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori. This required the Crown to engage meaningfully with Māori on all changes to the Act.

The Tribunal also concluded that, despite receiving advice from the Ngā Mātāpono Tribunal regarding how to conduct a treaty-compliant treaty clause review, the Crown pursued a treaty-inconsistent course of engaging with a singular national Māori body, the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and only after substantive decisions had been made. The Tribunal noted that the Minister of Justice’s view that the select committee would provide a sufficient opportunity to provide input was inadequate and was an insult to Māori. The Tribunal noted that the Crown acted contrary to officials’ advice and showed a reckless disregard for the (likely and advised) harm to the Māori–Crown relationship.

The Tribunal considered next whether the Crown, in the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori, had adequately informed itself through internal policy processes of the potential implications of the proposed changes, including their impact on Māori interests. The Tribunal concluded that Cabinet agreed to the proposals despite clear and repeated advice from officials that constrained timeframes had precluded in-depth analysis, that not enough was known about the potential impact of the proposals, and that the regulatory impact statement was insufficiently developed to form the basis for Ministers to make an informed decision.

The Tribunal stated that what was clear was that the proposals carried a risk of harm to the Māori–Crown relationship and that, as treaty provisions can act as safeguards for Māori interests, reducing or repealing obligations therein could disproportionately impact Māori. The Tribunal agreed with officials that downgrading treaty standards in the Act to one of the lowest standards of ‘take into account’ would signal a shift in the Crown’s commitment to the treaty as it applies to education.

The Tribunal observed that reducing the strength and nature of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in statute unilaterally and without genuine engagement with Māori is inherently inconsistent with the partnership forged in 1840. It was comparable to the Treaty Principles Bill, or even worse as the reform may be enacted, and represented an attempt by the Crown to takahi the mana of the treaty and its place in the laws of Aotearoa.

In closing, the Tribunal strongly urged the Crown to step back from the proposed reforms, to engage meaningfully with Māori, and to take immediate steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship. This was important to not only honour the Crown’s obligations under the treaty but to restore a relationship the Crown itself knows is in a fragile state.
After releasing its stage one report, the Tribunal will turn its attention to reporting on the removal of school boards’ treaty obligations and the curriculum reforms in its stage two report.

On 16 September 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Stage Two, Part I Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry.

The Tribunal’s stage two, part I report concerns the Crown’s reform of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national curriculum, comprising both Te Marautanga o Aotearoa and the New Zealand Curriculum. This report follows the Tribunal’s stage one interim report concerning proposed changes to treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, released in May 2026, and precedes the forthcoming stage two, part II report addressing the removal of school boards’ Treaty obligations, formerly contained in section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020.

The Tribunal panel was comprised of Judge Rachel Mullins, Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime. The claimants, Te Kapotai and Ngāti Hine, first applied for urgency on 19 November 2025. On 3 December 2025, a further application for urgency was received from the kaimahi Māori of Te Riu Roa/New Zealand Educational Institute. The Crown opposed urgency.

On 2 March 2026, the Tribunal granted the claims urgency and, on 15 and 17 April 2026, the claims were heard. On the last day of hearing, following a judicial conference, the parties submitted a revised statement of issues which expanded the inquiry’s scope to include the proposed Education and Training Act 2020 reforms addressed in the stage one interim report. The revised statement of issues also replaced the heading ‘New Zealand Curriculum – Te Mātaiaho’ with the ‘National Curriculum’, thereby expanding the inquiry’s scope to incorporate Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum designed for use in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings. On 28 April 2026, the Tribunal heard oral closing submissions.

On 21 April 2026, Judge Mullins confirmed the Tribunal would report in two stages, with stage one addressing broader proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 under the treaty clause review and stage two addressing the removal of section 127(1)(d) and the national curriculum. After receiving written closing submissions, the Tribunal issued its stage one interim report on 24 May 2026.

In this, its stage two, part I report, the Tribunal found that the Crown, through its actions related to developing a ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’ informed by the ‘science of learning’, breached a number of Treaty principles. Specifically, it found that the Crown:

• breached the principle of partnership through its lack of meaningful engagement and consensus-building with Māori about the new draft national curriculum and its failure to fulfil its obligations under the Kawa Whakapūmau with Ngā Kura ā Iwi;
• breached the principle of active protection by moving ahead with a knowledge-rich approach in the absence of evidence that it will reduce Māori inequities, in the face of opposition from Māori and the wider sector, with an apparent lack of engagement with the findings of the Huia Kaimanawa report, and in the context of its heightened duty to act in a protective manner in the compulsory schooling sector, where known inequities exist;
• breached its duty of active protection of te reo, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori by reducing emphasis on them (in a context in which section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 had also been removed) and simultaneously inhibiting teachers’ capacity to meaningfully incorporate content from te ao Māori given the volume of prescribed content and mandatory teaching times for reading, writing, and mathematics;
• breached its duty of active protection of tikanga and mātauranga Māori by sidelining the Te Tīrewa Marautanga framework in favour of the same knowledge-rich design principles (except one) as underpinned the New Zealand Curriculum;
• breached the principle of partnership by failing to sufficiently consider the aspirations and priorities that whānau, hapū, and iwi have for their uri in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings in its redesign of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa;
• breached the principle of equity through its lack of active protection and relative disregard for Māori voices; and
• breached the principle of good government in officials’ apparent failure to make any robust assessment of the applicability of the philosophy behind knowledge rich to New Zealand circumstances (and to Māori in particular), in officials’ corresponding reinforcement of the Minister’s predetermined position, and by the Crown’s apparent lack of consideration of existing successful Māori education models.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown recommit to working in partnership with Māori in education and return to working with Māori on designing a truly indigenous Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori curriculum through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. The Tribunal further provided the Crown with a list of features that it recommended should characterise the Crown’s renewed commitment to partnership. The Tribunal concluded that partnership was essential if the Crown were to correct its course and achieve equitable outcomes for ākonga Māori.

On 31 July 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Te Tinihanga o ngā Mātāpono: The Urgent Report on the Treaty Principles Reform, a report on the Crown’s proposals to reduce or remove Treaty of Waitangi / te Tiriti o Waitangi provisions from 18 pieces of legislation.

On 23 February 2026, Cabinet had agreed to several amendments to Treaty/Tiriti provisions, including to repeal multiple provisions and to lower the Treaty/Tiriti weighting in provisions included in the relevant statutes to no higher than ‘take into account’. On 21  April, the Tribunal received a claim from the claimants for Wai 682, the Ngāti Hine Lands, Forests, and Resources Claim, contending that, in deciding to make these legislative changes, the Crown had breached the principles of the Treaty/te Tiriti as, if enacted, the reforms would lead to the marginalisation of Māori interests in the operation of law and policy. The claim was registered as Wai 3565, and 56 parties were granted interested party status. The claimants also filed an application for urgency, and the Tribunal received 31 submissions supporting it, though the Crown opposed it. After consideration, Chief Judge Dr Caren Fox granted urgency on 6 May. The panel appointed to hear the claim comprised Chief Judge Dr Fox (presiding), Derek Fox, and Dr Paul Hamer, and the hearing was held at the James Cook Hotel in Wellington on 2 and 3 June 2026.

The report focused on the rationale behind the reforms, the adequacy of the policy process followed by the Crown in progressing them, and the impacts the reforms would have on Māori if enacted. In producing this analysis, the report canvassed the wider context surrounding Treaty/Tiriti provisions in legislation, including their utility and the role that they play within the Māori–Crown relationship. 

• approving legislative proposals to substantively repeal several provisions (subject to ministerial approval) and to amend Treaty/Tiriti weightings in the affected provisions to no higher than ‘take into account’ on the basis of a flawed rationale and in an absence of supporting evidence;
• approving legislative proposals to amend or repeal the provisions in question without adequately informing itself of the effects of the changes on Māori or Māori interests;
• prioritising coalition agreement commitments over the need to make informed policy decisions; and
• making substantive policy decisions to approve the legislative proposals in the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori on the proposals in question. The Tribunal also considered this omission to be inconsistent with upholding the honour of the Crown.

The Tribunal further found that, if the proposed reforms were enacted without meaningful co-design engagement with Māori, the Crown would breach the principles of good government and active protection. Additionally, in doing so, the Crown would fail to adequately recognise Māori tino rangatiratanga and, as such, be in breach of the principle of partnership. Finally, if the proposed reforms were enacted, the Crown would breach the principles of active protection, equity, and redress. 

The Tribunal considered that Māori would be significantly prejudiced by the Crown’s proposed reforms which, if enacted, could result in poorer environmental and health outcomes for Māori and would negatively impact Māori kaitiakitanga and rangatiratanga. The reform process has seriously damaged the Māori–Crown relationship and caused distress and uncertainty among Māori as to the future legislative protection of their interests. Further, the Tribunal considered that the Crown had sent a strong signal across the public sector that the Treaty/te Tiriti may be downgraded in decision making. In order to mitigate the prejudice already caused and to prevent future prejudice to Māori as a result of the proposals, the Tribunal recommended that: 

• the Crown immediately pause its reforms and not progress them until meaningful co-design with Māori had occurred;
• no Treaty/Tiriti provisions should be repealed or downgraded;
• upon the identification of a coherent rationale on the part of the Crown for change, the Crown should conduct thorough engagement with all Māori stakeholders associated with each affected statute;
• if the Crown did not halt its process and it introduced a Bill which was then referred to select committee, there should be a more meaningful and in-depth process than a standard select committee inquiry; and
• the Crown should meaningfully consult with post-settlement governance entities about the potential impact of the proposed changes on their Treaty settlements.

Finally, the Tribunal reserved its jurisdiction to consider the proposed reforms further should they be enacted or if Cabinet’s broader decision that the ‘take into account’ Treaty/Tiriti weighting be the default preference in other legislation, resulting in further weakening of Treaty/Tiriti provisions beyond the statutes specifically in scope of its February 2026 decision.