The Human Rights Commission (Te Kāhui Tika Tangata) has urged the government to scrap its planned overhaul of Te Tiriti o Waitangi clauses across legislation, warning the changes would weaken Treaty protections, increase legal uncertainty, and intensify racial tension.

In a submission published on its website on 28 July 2026 and reported by RNZ the following day, the Commission described the government's Treaty clause proposals as "constitutionally regressive" and concluded the plan was "likely to increase, not reduce, uncertainty and litigation risk."

Dayle Takitimu, the Commission's Indigenous Governance Partner, spoke on behalf of the Commission in the submission. "Te Tiriti is not a side issue or a drafting inconvenience; it is part of the constitutional and human rights foundation of Aotearoa," Takitimu said.

Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith announced in May that the coalition government would change or remove references to the Treaty of Waitangi in 19 pieces of legislation. The plan includes removing references to Treaty principles in seven pieces of legislation, watering down references in 10, and making two "more specific." A Te Ao News analysis in April 2026 reported the changes span 23 laws, a higher count than the 19 initially announced.

The Treaty clause review was secured by New Zealand First during coalition negotiations with National after the last election. Goldsmith has said iwi would be consulted on the changes and all New Zealanders could have their say through the select committee process. He has also said the coalition did not agree or accept that its actions amount to "lowering the threshold of Treaty obligations."

The Commission's submission cuts across that position on multiple fronts. It called the government's plan a downgrading of Te Tiriti obligations and said the changes risked harming Crown-Māori relations. It criticised the Treaty clause review for failing to properly consult Māori throughout the process. And it called on the government to abandon the changes entirely and instead work with Māori on any replacement.

Takitimu noted that multiple parties — including Māori, legal experts, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission, and international bodies — say the review risks weakening protections, reducing accountability, and increasing conflict.

The legal backdrop is relevant here. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has limited direct legal status in Aotearoa New Zealand, meaning protection of Māori rights is largely dependent on political will rather than entrenched constitutional safeguards. Treaty clauses embedded in ordinary legislation have functioned as one of the primary mechanisms through which the Crown's Treaty obligations are given practical effect in law. Removing or weakening those clauses narrows that mechanism, and the Commission's warning about increased litigation risk points to the likelihood that unresolved Treaty questions simply shift from the legislative arena to the courts.

The Commission's framing of the proposals as "constitutionally regressive" also signals a deliberate positioning of this review within the broader arc of Treaty jurisprudence and Crown-Māori constitutional relations. That language places the changes alongside the government's earlier Treaty Principles Bill — ultimately withdrawn — as part of a pattern the Commission views as rolling back Treaty protections rather than clarifying them.

For those working in and around Parliament, the political dynamics are straightforward. The review was a New Zealand First coalition demand, executed through the Justice portfolio. Goldsmith's framing — consultation via select committee, no lowering of obligations — is the government's public position. The Commission's submission, backed by the Waitangi Tribunal and international bodies, is the most concerted institutional pushback to date. Whether that shifts votes within the coalition, or shapes the select committee process as legislation is introduced, is the question that will matter in the coming weeks.

The submission does not appear to have prompted any change in the government's stated position. Goldsmith's responses to date have consistently rejected the characterisation that the changes lower Treaty obligations.