The Human Rights Commission (Te Kāhui Tika Tangata) has urged the government to scrap its planned changes to Treaty of Waitangi references in law, warning the changes would weaken Treaty protections, create more legal uncertainty, and increase 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 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. "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 laws, watering down references in 10, and making two "more specific." A Te Ao News analysis in April 2026 reported the changes may 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, which is how Parliament invites the public to comment on draft laws. 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 disagrees with that position on several points. It called the government's plan a downgrading of Te Tiriti obligations and said the changes risked harming Crown-Māori relations. It criticised the 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.

To understand why this matters, it helps to know that the Treaty of Waitangi does not have strong direct legal status in New Zealand law on its own. Instead, protection of Māori rights depends mostly on political will. Treaty clauses written into ordinary laws have been one of the main ways the government gives practical effect to its Treaty obligations.

Think of these clauses like a bridge between the Treaty as a historic agreement and the laws that govern everyday decisions. Removing or weakening those clauses narrows that bridge. The Commission's warning about increased litigation risk means that unresolved Treaty questions could simply shift from Parliament to the courts, where judges would have to deal with them instead of lawmakers.

The Commission's choice of words — calling the proposals "constitutionally regressive" — also links this review to the government's earlier Treaty Principles Bill, which was ultimately withdrawn. The Commission appears to see a pattern of rolling back Treaty protections rather than clarifying them.

The political backdrop is straightforward. The review was a New Zealand First coalition demand, handled 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 strongest institutional pushback so far.

What matters now is whether that pushback shifts votes within the coalition or shapes the select committee process as legislation is introduced. That is the question for 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.