Treaty References Overhaul: What the Three Bills Would Change
The Human Rights Commission says it is deeply concerned about the Government's overhaul of references to Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi in law.
The concern relates to three bills that deal with Treaty clauses across different laws, according to RNZ. Together the package would remove Treaty references from six statutes, make the wording the same in Treaty provisions in 12 statutes, and limit legal duties relating to the Treaty to no more than 'take into account'. Standardisation here is like replacing varied instructions with one template used in several places.
All three bills passed their first votes in Parliament under urgency over the weekend and will now go to the Justice Committee. After a first reading, bills are normally sent to a select committee, a small group of MPs that examines the detail and hears from the public.
Urgency is a fast-track process. It shortens debate and moves bills to committee quickly. Parliament's daily record confirms the References to Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi (Repeals) Amendment Bill had its first reading and was sent to the Justice Committee on Tuesday, 15 September 2026, according to Parliament.
Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith said the changes are about making references to the principles of the Treaty clear and consistent.
The Commission's view is based on analysis it published in July. That analysis found the proposals were inconsistent with New Zealand and international human rights standards. It warned they could increase legal uncertainty and increase division, and that changes to Treaty clauses could weaken human rights protections, according to Te Kāhui Tika Tangata.
What the oversight scrutiny found
The Waitangi Tribunal found the proposals breached several Tiriti principles and did not uphold the honour of the Crown.
The Ministry of Justice assessed the bills against responsible law-making principles in the Regulatory Standards Act 2025. It found problems with lack of engagement with Māori, lack of evidence to support change, and large risks compared with small expected benefits.
In my view, that assessment matters for people who follow how laws are made. The test under the Regulatory Standards Act is not a veto on policy. It puts the department's own advice on the record about consultation, evidence and risk. Committee members will have that advice in front of them alongside the Tribunal's findings.
The UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination raised concern last year about the Government's review of Treaty clauses. It recommended such reviews be done in full and effective consultation and partnership with Māori, in line with free, prior and informed consent.
What happens next
The Justice Committee is the next step. It will call for public submissions, hold hearings and work through the bills clause by clause.
The Justice Committee presented its report to the House on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in April last year, according to Parliament. That bill would have replaced established Treaty principles such as partnership, participation, rights to redress and equity with three new principles. Parliament later rejected it, according to Reuters. Green Party co-leader said after the vote: "The Treaty Principles Bill is dead. Our movement for Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) justice lives on." The introduction of the repeal legislation was reported on 14 September, according to the New Zealand Herald.
The broader context here is how this package compares with that earlier bill. The earlier debate was about redefinition through a single bill. This package works through repeal, standardised wording and a cap on duties across several laws. The legal questions are narrower. They turn on how courts, agencies and local authorities interpret 'take into account' alongside past court decisions, and what removal or rewording means for decision-making duties.
In my view, the select committee process will carry unusual weight. Urgency shortened the early stage. The later stage must now deal with technical drafting, Tiriti analysis, human rights consistency and the Ministry's cautions about evidence and engagement. Submitters are likely to ask for examples of where current wording has caused the inconsistency the Government describes. Officials are likely to be asked to set out benefits against the risks identified. The debate since December 2023, when plans to roll back Māori rights reforms revived race as a hot political issue, according to Reuters, points to a large number of submissions. The timetable the committee sets, and how it runs hearings, will show how Parliament plans to manage that demand. The committee stage will be closely watched.
