These developments are documented in statutes, court decisions, and the public charters of professional and educational bodies across New Zealand.
The starting point was the 1987 Court of Appeal decision in New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General (1987), commonly known as the Lands case. In that decision the court ruled that the Crown must act consistently with the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.” That phrase – “Treaty principles” – became the mechanism through which Treaty considerations began to play a larger role in New Zealand law and public administration.
The decision was linked to section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, which prohibited the Crown from acting inconsistently with Treaty principles when transferring assets to state-owned enterprises. Once the courts interpreted that clause broadly, similar Treaty provisions began appearing in many other statutes.
During the 1990s those provisions spread through legislation governing environmental management and public policy. Laws such as the Resource Management Act 1991 required decision-makers to recognise and provide for Māori relationships with land and water. Government agencies and local authorities began building consultation processes with iwi and incorporating Treaty language into policy frameworks.
At this stage the changes were largely confined to the machinery of government. Most professionals – doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers – would have noticed little difference in their daily working lives.
The next step came in the early 2000s, when Treaty-related expectations began entering professional regulation itself. The key statute here was the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. This law required professional regulators to set standards of cultural competence for health practitioners.
In practice this resulted in cultural competence standards that include knowledge of Māori health perspectives being incorporated into the competency frameworks of regulatory bodies such as the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Nursing Council of New Zealand. Training programmes and continuing education in many health professions subsequently began incorporating Treaty knowledge, Māori health models, and “cultural safety” frameworks.
This development marked the first major expansion of Treaty expectations into the professional workforce itself.
At the same time universities were beginning to reshape their own governance and teaching frameworks. Institutions such as the University of Auckland and the University of Otago incorporated Treaty commitments into their strategic plans and academic programmes. Professional degrees in fields such as health, education, planning, and social work increasingly incorporated Māori perspectives or Treaty frameworks.
Because universities train most professionals, these curriculum changes had a multiplying effect. Graduates entering fields such as health, education, planning, and social work were now being introduced to Treaty-based frameworks as part of their formal training.
During the following decade a further shift occurred within professional associations themselves. Organisations such as Engineering New Zealand and Royal Society Te Apārangi adopted formal bicultural commitments. These typically involved Treaty statements in organisational charters, Māori advisory structures, and expectations that members would engage with Māori knowledge systems or communities.
None of this resulted from a single dramatic law change. Instead it emerged through incremental policy shifts within institutions responding to wider public-sector expectations.
A further stage of this process arrived with the passage of the Public Service Act 2020. This legislation requires the public service to support the Crown’s relationship with Māori and to build capability to engage with Māori perspectives.
Under the oversight of Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission, government departments began introducing capability frameworks designed to increase public servants’ understanding of Treaty principles and Māori engagement practices. Training programmes, leadership pathways, and policy guidelines were developed to support those objectives.
Changes to civil society governance have also intersected with this wider institutional shift.
The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 requires roughly 23,000 existing incorporated societies to re-register under a new legal framework by April 2026, adopting updated constitutions that comply with modern governance standards.
As thousands of clubs, charities, and community organisations review their constitutions during this process, many guidance documents, funding frameworks, and advisory templates circulated to societies encourage the inclusion of Te Tiriti references or commitments to engagement with Māori.
The cumulative effect of these changes is now visible across a wide range of institutions.
Professional regulators incorporate Māori competencies into professional standards. Universities include Treaty commitments in their charters and courses. Government agencies operate under frameworks designed to strengthen engagement with Māori. Local authorities increasingly include Māori advisory structures or partnership arrangements in their governance systems.
Each step in this process was relatively modest on its own. Taken together over four decades, however, they represent a significant transformation in the institutional landscape.
This change didn’t happen overnight. Courts highlighted Treaty principles. Legislators added them to law. Regulators built them into professional standards. Universities and professional bodies embedded them into training and policy.”
By the 2020s Treaty frameworks had become embedded across multiple layers of New Zealand’s institutional system.
Whether one views this development as a necessary recognition of Māori interests or as an overextension of Treaty principles, understanding how it happened is essential. The process was gradual, cumulative, and largely driven by institutional interpretation rather than by explicit public debate.
That history matters today. Many of the arguments currently taking place about co-governance, public-sector obligations, and professional standards are not new developments but the latest stage of a trajectory that began almost forty years ago.
The debate New Zealand now faces is therefore not simply about individual policies. It is about the long-term direction of the institutional framework that has been evolving since the late 1980s.
APPENDIX: INSTITUTIONAL REACH OF TREATY REQUIREMENTS
Treaty or Māori competency expectations are now embedded across many organisations that shape professional standards, education, and public administration in New Zealand. Examples include:
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL REGULATORS
During the 1990s those provisions spread through legislation governing environmental management and public policy. Laws such as the Resource Management Act 1991 required decision-makers to recognise and provide for Māori relationships with land and water. Government agencies and local authorities began building consultation processes with iwi and incorporating Treaty language into policy frameworks.
At this stage the changes were largely confined to the machinery of government. Most professionals – doctors, engineers, teachers, lawyers – would have noticed little difference in their daily working lives.
The next step came in the early 2000s, when Treaty-related expectations began entering professional regulation itself. The key statute here was the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. This law required professional regulators to set standards of cultural competence for health practitioners.
In practice this resulted in cultural competence standards that include knowledge of Māori health perspectives being incorporated into the competency frameworks of regulatory bodies such as the Medical Council of New Zealand and the Nursing Council of New Zealand. Training programmes and continuing education in many health professions subsequently began incorporating Treaty knowledge, Māori health models, and “cultural safety” frameworks.
This development marked the first major expansion of Treaty expectations into the professional workforce itself.
At the same time universities were beginning to reshape their own governance and teaching frameworks. Institutions such as the University of Auckland and the University of Otago incorporated Treaty commitments into their strategic plans and academic programmes. Professional degrees in fields such as health, education, planning, and social work increasingly incorporated Māori perspectives or Treaty frameworks.
Because universities train most professionals, these curriculum changes had a multiplying effect. Graduates entering fields such as health, education, planning, and social work were now being introduced to Treaty-based frameworks as part of their formal training.
During the following decade a further shift occurred within professional associations themselves. Organisations such as Engineering New Zealand and Royal Society Te Apārangi adopted formal bicultural commitments. These typically involved Treaty statements in organisational charters, Māori advisory structures, and expectations that members would engage with Māori knowledge systems or communities.
None of this resulted from a single dramatic law change. Instead it emerged through incremental policy shifts within institutions responding to wider public-sector expectations.
A further stage of this process arrived with the passage of the Public Service Act 2020. This legislation requires the public service to support the Crown’s relationship with Māori and to build capability to engage with Māori perspectives.
Under the oversight of Te Kawa Mataaho Public Service Commission, government departments began introducing capability frameworks designed to increase public servants’ understanding of Treaty principles and Māori engagement practices. Training programmes, leadership pathways, and policy guidelines were developed to support those objectives.
Changes to civil society governance have also intersected with this wider institutional shift.
The Incorporated Societies Act 2022 requires roughly 23,000 existing incorporated societies to re-register under a new legal framework by April 2026, adopting updated constitutions that comply with modern governance standards.
As thousands of clubs, charities, and community organisations review their constitutions during this process, many guidance documents, funding frameworks, and advisory templates circulated to societies encourage the inclusion of Te Tiriti references or commitments to engagement with Māori.
The cumulative effect of these changes is now visible across a wide range of institutions.
Professional regulators incorporate Māori competencies into professional standards. Universities include Treaty commitments in their charters and courses. Government agencies operate under frameworks designed to strengthen engagement with Māori. Local authorities increasingly include Māori advisory structures or partnership arrangements in their governance systems.
Each step in this process was relatively modest on its own. Taken together over four decades, however, they represent a significant transformation in the institutional landscape.
This change didn’t happen overnight. Courts highlighted Treaty principles. Legislators added them to law. Regulators built them into professional standards. Universities and professional bodies embedded them into training and policy.”
By the 2020s Treaty frameworks had become embedded across multiple layers of New Zealand’s institutional system.
Whether one views this development as a necessary recognition of Māori interests or as an overextension of Treaty principles, understanding how it happened is essential. The process was gradual, cumulative, and largely driven by institutional interpretation rather than by explicit public debate.
That history matters today. Many of the arguments currently taking place about co-governance, public-sector obligations, and professional standards are not new developments but the latest stage of a trajectory that began almost forty years ago.
The debate New Zealand now faces is therefore not simply about individual policies. It is about the long-term direction of the institutional framework that has been evolving since the late 1980s.
APPENDIX: INSTITUTIONAL REACH OF TREATY REQUIREMENTS
Treaty or Māori competency expectations are now embedded across many organisations that shape professional standards, education, and public administration in New Zealand. Examples include:
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL REGULATORS
These statutory regulators operate under the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003 and commonly include cultural competence requirements relating to Māori health perspectives.
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
These organisations do not license practitioners but shape professional norms and ethical standards.
Examples include:
Organisations influencing education and research standards also embed Treaty commitments.
Examples include:
PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE FRAMEWORKS
Across the public service, Treaty capability has become institutionalised through initiatives such as:
CROWN AGENCIES
Many state institutions now incorporate Treaty commitments into strategic planning and operational frameworks.
Examples include:
All eight New Zealand universities incorporate Treaty commitments into governance or strategy:
Local authorities increasingly include Treaty recognition and iwi engagement in governance frameworks.
Examples include:
Many non-government organisations have also adopted Treaty commitments in their governance or policy frameworks.
Examples include:
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
- Examples include:
- Medical Council of New Zealand
- Nursing Council of New Zealand
- Midwifery Council of New Zealand
- Dental Council of New Zealand
- Pharmacy Council of New Zealand
- Physiotherapy Board of New Zealand
- Occupational Therapy Board of New Zealand
- Psychologists Board
- Psychotherapists Board
- Chiropractic Board
- Osteopathic Council of New Zealand
- Optometrists and Dispensing Opticians Board
- Podiatrists Board
- Dietitians Board
- Medical Radiation Technologists Board
- Chinese Medicine Council of New Zealand
- Paramedic Council
- Social Workers Registration Board
PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS
These organisations do not license practitioners but shape professional norms and ethical standards.
Examples include:
- Health and psychology
- New Zealand Psychological Society
- Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists
- Physiotherapy New Zealand
- New Zealand College of Midwives
- Engineering and technical professions
- Engineering New Zealand
- Education
- Post Primary Teachers' Association
- NZEI Te Riu Roa
- Law and planning
- New Zealand Law Society
- New Zealand Institute of Architects
- New Zealand Planning Institute
- Science and research
- Royal Society Te Apārangi
Organisations influencing education and research standards also embed Treaty commitments.
Examples include:
- Teaching Council of Aotearoa New Zealand
- Universities New Zealand
- Tertiary Education Union
PUBLIC SECTOR WORKFORCE FRAMEWORKS
Across the public service, Treaty capability has become institutionalised through initiatives such as:
- Papa Pounamu cultural capability programme
- Māori Crown Relations capability frameworks
- public service leadership capability requirements
CROWN AGENCIES
Many state institutions now incorporate Treaty commitments into strategic planning and operational frameworks.
Examples include:
- Central government agencies
- The Treasury
- Ministry of Health
- Ministry of Education
- Department of Conservation
- Ministry for the Environment
- Major service agencies
- Health New Zealand
- Kāinga Ora
- Oranga Tamariki
- Regulatory and oversight bodies
- Environmental Protection Authority
- Commerce Commission
- Human Rights Commission
All eight New Zealand universities incorporate Treaty commitments into governance or strategy:
- University of Auckland
- University of Otago
- Victoria University of Wellington
- University of Canterbury
- Massey University
- Auckland University of Technology
- University of Waikato
- Lincoln University
Local authorities increasingly include Treaty recognition and iwi engagement in governance frameworks.
Examples include:
- Auckland Council
- Wellington City Council
- Christchurch City Council
- Waikato Regional Council
- Bay of Plenty Regional Council
Many non-government organisations have also adopted Treaty commitments in their governance or policy frameworks.
Examples include:
- Trade Aid
- community housing organisations
- arts organisations
- environmental NGOs.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
7 comments:
The He Puapua agenda to install tribal rule by 2040 is built on infiltration of the public and private sectors (plus other key institutions) to embed Treaty principles - i.e. the te Tiriti version in governance policies and strategies.
This is part of a nation-wide comprehensive indoctrination exercise. Whoever is behind this has certainly been thorough. The outcome will be the transformation of NZ from democracy to ethnocracy by 2040 - or even earlier. All is right on target.
Opposition is limited , objections are few and protest is non-existent.
This article , makes you realise , Luxon alone or any party can not over a short period of time address what I call maori over reach , but surely we have reached the stage where enough is enough , now with Orangi Tanariki giving its maori staff unlimited time off , this will become the norm , can’t see how anyone can condone this , it will lead to resentment and people only doing as little as possible , what a mess .
I reckon that as New Zealanders we should get a list of what the treaty 'principles' actually are......only because albeit we are apparently obligated to align with them, no one seems to know what they are....
That is like being given a complex machine to build but not given any manual or instuction sheet.
Engage with Maori perspectives probably comes with a fee. In academia, most lecturers give local talks, advice etc gratis as part of our job. They think it grubby to want to be paid for a 45 minute talk, get reimbursed for a bus or taxi ride. But other academics think that everything is monetized. The future will have more and more cultural advisers ... and the public will never know the costs of cultural advice.
@ Anna Mouse re Treaty Principles - take a look here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/treaty-principles
And it all gets tied in with voting. 'Give us what we want, and we will vote for you." Is it all racist? Is there a backlash coming? And the supporters of treaty principles see money too. Just like climate change and covid. Why turn away easy money to say what they want?
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.