> The Government established a ministerial oversight group and expert advisory panel to carry out the review.
> A list of 23 laws was identified as being in scope, and the review was expected to be completed by August 2025.
When the current coalition government was formed, there was a clear and specific commitment to address one of the most contentious features of modern New Zealand legislation: references to the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
New Zealand First, led by Winston Peters, has long opposed the use of undefined “Treaty principles” in law. Rather than supporting ACT’s proposal to codify or define those principles, NZ First took a different approach—arguing that such references should be removed altogether and replaced with clear, specific wording, or repealed where appropriate.
This position was reflected in the coalition agreement with the National Party, which included a firm undertaking to:
“Conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation (except where it relates to, or is substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes ‘the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’, and replace those references with specific wording on the Treaty’s relevance and application, or repeal them.”
To advance this commitment, the Government established a ministerial oversight group alongside an expert advisory panel. Their role was to guide in-principle decisions before wider public consultation. The review itself was positioned as an opportunity to bring clarity, consistency, and democratic accountability to an area often criticised for ambiguity.
By mid-2025, some progress had been signalled. A shortlist of 23 statutes was identified as being in scope for review, and the chair of the review group, David Cochrane, indicated that—barring unforeseen developments—the work would be completed by the end of August 2025.
And then—silence.
Since that point, there has been no meaningful public update on the review’s progress. No draft findings. No consultation process. No explanation for the apparent delay. For an initiative framed as a priority in a formal coalition agreement, the lack of transparency is striking.
This raises several important questions.
New Zealand First, led by Winston Peters, has long opposed the use of undefined “Treaty principles” in law. Rather than supporting ACT’s proposal to codify or define those principles, NZ First took a different approach—arguing that such references should be removed altogether and replaced with clear, specific wording, or repealed where appropriate.
This position was reflected in the coalition agreement with the National Party, which included a firm undertaking to:
“Conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation (except where it relates to, or is substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes ‘the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’, and replace those references with specific wording on the Treaty’s relevance and application, or repeal them.”
To advance this commitment, the Government established a ministerial oversight group alongside an expert advisory panel. Their role was to guide in-principle decisions before wider public consultation. The review itself was positioned as an opportunity to bring clarity, consistency, and democratic accountability to an area often criticised for ambiguity.
By mid-2025, some progress had been signalled. A shortlist of 23 statutes was identified as being in scope for review, and the chair of the review group, David Cochrane, indicated that—barring unforeseen developments—the work would be completed by the end of August 2025.
And then—silence.
Since that point, there has been no meaningful public update on the review’s progress. No draft findings. No consultation process. No explanation for the apparent delay. For an initiative framed as a priority in a formal coalition agreement, the lack of transparency is striking.
This raises several important questions.
First, what has caused the delay?
Reviews of this nature are undoubtedly complex, particularly given the legal, political, and cultural sensitivities involved. But complexity alone does not explain the absence of communication. If timelines have shifted, the public is entitled to know why.
Second, does the delay signal a loss of political will?
The coalition partners entered government with differing approaches to Treaty-related reform. While ACT sought to define principles, NZ First pushed for their removal. National, for its part, has taken a more cautious, incremental approach. It is reasonable to ask whether these differences have slowed progress behind the scenes.
Third, what are the implications of inaction?
The inclusion of undefined principles in legislation has long been criticised for creating uncertainty in both legal interpretation and public policy. If the Government believes reform is necessary—as its own agreement suggests—then delay simply prolongs that uncertainty.
Finally, where to from here?
If the review has stalled, it should be restarted or re-scoped with clear timelines and public reporting. If it is ongoing, then regular updates should be provided. And if the Government has reconsidered its position, it should say so openly.
At its core, this issue is not just about Treaty language in legislation. It is about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of commitments made to voters.
A review promised, begun, and then left in limbo undermines confidence not only in this process, but in the broader willingness of government to follow through on contentious reforms.
New Zealanders were told this work would be done. It is reasonable now to ask: what has happened to it?
Call to Action: Time for Answers and Accountability
This review matters—silence is not good enough.
We have a right to expect that clear commitments in coalition agreements are followed through, or at the very least, openly accounted for when delays occur. The absence of any meaningful update on this review raises legitimate concerns about transparency and political will.
Now is the time to act:
- Contact the Minister of Justice, Hon Paul Goldsmith, and ask for a public update on the status of the review. Has it been completed, delayed, or deprioritised? Email: P.Goldsmith@ministers.govt.nz
- Write to Winston Peters and NZ First, who championed the removal of Treaty principles, and ask what progress they have secured on this commitment. Email: Peters@ministers.govt.nz
- Raise the issue with your local MP, regardless of party, and ask where they stand on ensuring clarity and accountability in legislation.
- Use community forums, social media, and local networks to keep attention on the issue and encourage broader public discussion.
- Ministry of Justice: Review of legislation including reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
- Simpson Grierson: Review of Treaty clauses in legislation
- Democracy Action Update August 2025: Review of Treaty principles in legislation
Newsroom: Govt finalises 23 laws in scope of Treaty clause review
Democracy Action was formed to champion the fundamental importance of democracy and equality of citizenship in New Zealand. This article was sourced HERE
7 comments:
And here I am still waiting for NZ First to implement just one of the 20 recommendations from the Covid response review that they commissioned. I’m starting to suspect some virtue signalling is happening from those guys!
Is it Winston holding back to use it as fodder for the election
I think the present Coalition Government has no intention of removing Treaty requirements from legislation.
To the contrary, they are writing consultancy / partnership requirements into new legislation and probably this review too, if they complete it.
That will then be a foot in the door for promotion to full co-governance arrangements in the future.
This review is probably just stage one of two-stage co-governance.
One of the most critical issues for the future of NZ and crickets.
Just look at the issues that National have ignored or pretended don't exist.
Recent examples :
Kaianga Ora : unlimited time off by Maori for cultural reasons MBIE: A mandatory thirty minutes per day of karakia, waiata etc
NZTA: declared partnership to Maori
NZ Defense Force : all communication to be in te reo Maori and Maori cultural practices to be implemented at all times ( and apparently hidden by the Minister for Defense, Judith Collins).
National have reneged on their promises to treat us all as one.
On reflection I realise I may not have fully understood and I still may not have.
Writing “Treaty principles” as an indelible place holder was the first step. This “review” is the next step for converting that into specifics for each piece of legislation. Further steps will add voting rights to give co-governance.
Wasn’t Mr Peters in the Ardern Government which inserted the “Treaty principles” clause? Is he participating to orchestrate this? Am I just some schmuck being taken for a ride? Do they really not understand that they are wrecking this country?
The whole of maorification needs to go.
My enquiry on this issue and the report due: no reply from NZF ( though it is part of their Coalition agreement); National/Goldsmith replied that the report would not be published at this time. A black hole - people must insist.
PS Fact or fiction ? Lawyer James Christmas
(on the committee examining this issue and close associate of Finlayson) will contest Tamaki for ACT in November. A credible choice?
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.