Readers were short-changed by a 1News report which said the Government has spent well over $4 million defending legal challenges by Māori since taking office, “with the number of urgent inquiries by the Waitangi Tribunal soaring to record highs”.
The report said:
Information obtained by 1News under the Official Information Act reveals the Government has spent $4,425,404 on legal fees defending its Māori-related policies before the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts.
Five of the highest Crown expenditures on legal advice and representation are:
– The repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act – including proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal over the summons to Minister Karen Chhour: $353,275
– Proposed amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 – including High Court proceedings brought by iwi: $761,584
– The disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority – including High Court proceedings: $991,854
– Policy changes relating to the use of te reo Māori in the public sector – including proceedings brought by iwi: $636,401
– The Treaty Principles Bill: $778,660
But the focus was political, not financial.
The report gave a voice to “critics” to claim “the real cost is the strain on the Māori-Crown relationship” in a period (since the coalition Government came into office in 2023) “when Māori and Government have collided on a number of issues”.
In less than three years, the Waitangi Tribunal has undertaken 10 urgent inquiries, granted only in exceptional circumstances when Māori claimants can demonstrate they are likely to suffer significant and irreversible prejudice.
Six were granted during the time of the former Labour-led government over a six-year period – between October 2017 and November 2023.
Claimant lawyer David Stone, looking beyond the financial burden, said:
“It’s not just the cost of having these hearings, there’s the cost to Māori, there’s the cost to wider New Zealand, there’s the cost that’s yet to come in terms of the impact of the legislation that the government’s passing under urgency.”
He said Māori taxpayers probably would rather see that money better spent in the community rather than in the court room.
PoO reckons non-Maori taxpayers would enthusiastically agree.
Treaty Negotiations and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told 1News the number of urgent inquiries was “an indication the Waitangi Tribunal like to grant urgent inquiries whenever something comes up. The Government campaigned on various things and we’re doing what we campaigned on.”
Of the millions spent on legal fees, he reasonably said: “I don’t think New Zealanders would expect us not to defend claims against the Government and the Crown and defend our ability to get on with the legislation and changes that we’re elected to do.”
Indeed. Significant numbers of voters had voted for an undoing of the Ardern/Hipkins Maorification programme.
A government which responded to that sentiment would be bound to aggrieve members of the Maori elite who would lose some of the powers and privileges the previous government had given them. The tribunal is geared up to listen to those grievances.
Then Goldsmith was asked if it was a waste of money to spend nearly $800,000 defending claims on the Treaty Principles Bill, which the Prime Minister had insisted would not be supported by National beyond first reading.
He said: “No, it is how our democracy works when parties campaign on things. You form a coalition government based on agreements and you get on with it and that’s absolutely appropriate.”
He should have said it was just as much a waste of time and legal resources for Maori claimants to have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal to grand-stand about a Bill which the PM had insisted would not be supported by National beyond the first reading.
He might also have explained that the money spent defending legal challenges taken to the Waitangi Tribunal (more than $4 million) is just part of the public cost of the Treaty grievance industry.
According to Google’s AI Mod response, when PoO asked for the tribunal’s annual budget:
The Waitangi Tribunal does not have its own standalone budget; instead, its operations are funded as part of the broader Vote Courts and Vote Treaty Negotiations appropriations administered by the Ministry of Justice and Te Arawhiti. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Tribunal’s specific funding breaks down into two main areas:
Five of the highest Crown expenditures on legal advice and representation are:
– The repeal of section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act – including proceedings in the High Court and Court of Appeal over the summons to Minister Karen Chhour: $353,275
– Proposed amendments to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 – including High Court proceedings brought by iwi: $761,584
– The disestablishment of the Māori Health Authority – including High Court proceedings: $991,854
– Policy changes relating to the use of te reo Māori in the public sector – including proceedings brought by iwi: $636,401
– The Treaty Principles Bill: $778,660
But the focus was political, not financial.
The report gave a voice to “critics” to claim “the real cost is the strain on the Māori-Crown relationship” in a period (since the coalition Government came into office in 2023) “when Māori and Government have collided on a number of issues”.
In less than three years, the Waitangi Tribunal has undertaken 10 urgent inquiries, granted only in exceptional circumstances when Māori claimants can demonstrate they are likely to suffer significant and irreversible prejudice.
Six were granted during the time of the former Labour-led government over a six-year period – between October 2017 and November 2023.
Claimant lawyer David Stone, looking beyond the financial burden, said:
“It’s not just the cost of having these hearings, there’s the cost to Māori, there’s the cost to wider New Zealand, there’s the cost that’s yet to come in terms of the impact of the legislation that the government’s passing under urgency.”
He said Māori taxpayers probably would rather see that money better spent in the community rather than in the court room.
PoO reckons non-Maori taxpayers would enthusiastically agree.
Treaty Negotiations and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith told 1News the number of urgent inquiries was “an indication the Waitangi Tribunal like to grant urgent inquiries whenever something comes up. The Government campaigned on various things and we’re doing what we campaigned on.”
Of the millions spent on legal fees, he reasonably said: “I don’t think New Zealanders would expect us not to defend claims against the Government and the Crown and defend our ability to get on with the legislation and changes that we’re elected to do.”
Indeed. Significant numbers of voters had voted for an undoing of the Ardern/Hipkins Maorification programme.
A government which responded to that sentiment would be bound to aggrieve members of the Maori elite who would lose some of the powers and privileges the previous government had given them. The tribunal is geared up to listen to those grievances.
Then Goldsmith was asked if it was a waste of money to spend nearly $800,000 defending claims on the Treaty Principles Bill, which the Prime Minister had insisted would not be supported by National beyond first reading.
He said: “No, it is how our democracy works when parties campaign on things. You form a coalition government based on agreements and you get on with it and that’s absolutely appropriate.”
He should have said it was just as much a waste of time and legal resources for Maori claimants to have gone to the Waitangi Tribunal to grand-stand about a Bill which the PM had insisted would not be supported by National beyond the first reading.
He might also have explained that the money spent defending legal challenges taken to the Waitangi Tribunal (more than $4 million) is just part of the public cost of the Treaty grievance industry.
According to Google’s AI Mod response, when PoO asked for the tribunal’s annual budget:
The Waitangi Tribunal does not have its own standalone budget; instead, its operations are funded as part of the broader Vote Courts and Vote Treaty Negotiations appropriations administered by the Ministry of Justice and Te Arawhiti. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
The Tribunal’s specific funding breaks down into two main areas:
- Departmental Output Expenses (Waitangi Tribunal Services): The annual budget for the Tribunal’s day-to-day administration, registry, and inquiry support is approximately $13.1 million. [1]
- Claimant Funding: Administered separately through Te Tari Whakatau (the Office of Treaty Settlements), this provides financial assistance to claimant groups representing historical claims and customary interests. [1, 2]
Co-Pilot said:
The Waitangi Tribunal costs the Crown roughly $12–14 million per year to operate. This figure comes from its dedicated departmental appropriation within the Ministry of Justice (Vote Courts), which funds the Tribunal’s staff, hearings, research, and inquiry processes.
Breakdown of the annual cost
The Waitangi Tribunal’s budget sits inside Vote Courts → Waitangi Tribunal Services, not inside Vote Te Arawhiti (which funds claimant participation and Treaty negotiations, but not the Tribunal’s operations).
The Waitangi Tribunal Services (Departmental Output Expense) of around $13 million a year covers:
- Tribunal member fees
- Research and inquiry staff
- Hearings (travel, venues, transcription, evidence management)
- Report writing and publication
- Administration and support services
1. Claimant Participation Funding (Vote Te Arawhiti): $580,000 (2024/25)
- Supports claimant groups to participate in Tribunal inquiries led by Te Arawhiti.
- Covers travel, accommodation, hui preparation, and support people.
2. Financial Assistance Toward Determining Customary Interests in the Marine and Coastal Area (MACA): $14.145 million (2024/25 total)
- Supports legal, historical, and research work for MACA claims.
- Not Tribunal funding, but directly related to Tribunal processes.
3. Claimant Funding for Historical Treaty Claims: $5.639 million (2024/25)
- Covers research, legal advice, hui, and preparation of evidence.
- Administered by Ministry of Justice; used heavily during Tribunal inquiries.
4. Ancillary Redress Financial Assistance for Beneficiaries: $537,000 (2026/27)
- Helps iwi/hapū complete technical work required to implement Tribunal‑related redress.
5. Treaty Negotiations and Customary Interests Departmental Costs: $35.541 million (2026/27)
These are appropriated to run the Office of Treaty Settlements and Takutai Moana and are part of the wider Treaty system that responds to Tribunal findings. They fund officials who implement Tribunal recommendations, negotiate settlements, and manage MACA determinations.
6. Ngāpuhi Investment Fund Operations: $1.777 million (2026/27)
Indirectly connected to Tribunal work (Ngāpuhi claims are among the largest).
While the Tribunal’s own budget is ~$13 million, the wider Treaty system that enables Tribunal inquiries costs an additional ~$20–40 million per year, depending on:
Indirectly connected to Tribunal work (Ngāpuhi claims are among the largest).
While the Tribunal’s own budget is ~$13 million, the wider Treaty system that enables Tribunal inquiries costs an additional ~$20–40 million per year, depending on:
- MACA claim volumes
- Historical claim activity
- Settlement implementation
- Claimant participation levels
Anyone who can demonstrate whakapapa (Māori descent) can bring a claim to the Waitangi Tribunal. Claimants can represent themselves as individuals, or as part of a collective group like a whānau, hapū (sub-tribe), or iwi (tribe).
The claim must assert that the Crown (central government, including specific laws, policies, actions, or inactions) breached “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Those are the highly elastic “principles” that have been developed by politicians and judges in the past 50 years or so.
And who picks up the tab for claims made to the tribunal?
Google AI said the Government and Māori claimants (iwi/hapū) share the costs of Waitangi Tribunal claims,
… with the taxpayer bearing the majority of the funding. [1, 2, 3]
Because the Waitangi Tribunal investigates breaches committed by the Crown, a heavily subsidized infrastructure ensures Māori claimants can access the justice system. [1, 2, 3]
The expenses are divided between the operating costs of the tribunal, claimant legal fees, and personal iwi expenses.
The Government funds the entire operational framework of the system – tribunal operations, tribunal research and Crown Legal Representation.
Māori claimants do not usually pay for their lawyers out of pocket, because the Crown provides two major funding streams: [1]
- Legal Aid: Once a claim is registered, iwi and hapū groups can apply for Specialized Treaty Legal Aid. Unlike standard civil legal aid, Treaty legal aid does not have to be paid back to the government. [1, 2]
- Crown Forestry Rental Trust (CFRT): For historical claims, funding is provided by the Crown Forestry Rental Trust. This trust uses interest earned on rental fees from Crown forest lands to pay for iwi legal advice, independent researchers, administrative costs, and expert witnesses. [1]
Kaumātua (elders) and iwi researchers often spend thousands of hours compiling oral histories and whakapapa (genealogy) without government compensation. [1]
Kaupapa (Contemporary) Claims (regarding modern government policies) rely entirely on standard legal aid, which does not cover traditional research costs, leaving iwi to self-fund those components.
On the other hand, there is no equivalent of the Waitangi Tribunal for non-Maori to take their grievances about co-governance, partnership and other products of those highly contentious “Treaty principles”.
We trust 1News will follow up on their earlier article and bring to light the full cost of a tribunal which some New Zealanders argue should be dismantled.
The figures here – as we indicated earlier – need double checking. But they give a rough pointer to the costs of running a branch of our justice system which won’t consider your case if you don’t pass an ethnicity test and doesn’t provide an opportunity to chide the government for breaching those Treaty principles.
Bob Edlin is a veteran journalist and editor for the Point of Order blog HERE. - where this article was sourced.
No comments:
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.