When the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process was introduced by Norman Kirk’s Labour Government in 1975, it was framed as a means of dealing with ongoing injustices.
The Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry to investigate contemporary claims that the Crown had breached the Treaty.
In 1985 David Lange’s Labour Government extended the jurisdiction of the Tribunal back to 1840 as a way of resolving past grievances and healing division so the country could move forward as one.
How wrong they were.
As the number of historic settlements increased, so too did applications. When Helen Clark’s Labour Government closed off historic claims in 2008, thousands were clogging the pipeline.
Since that time, successive governments have progressively dealt with the claims, many of which had been settled multiple times by earlier administrations.
In 2012, journalist and author Mike Butler researched the settlements to establish the cost to taxpayers. In his Treaty Transparency Report published HERE, the total financial redress for the 28 settlements identified was $1.7 billion in 2012 dollars.
Mike has now updated his report: Treaty Transparency – 1975 to 2026 is posted on the NZCPR website HERE.
The report finds that 115 settlements have now been made, with the total financial redress paid by taxpayers amounting to over $5 billion by June 30, 2026.
As he conducted his research, Mike Butler’s concerns led him to question the fundamental legitimacy of the whole Treaty settlement process. He asks whether the Treaty grievance juggernaut, with its manufactured Treaty principles, amounts to a rort on the New Zealand public that has grown beyond the wildest expectations of those who set it up and is now too large and too deeply embedded for any government to dismantle.
He explains, “What gradually became apparent, while looking at this for months, is that without the treaty principles there would be no historical breaches of the treaty by the Crown, no financial redress totalling $5 billion, no way to mandate co-governance, and no way to direct authorities to cave in to specific Maori claims and requests.
“Treaty principles have allowed the treaty document to move from an historical text into enforceable modern legislation. They have transformed law, enabled the treaty settlement process, and imposed a bicultural structure on the public sector where ‘partnership, participation, and protection’ are the foundational buzz words. In short, these principles have created the situation we have today.”
He explains that once claims back to 1840 were permitted by an amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1985, the Waitangi Tribunal wrote extensive reports that reframed everything that had happened since 1840 in terms of Treaty principles compiled by one of their members.
By reframing history through these invented principles, everything the Government had done since 1840 as New Zealand’s sovereign authority was able to be reinterpreted as a Treaty breach requiring massive financial redress.
As Mike Butler says, “A giant treaty rort? It’s over to you to decide.”
Tribes have grown rich from the proceeds of this lucrative billion-dollar taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement gravy train.
In their latest Iwi Investment Report, the economics consultancy TDB Advisory has assessed the 2025 asset value of the country’s top ten iwi. It shows Waikato-Tainui topping the charts with a value of $2.4 billion, followed by Ngai Tahu on $2.2 billion, Auckland’s Ngati Whatua on $1.5 billion, Ngati Toa $1 billion, Tuhoe $453 million, Ngati Porou $310 million, Ruakawa $274 million, Ngati Awa $178 million, Ngati Pahauwera $103 million, with Ngapuhi, which has still not negotiated a settlement, worth $112 million.
The accumulation of mega wealth and assets by Maori business development corporations can be attributed in part to the successful track record of aggressive political advocacy by tribal leaders. Using the Maori seats as leverage, in 1975 they persuaded Labour to set up the Treaty settlement process, and to extend it in 1985.
In 2005, to maximise their wealth, they persuaded Labour to change the law to allow tribal business corporations to register as charities and avoid paying tax – sidestepping the “public benefit” test in charity law that normally prevents private profits enriching relatives.
Not content with the giant gains flowing into their coffers, tribal leaders are now pursuing an even bigger prize. Under the banner of Matike Mai – a constitutional model of parallel governance based on recent Waitangi Tribunal findings that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Crown – they are seeking to convince New Zealanders that a new written constitution based on the Treaty would unite the country.
While the reporting of Matike Mai makes it sound relatively innocuous, if adopted it would represent a constitutional coup — tribal cunning outmanoeuvring political naivety since the introduction of a new constitution would result in Parliamentary Sovereignty being replaced by Judicial Supremacy. Instead of our democratically elected Parliament being the country’s supreme lawmaker, the unelected and unaccountable judges of the highest court would hold ultimate power – not only to elevate Maori custom or tikanga above the common law, but to strike down any legislation they deemed in breach of their extremist interpretation of the Treaty.
The radicalisation of the Waitangi Tribunal itself has been central to these developments. As Chair of the Tribunal in 2004, Joe Williams – now Sir Joe and a Supreme Court Justice – fundamentally transformed its operation from a statutory focus on whether the Crown had been a ‘good governor’ into one that questioned the legitimacy of the Crown’s right to govern.
This led to the Tribunal overturning its long-established finding that under the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown – to conclude they did not. It was that bombshell Wai 1040 report in 2014, that created the ideological framework for the development of Matike Mai.
The danger to New Zealand posed by the Tribunal does not stop there. In 2024 they launched a Constitutional Kaupapa Inquiry, Wai 3300, to investigate over 300 claims alleging the Crown had systematically breached Treaty principles relating to governance and the electoral system. As well as questioning the relationship between tikanga and statutory law, and exploring models for separate Maori representation, the inquiry is challenging the Crown’s fundamental premise of sovereignty in order to recast it as neither settled nor legitimate.
In other words, the Waitangi Tribal will likely use this inquiry as an official, state-sanctioned launchpad for radical constitutional transformation – especially if a formal recommendation is issued to the Crown to permanently align New Zealand’s constitution with Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
Our country has been down the path towards radical constitutional change before.
In 2011, at the behest of their Maori Party coalition partner, John Key’s National Government launched a constitutional review, to test whether the concept of a new Treaty-based constitution for New Zealand would find favour. With the public overwhelmingly rejecting the concept, separatists have been working overtime to devise alternative ways to achieve their goal of extinguishing Parliamentary sovereignty.
It now appears that largely under the radar of public awareness, three coordinated initiatives are driving constitutional transformation: the Labour Government’s He Puapua agenda delivered a political roadmap for implementing tribal rule by 2040; the Maori elite’s Matike Mai has provided the constitutional model; and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Wai 3300 is expected to legitimise these ideas by directly challenging Parliamentary sovereignty and our electoral system.
By shifting far beyond its original purpose of investigating historical grievances, and by extending its reach into constitutional, political, and governance matters, this subversive body is now challenging the supremacy of Parliament — the cornerstone of New Zealand’s Westminster democracy – undermining the principle that ultimate power rests with voters.
An insight into this agenda was recently provided by the former ACT Party Leader and Labour Government Minister Richard Prebble, who was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal in late 2024, only to resign less than five months later:
“I have resigned as a member of the Waitangi Tribunal. The Treaty is our founding document; two peoples peacefully agreeing to form a nation. The Treaty is clear. The Crown offered its protection, guaranteed property rights and extended the rights of British citizenship. In return, Maori ceded sovereignty, agreed to the Crown having a right of pre-emption and accepted the duties of citizenship.
“The Waitangi Tribunal now says there are two Treaties, one in English and another in te reo, that are not translations of each other. Accordingly, the tribunal has turned the Treaty upside down and ruled: Sovereignty was not ceded…”
After reading the Tribunal’s internal strategic plan, which Richard believes will expand its mandate beyond the authority of Parliament, turn the Treaty into a socialist manifesto, and foster racial division, he concluded:
“In the coalition agreement, National and New Zealand First agreed: ‘Amend the Waitangi Tribunal legislation to refocus the scope, purpose and nature of its inquiries back to the original intent of that legislation’… In my letter of resignation, I have recommended the Government implement its coalition agreement.”
Indeed, with amending the Waitangi Tribunal legislation a key commitment in the Coalition agreement, during 2024 the terms of reference for an independent review of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 were developed, and in May 2025 an Independent Technical Advisory Group was appointed.
Their report, with recommendations on how to refocus the Tribunal back to its original intent, was delivered to the government in September last year. The Coalition was expected to introduce legislation to Parliament before Christmas.
Things didn’t go according to plan as it became clear to both New Zealand First and ACT that minor bureaucratic reforms would not bring the Waitangi Tribunal back into line.
Concerned the Tribunal is now acting as a parallel authority that is threatening the legitimacy of our democratically elected Government, ACT and NZ First have both announced election policies to dismantle it entirely.
ACT is planning to remove the Tribunal’s power to inquire into contemporary claims and refocus its mandate onto resolving the remaining historical claims – after which it would be disestablished.
New Zealand First, on the other hand, concerned about political interference, would table legislation within 100 days of the election, to shut the Tribunal down immediately and replace it with a temporary Commission to complete the historical claims – after which, it too would be abolished.
So, while ACT and New Zealand First regard the modern Waitangi Tribunal as a major threat to constitutional stability, both the Green Party and the Maori Party want to see it elevated into a far more influential role.
The Green Party would transform it from an advisory body into a powerful judicial institution whose rulings carry legal force. By giving the Waitangi Tribunal binding authority, the Crown would be legally required to act on its recommendations.
In addition, the Greens would abolish the 2008 deadline for lodging historic claims and re-open the settlement process to allow claims on private land and conservation land.
The Maori Party also wants to transform the Waitangi Tribunal into a powerful judicial authority with recommendations legally binding on the Crown.
By arguing that Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living covenant that cannot be permanently “settled”, they also plan to re-open the claims process to introduce retrospective relativity clauses, reframe settlements as ongoing obligations, and implement a “Land Back” framework that would return Crown land, council land, conservation land, and private land to Maori.
They also plan to implement Matike Mai in full, transforming the Waitangi Tribunal into a mechanism to advance Maori authority, parallel governance, and Treaty‑based constitutional change.
While Labour supports expanding the Tribunal’s contemporary jurisdiction, increasing its resourcing, and strengthening its influence over Crown policy, National believes its role should be narrowed and contained.
In other words, this election has become a contest, not only over constitutional direction, but over the future of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Treaty settlement process. On one side stands the Coalition, determined to complete the settlements and rein in or abolish the Tribunal. On the other side are parties intent on expanding its powers to radically advance the Maori sovereignty cause.
Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.
THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:
*Would you like to see the Waitangi Tribunal restricted, abolished, or expanded?
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.