The Waitangi Tribunal

On 30 October 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Stage Two, Part II Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry. The report was the latest from the Wai 3553 urgent inquiry: the stage one interim report addressed the Crown’s proposed changes to broader Tiriti provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020 following the Treaty clause review, while the stage two, part I report concerned the Crown’s changes to the national curriculum.

The Tribunal panel, comprised of Judge Rachel Mullins, Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime, first received an application for urgency from the claimants, Te Kapotai and Ngāti Hine, on 19 November 2025. On 3 December 2025, the panel received a further application for urgency from the kaimahi Māori of Te Riu Roa/New Zealand Educational Institute. The Crown, however, opposed the granting of urgency.

On 2 March 2026, the Tribunal granted the claims urgency and, on 15 and 17 April 2026, the claims were heard. On the last day of hearing, following a judicial conference, the parties submitted a revised statement of issues that expanded the inquiry’s scope to include the proposed Education and Training Act 2020 reforms addressed in the stage one interim report. The revised statement of issues also replaced the heading ‘New Zealand Curriculum – Te Mātaiaho’ with the heading ‘National Curriculum’, thereby expanding the inquiry’s scope to incorporate Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum designed for use in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings. On 28 April 2026, the Tribunal heard oral closing submissions.

On 21 April 2026, Judge Mullins confirmed that the Tribunal would report in two stages, with stage one addressing broader proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 under the Treaty clause review and stage two addressing the national curriculum and the removal of section 127(1)(d). After receiving written closing submissions, the Tribunal issued its stage one interim report on 24 May 2026 and its stage two, part I report on 17 September 2026.

In this, the stage two, part II report, the Tribunal considered statutory changes to school boards’ obligations in the Education and Training Act 2020. Specifically, it addressed the November 2025 removal of school boards’ obligation under section 127(1)(d) to ensure schools give effect to te Tiriti and its replacement with altered requirements in section 127(2)(e).

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s process for pursuing the reforms and the substance of the statutory changes breached Treaty principles. Specifically, it found that the Crown:

• breached the principle of partnership by acting unilaterally and abruptly in removing the explicit Tiriti obligation on school boards;
• failed to act transparently and in good faith towards its Treaty partner through the series of steps it took to effect the removal of section 127(1)(d);
• breached its obligation of good government and active protection by confirming the Minister of Education’s proposed reform in the absence of the information or internal policy analysis required for the Crown to understand the specific implications of its reforms for ākonga Māori and Māori interests;
• breached its duty of active protection by removing a clear and unambiguous direction to school boards to ensure schools give effect to te Tiriti;
• breached the principle of good government by creating confusion and uncertainty about the ongoing Treaty obligations carried by school boards;
• by diminishing or removing other Māori-specific provisions in section 127, breached its duty of active protection and the principle of equity; and
• through its clear failure to honour te Tiriti as required by purpose provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, further breached the principle of good government.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s Treaty breaches have caused prejudice to Māori, including harm to the Māori–Crown relationship and the likelihood that the removal of section 127(1)(d) would leave school boards’ commitment to the Treaty to chance. The Crown’s lack of clarity about the continued relevance of the Treaty to school boards’ operations has also created confusion, which ‘may be the largest and most lasting form of prejudice’.

To acknowledge the harm it has caused and to mitigate prejudice, the Tribunal recommended that the Crown apologise to Māori for its breaches of the Treaty arising from the removal of section 127(1)(d). The Tribunal also recommended that the Crown restore section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 in its entirety and work with Māori in the education sector to determine how to reinstate section 127(1)(d) in the current statutory framework, ‘while preserving its full substance and effect’.

On Friday 25 September 2026, the Tribunal released Hautupua: Te Aka Whai Ora (Maaori Health Authority) Priority Report, Part 2 in pre-publication format. The stage 1 report on the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora/the Maaori Health Authority was released in November 2024. This stage of the priority inquiry addressed claims concerning the Crown’s alternative plans to Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority. The Tribunal panel for this inquiry consisted of Judge Stone (presiding), Professor Susy Frankel (who resigned as a Tribunal Member on 15 September 2025 and completed these proceedings per clause 1 of schedule 2 to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975), Professor Tom Roa, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, and Tania Simpson.

The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Bill was introduced to the House on 2 July 2025, two days before the stage 2 hearing process concluded. This prevented the Tribunal from reporting, as its jurisdiction was removed. The Healthy Futures (Pae Ora) Amendment Act was enacted 12 months later, on 10 July 2026, and the Tribunal then issued its report.

The stage 2 report addressed two issues:

• whether the Crown’s process in developing plans to address Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority is consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles; and
• whether the Crown’s alternative plans to address Maaori health in lieu of a Maaori health authority are consistent with te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles.

After assessing the evidence presented from parties, the Tribunal found breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty principles of tino rangatiratanga, kaawanatanga and good government, partnership – including the duty of consultation – active protection, equity, and options.

The Tribunal’s findings on process included that the Crown did not discharge its duty to adequately inform Maaori when developing an alternative plan. The Crown also failed to undertake meaningful consultation with Maaori that honoured te Tiriti/the Treaty. The Crown failed to recognise and respect the right of Maaori to self-determine what is best for them in respect of Maaori health and failed to properly engage with, and inform, Maaori of potential changes to two key elements that formed part of its alternative plan: the Hauora Maaori Strategy and the Pae Ora (Disestablishment of Maaori Health Authority) Amendment Act 2024. This fell well short of a Tiriti/Treaty consistent process.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s alternative plans breached Tiriti/Treaty principles in a number of ways. The Crown failed to take any meaningful action towards Maaori health equity and failed to produce any clear alternative plan for Maaori health in a timely manner. The Crown failed in its duty to follow its own laws, rules, and standards by reviewing Te Aka Whai Ora only 10 months after its establishment, whilst announcing that it must wait longer than a year to review other system-wide changes within the health sector. This signalled a double standard. The Tribunal found that the Crown failed in its duty to consult with Maaori, consequently dismissing Tiriti/Treaty-based governance duties and making changes to Maaori health with minimal cultural responsiveness and a lack of Maaori input across all levels.

Overall, the Tribunal found that Maaori have suffered and will continue to suffer a range of short- and long-term prejudicial effects as a result of these breaches.

To give effect to Treaty principles, the Tribunal recommends that the Crown:

• commit to revisiting the option of a stand-alone Maaori health authority;

• consult extensively with Maaori and make informed decisions on matters concerning Maaori health; and

• base all decision-making concerning Maaori health and, in particular, measures to address long-standing Maaori inequities, on robust evidence and scientific knowledge.

On 17 September 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released a pre-publication copy of Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Stage Two, Part I Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry, which concerns the Crown’s reform of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national curriculum, comprising both Te Marautanga o Aotearoa and the New Zealand Curriculum.

The report follows the Tribunal’s stage one interim report concerning proposed changes to treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020, released in May 2026, and precedes the forthcoming stage two, part II report addressing the removal of school boards’ Treaty obligations, formerly contained in section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020.

The Tribunal panel, comprised of Judge Rachel Mullins, Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime, first received an application for urgency from the claimants, Te Kapotai and Ngāti Hine, on 19 November 2025. On 3 December 2025, the panel received a further application for urgency from the kaimahi Māori of Te Riu Roa/New Zealand Educational Institute. The Crown, however, opposed the granting of urgency.

On 2 March 2026, the Tribunal granted the claims urgency and, on 15 and 17 April 2026, the claims were heard. On the last day of hearing, following a judicial conference, the parties submitted a revised statement of issues that expanded the inquiry’s scope to include the proposed Education and Training Act 2020 reforms addressed in the stage one interim report. The revised statement of issues also replaced the heading ‘New Zealand Curriculum – Te Mātaiaho’ with the heading ‘National Curriculum’, thereby expanding the inquiry’s scope to incorporate Te Marautanga o Aotearoa, the curriculum designed for use in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings. On 28 April 2026, the Tribunal heard oral closing submissions.

On 21 April 2026, Judge Mullins confirmed the Tribunal would report in two stages, with stage one addressing broader proposed changes to the Education and Training Act 2020 under the treaty clause review and stage two addressing the national curriculum and the removal of section 127(1)(d). After receiving written closing submissions, the Tribunal issued its stage one interim report on 24 May 2026.

In this, its stage two, part I report, the Tribunal found that the Crown, through its actions related to developing a ‘knowledge-rich curriculum’ informed by the ‘science of learning’, breached a number of Treaty principles. Specifically, it found that the Crown:

• breached the principle of partnership through its lack of meaningful engagement and consensus-building with Māori about the new draft national curriculum and its failure to fulfil its obligations under the Kawa Whakapūmau with Ngā Kura ā Iwi;
• breached the principle of active protection by moving ahead with a knowledge-rich approach in the absence of evidence that it will reduce Māori inequities, in the face of opposition from Māori and the wider sector, with an apparent lack of engagement with the findings of the Huia Kaimanawa report, and in the context of its heightened duty to act in a protective manner in the compulsory schooling sector, where known inequities exist;
• breached its duty of active protection of te reo, tikanga, and mātauranga Māori by reducing emphasis on them (in a context in which section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 had also been removed) and simultaneously inhibiting teachers’ capacity to meaningfully incorporate content from te ao Māori given the volume of prescribed content and mandatory teaching times for reading, writing, and mathematics;
• breached its duty of active protection of tikanga and mātauranga Māori by sidelining the Te Tīrewa Marautanga framework in favour of the same knowledge-rich design principles (except one) as underpinned the New Zealand Curriculum;
• breached the principle of partnership by failing to sufficiently consider the aspirations and priorities that whānau, hapū, and iwi have for their uri in Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori settings in its redesign of Te Marautanga o Aotearoa;
• breached the principle of equity through its lack of active protection and relative disregard for Māori voices; and
• breached the principle of good government in officials’ apparent failure to make any robust assessment of the applicability of the philosophy behind knowledge rich to New Zealand circumstances (and to Māori in particular), in officials’ corresponding reinforcement of the Minister’s predetermined position, and by the Crown’s apparent lack of consideration of existing successful Māori education models.

The Tribunal recommended that the Crown recommit to working in partnership with Māori in education and return to working with Māori on designing a truly indigenous Māori-medium and kaupapa Māori curriculum through Te Marautanga o Aotearoa. The Tribunal further provided the Crown with a list of features that it recommended should characterise the Crown’s renewed commitment to partnership. The Tribunal concluded that partnership was essential if the Crown were to correct its course and achieve equitable outcomes for ākonga Māori.