Search Inquiry Documents

On Friday 14 May 2026, the Waitangi Tribunal released Hūtia te Rito o te Harakeke, kei Hea te Kōmako e Kō? The Interim Stage One Report of the Education and Training Amendment Act and Te Mātaiaho Urgent Inquiry. The claim was brought by Te Kapotai, a hapū based in the Bay of Islands and alleged that the Crown had breached te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles by:

• removing the statutory requirement under section 127(1)(d) of the Education and Training Act 2020 that required School Boards of Trustees to give effect to te Tiriti o Waitangi; and
• de-prioritisng te Tiriti o Waitangi, te reo Māori, and mātauranga Māori in the national curriculum through the refresh of the New Zealand Curriculum/Te Mātaiaho.

The panel that heard the inquiry comprised presiding officer Judge Rachel Mullins and members Gerrard Albert, Derek Fox, Dr Paul Hamer, and Kevin Prime.

This report concerns the Crown’s decisions, agreed by Cabinet on 23 February 2026, to amend treaty provisions in the Education and Training Act 2020 (‘the Act’) to the ‘take into account’ standard, to remove dispute resolution service operators’ treaty obligations, and to replace references to ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’ with a reference to both texts. An additional three purpose provisions are subject to further decisions by the Minister of Justice, the Honourable Paul Goldsmith.

With amending legislation to be introduced this parliamentary term, the Tribunal prepared its report expeditiously so it can inform important decisions Ministers will be making during legislative drafting.

The Tribunal found that the Crown’s approach to the reforms breached the treaty principles of partnership, active protection, and good government and caused prejudice to Māori. The Tribunal recommended that the Crown immediately halt the advancement of the proposed amending legislation, take steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship, and, if changes are objectively needed to the Act’s treaty provisions, engage meaningfully with Māori in their co-design.

The Tribunal concluded that the Crown had a duty to engage meaningfully with Māori on these reforms. This reflects the constitutional significance of amending treaty provisions; that the change was not neutral – it proposed to downgrade the strength of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in the Act, or even remove them entirely; and the unique context of education where the Crown has particular obligations to actively protect taonga Māori, including te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori. This required the Crown to engage meaningfully with Māori on all changes to the Act.

The Tribunal also concluded that, despite receiving advice from the Ngā Mātāpono Tribunal regarding how to conduct a treaty-compliant treaty clause review, the Crown pursued a treaty-inconsistent course of engaging with a singular national Māori body, the National Iwi Chairs Forum, and only after substantive decisions had been made. The Tribunal noted that the Minister of Justice’s view that the select committee would provide a sufficient opportunity to provide input was inadequate and was an insult to Māori. The Tribunal noted that the Crown acted contrary to officials’ advice and showed a reckless disregard for the (likely and advised) harm to the Māori–Crown relationship.

The Tribunal considered next whether the Crown, in the absence of meaningful engagement with Māori, had adequately informed itself through internal policy processes of the potential implications of the proposed changes, including their impact on Māori interests. The Tribunal concluded that Cabinet agreed to the proposals despite clear and repeated advice from officials that constrained timeframes had precluded in-depth analysis, that not enough was known about the potential impact of the proposals, and that the regulatory impact statement was insufficiently developed to form the basis for Ministers to make an informed decision.

The Tribunal stated that what was clear was that the proposals carried a risk of harm to the Māori–Crown relationship and that, as treaty provisions can act as safeguards for Māori interests, reducing or repealing obligations therein could disproportionately impact Māori. The Tribunal agreed with officials that downgrading treaty standards in the Act to one of the lowest standards of ‘take into account’ would signal a shift in the Crown’s commitment to the treaty as it applies to education.

The Tribunal observed that reducing the strength and nature of the Crown’s treaty obligations as expressed in statute unilaterally and without genuine engagement with Māori is inherently inconsistent with the partnership forged in 1840. It was comparable to the Treaty Principles Bill, or even worse as the reform may be enacted, and represented an attempt by the Crown to takahi the mana of the treaty and its place in the laws of Aotearoa.

In closing, the Tribunal strongly urged the Crown to step back from the proposed reforms, to engage meaningfully with Māori, and to take immediate steps to repair the Māori–Crown relationship. This was important to not only honour the Crown’s obligations under the treaty but to restore a relationship the Crown itself knows is in a fragile state.
After releasing its stage one report, the Tribunal will turn its attention to reporting on the removal of school boards’ treaty obligations and the curriculum reforms in its stage two report.