ACT is campaigning to end the Waitangi Tribunal’s contemporary jurisdiction, arguing the institution has become increasingly ideological and expansive. Critics say the proposal misunderstands the Tribunal’s original purpose and would remove an important mechanism for scrutinising how government decisions affect Māori rights.
eLocal Report: Based on reporting by Giles Dexter for RNZ HERE.
ACT has placed the future of the Waitangi Tribunal firmly into the 2026 election campaign, proposing reforms that would ultimately bring its work to an end.
Party leader David Seymour says the Tribunal played an important role in addressing historical grievances arising from Crown actions, but argues the institution operating today has moved significantly beyond the purpose for which it was established in 1975.
ACT is campaigning on four reforms intended to end the Tribunal's contemporary jurisdiction while allowing unresolved historical claims lodged before a specified deadline to continue.
Seymour's central argument is that New Zealand's institutions have changed sufficiently since the Tribunal was created that a permanent statutory body investigating contemporary government policy is no longer justified.
Historical Claims Would Continue
ACT is not proposing an immediate abolition of all Tribunal activity.
Its policy document says historical claims lodged before 1 September 2008 would continue to be heard and resolved. Claims lodged after that date, including contemporary and kaupapa claims, would not.
Seymour said the 2008 date reflected the deadline established for lodging historical Treaty claims.
That distinction is important because some major historical settlements remain unfinished.
Seymour pointed specifically to his own Ngāpuhi iwi in Northland, where agreement on a mandate to settle with the Crown has yet to be reached.
ACT's proposal would therefore allow qualifying historical grievances already within the system to proceed while closing the door on the Tribunal's continuing examination of contemporary Crown policies and decisions.
Seymour: Tribunal Has Become ‘Activist’
Seymour has previously described the Tribunal as becoming “increasingly activist”.
He argues that historical claims often involved readily identifiable Crown wrongdoing, including the use of state and military power to confiscate property.
Today's inquiries, he says, frequently concern fundamentally different questions about whether democratically enacted government policies comply with Treaty principles.
Seymour rejects the proposition that an unelected statutory body should occupy such a position in contemporary government.
“The original need for the Waitangi Tribunal has evaporated as our country has matured into a place with strong property rights, the rule of law, and restraints on the use of military power.”
He argued that when the Tribunal questions the legitimacy of policies introduced by an elected government, it moves beyond merely providing advice.
The Tribunal's recommendations are generally not binding on the Crown, however, and that distinction sits at the heart of the competing arguments about its role.
Is Removing the Tribunal Avoiding Scrutiny?
Seymour rejects the suggestion that ending contemporary inquiries would allow governments to escape scrutiny.
He argues New Zealand already has courts, democratic institutions and other avenues through which people can challenge government decisions and advocate for different policies.
Anyone should remain free to make recommendations to government, Seymour said, but taxpayers should not necessarily finance a permanent statutory organisation to do so.
He was particularly critical of Tribunal findings involving questions of equity and Māori participation, including claims relating to involvement in geothermal energy.
Seymour said the Tribunal had been “incredibly inventive” in identifying continuing Treaty breaches and disputed claims that it provided uniquely independent expertise.
His argument ultimately rests on democratic accountability: governments receive authority from voters and can subsequently be removed by those same voters.
Te Pāti Māori Wants the Opposite
The debate exposes a profound difference between ACT and Te Pāti Māori over the future constitutional role of the Tribunal.
While ACT wants to wind down the institution, Te Pāti Māori has proposed amending the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to make Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown.
That would significantly strengthen the Tribunal rather than diminish it.
Seymour argues such a change would effectively create an unelected alternative governance structure.
He says all New Zealanders, including Māori New Zealanders, should retain the ability to elect governments whose policies they support and remove governments whose policies they reject.
The two positions therefore offer voters sharply contrasting constitutional directions: one would ultimately remove the Tribunal, while the other would substantially increase its authority.
National Takes a Different Position
National leader Christopher Luxon told RNZ he had not seen ACT's new policy.
He nevertheless defended the government's approach to the Tribunal, saying the coalition listens to its advice and retains strong Treaty obligations.
“As a government we listen to it and we have strong Treaty obligations ... the best way we can deliver those obligations is improving outcomes for Māori.”
Luxon pointed to education, housing and law and order as areas where he believes progress has been made for Māori during the government's term.
The coalition has already commissioned a major review of the Waitangi Tribunal's functions.
That review emerged from the National-New Zealand First coalition agreement and was intended to refocus the scope, purpose and nature of Tribunal inquiries towards what the parties described as their “original intent”.
It has not yet been publicly released.
RNZ notes that Newsroom has reported the review does not recommend removing the Tribunal's ability to initiate kaupapa inquiries.
Luxon said Māori Crown Relations Minister Tama Potaka now had the review and would respond in due course.
Christopher Luxon. Credit: RNZ / Nick Monro.
Māori Law Expert Rejects ACT’s Argument
Māori law expert Dr Carwyn Jones of Te Wānanga o Raukawa strongly disagrees with ACT's interpretation.
Speaking to RNZ's Midday Report, Jones said the policy demonstrated a “profound misunderstanding of the Waitangi Tribunal and Te Tiriti”.
He challenged the suggestion that contemporary inquiries represent a departure from the Tribunal's purpose, saying the institution was originally established to examine contemporary policy.
Jones also noted that the Tribunal already has a programme for completing historical claims over the next five years.
Because most Tribunal recommendations are not binding, he argues its importance lies partly in transparency and accountability.
Jones said recent inquiries had exposed evidence concerning government policymaking that might otherwise have received insufficient examination, including whether officials had been given enough opportunity to assess how policies could affect people's rights and interests.
Removing the Tribunal's contemporary jurisdiction, he argued, would therefore remove one mechanism through which government decisions can be independently examined.
Dr Carwyn Jones. Credit: RNZ / Mark Papalii.
A Much Bigger Constitutional Question
The argument is ultimately larger than the Waitangi Tribunal itself.
New Zealand is being presented with increasingly different interpretations of how the Treaty should operate within a modern democracy.
At one end, ACT argues that historical Crown wrongdoing should be resolved but that contemporary political decisions should principally be governed through Parliament, the courts and equal democratic rights.
At the other, Te Pāti Māori argues for a considerably stronger institutional role for Te Tiriti, including making Tribunal recommendations binding on the Crown.
National currently occupies different ground again: retaining the Tribunal while reviewing its scope and emphasising the government's existing Treaty obligations.
That makes the future of the Waitangi Tribunal more than an administrative question.
It is becoming an election issue about where political authority ultimately resides, how Crown obligations should be enforced, and what constitutional role Te Tiriti should have in future New Zealand governments.
For voters, those differences are substantial.
One party wants the Tribunal wound down.
Another wants its powers significantly strengthened.
And the largest governing party is reviewing where the boundary should sit.
The 2026 election may therefore determine considerably more than the future of one institution. It could help determine which interpretation of New Zealand's constitutional relationship between Parliament, the Crown and Te Tiriti gains political authority for the years ahead.
Source: Giles Dexter, RNZ, ACT sets out plan to wind up Waitangi Tribunal, 10 September 2026.
Original RNZ report
Independent reporting. Original context. Credited sources.