- The coalition agreement between National and NZ First committed to reviewing all legislation referencing “Treaty principles,” with the aim of replacing or repealing those references.
- The Government established a ministerial oversight group and expert advisory panel to carry out the review.
- A list of 23 laws was identified as being in scope, and the review was expected to be completed by August 2025.
- Since that timeframe passed, there has been little to no public update or visible progress.
When the current coalition government was formed, there was a clear and specific commitment to address one of the most contentious features of modern New Zealand legislation: references to the “principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
New Zealand First, led by Winston Peters, has long opposed the use of undefined “Treaty principles” in law. Rather than supporting ACT’s proposal to codify or define those principles, NZ First took a different approach—arguing that such references should be removed altogether and replaced with clear, specific wording, or repealed where appropriate.
This position was reflected in the coalition agreement with the National Party, which included a firm undertaking to:
“Conduct a comprehensive review of all legislation (except where it relates to, or is substantive to, existing full and final Treaty settlements) that includes ‘the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’, and replace those references with specific wording on the Treaty’s relevance and application, or repeal them.”
To advance this commitment, the Government established a ministerial oversight group alongside an expert advisory panel. Their role was to guide in-principle decisions before wider public consultation. The review itself was positioned as an opportunity to bring clarity, consistency, and democratic accountability to an area often criticised for ambiguity.
By mid-2025, some progress had been signalled. A shortlist of 23 statutes was identified as being in scope for review, and the chair of the review group, David Cochrane, indicated that—barring unforeseen developments—the work would be completed by the end of August 2025.
And then—silence.
Since that point, there has been no meaningful public update on the review’s progress. No draft findings. No consultation process. No explanation for the apparent delay. For an initiative framed as a priority in a formal coalition agreement, the lack of transparency is striking.
This raises several important questions.
First, what has caused the delay?
Reviews of this nature are undoubtedly complex, particularly given the legal, political, and cultural sensitivities involved. But complexity alone does not explain the absence of communication. If timelines have shifted, the public is entitled to know why.
Second, does the delay signal a loss of political will?
The coalition partners entered government with differing approaches to Treaty-related reform. While ACT sought to define principles, NZ First pushed for their removal. National, for its part, has taken a more cautious, incremental approach. It is reasonable to ask whether these differences have slowed progress behind the scenes.
Third, what are the implications of inaction?
The inclusion of undefined principles in legislation has long been criticised for creating uncertainty in both legal interpretation and public policy. If the Government believes reform is necessary—as its own agreement suggests—then delay simply prolongs that uncertainty.
Finally, where to from here?
If the review has stalled, it should be restarted or re-scoped with clear timelines and public reporting. If it is ongoing, then regular updates should be provided. And if the Government has reconsidered its position, it should say so openly.
At its core, this issue is not just about Treaty language in legislation. It is about transparency, accountability, and the integrity of commitments made to voters.
A review promised, begun, and then left in limbo undermines confidence not only in this process, but in the broader willingness of government to follow through on contentious reforms.
New Zealanders were told this work would be done. It is reasonable now to ask: what has happened to it?
Call to Action: Time for Answers and Accountability
This review matters—silence is not good enough.
We have a right to expect that clear commitments in coalition agreements are followed through, or at the very least, openly accounted for when delays occur. The absence of any meaningful update on this review raises legitimate concerns about transparency and political will.
Now is the time to act:
- Contact the Minister of Justice, Hon Paul Goldsmith, and ask for a public update on the status of the review. Has it been completed, delayed, or deprioritised? Email: [email protected]
Hobson’s Pledge has provided a tool to send a message directly to Minister Paul Goldsmith, see here: https://www.removetheclauses.nz/
- Write to Winston Peters and NZ First, who championed the removal of Treaty principles, and ask what progress they have secured on this commitment. Email: [email protected]
- Raise the issue with your local MP, regardless of party, and ask where they stand on ensuring clarity and accountability in legislation.
- Use community forums, social media, and local networks to keep attention on the issue and encourage broader public discussion.
Further information
- Ministry of Justice: Review of legislation including reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi
- Simpson Grierson: Review of Treaty clauses in legislation
- Democracy Action Update August 2025: Review of Treaty principles in legislation
Media coverage
Newsroom: Govt finalises 23 laws in scope of Treaty clause review