The Tertiary Education Union is launching a fierce attack on ACT’s plan to ultimately abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, warning the proposal would remove an important mechanism for holding governments accountable for contemporary breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
TEU Te Hautū Kahurangi | Tertiary Education Union National President-Māori Associate Professor Garrick Cooper has condemned the policy, describing ACT’s proposal as regressive and arguing Te Tiriti remains foundational to Aotearoa and its constitutional arrangements.
The union’s intervention comes after ACT leader David Seymour announced his party would end the Tribunal’s ability to investigate contemporary Crown policy and conduct, restrict its work to eligible historical claims lodged by 1 September 2008, and disestablish the Tribunal once those historical claims have been completed.
ACT WANTS CONTEMPORARY CLAIMS ENDED
ACT argues the Tribunal has moved too far into reviewing the policies of democratically elected governments and says disputes over rights should instead be dealt with through ordinary law and the courts.
Under ACT’s proposal, existing eligible historical claims would continue until completed, with no arbitrary deadline imposed.
But contemporary and kaupapa claims concerning current Crown decisions would no longer fall within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.
Seymour says the Tribunal has become increasingly activist and argues its modern role goes beyond advising on historical injustices into areas that properly belong to elected governments and Parliament.
TEU SAYS BREACHES ARE NOT JUST HISTORY
Cooper fundamentally rejects that argument.
The TEU says Crown breaches of Te Tiriti are not confined to nineteenth and twentieth-century history and maintains contemporary government decisions can continue to affect Māori rights and interests.
For the union, the Tribunal provides an important independent check on Crown power by investigating alleged breaches and bringing evidence about their impact into the public arena.
Cooper argues removing contemporary jurisdiction would weaken that scrutiny at precisely the time Māori need mechanisms capable of testing Crown actions against Te Tiriti obligations.
A BATTLE OVER WHAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CREATED TO DO
The political argument also raises an important historical point.
The Waitangi Tribunal was established in 1975 with jurisdiction over contemporary Crown actions. Its ability to investigate historical claims retrospectively back to 1840 was added a decade later in 1985.
Māori law expert Dr Carwyn Jones has challenged ACT’s characterisation of the Tribunal’s contemporary work as a later expansion beyond its original purpose, pointing out that examining contemporary policy was part of the institution’s original role.
That distinction is significant because ACT is framing the policy as returning the Tribunal to its proper historical function, while opponents argue contemporary scrutiny is actually part of the job Parliament originally gave it.
TEU ACCUSES ACT OF ATTACKING TE TIRITI
The TEU goes considerably further than simply disagreeing with the mechanics of ACT’s policy.
Cooper argues that removing the institution responsible for investigating alleged contemporary Treaty breaches amounts to an attack on the place of Te Tiriti itself within modern government.
The union has characterised ACT’s proposal as racist and compared its political approach with divisive MAGA-style politics.
Those are the TEU’s descriptions of the policy rather than established findings about ACT’s motives.
ACT rejects that interpretation and says its approach is based on the principle that every New Zealander should have their rights protected through the same laws and courts regardless of ancestry.
TWO VERY DIFFERENT VISIONS FOR AOTEAROA
The dispute exposes one of the clearest constitutional dividing lines emerging ahead of Election 2026.
ACT wants the remaining historical Treaty claims completed before bringing the Waitangi Tribunal itself to an end.
At the opposite end of the debate, Te Pāti Māori wants Tribunal recommendations made binding on the Crown, substantially strengthening its influence rather than reducing it.
National leader Christopher Luxon has not endorsed ACT’s proposal and says the Government continues to have Treaty obligations and listens to Tribunal advice. A separate government review of the Tribunal’s functions is already underway but has not yet been publicly released.
ELECTION 2026: IS TE TIRITI HISTORICAL OR ONGOING?
Behind the arguments over the Tribunal sits a much larger question for voters.
Is Te Tiriti primarily connected to resolving historical Crown breaches, or does it continue to create obligations that should shape and scrutinise government decisions today?
ACT and the TEU are offering dramatically different answers.
And with the future of the Waitangi Tribunal now firmly on the election agenda, Māori voters are being presented with competing constitutional visions of where Te Tiriti sits in twenty-first century Aotearoa.
The historical settlements may eventually finish. The increasingly fierce political argument is over whether the Crown’s accountability under Te Tiriti finishes with them.
#WaitangiTribunal #TeTiritiOWaitangi #TEU #GarrickCooper #ACTParty #DavidSeymour #Election2026 #TinoRangatiratanga #ManaMotuhake #TreatyOfWaitangi #MaoriRights #MaoriPolitics #ConstitutionalReform #TangataWhenua #TeAoMaori #Education #TertiaryEducation #NZPolitics #Aotearoa #MaoriNews #WaateaNews #RadioWaatea
