#tekaupapa: Axe the Tribunal or Follow the Money? The $23 Million Question NZ First and ACT Should Be Asking

NZ First and ACT are putting the future of the Waitangi Tribunal firmly on the election agenda, but as debate intensifies over the Tribunal’s role, a different question deserves attention: is the real problem the Tribunal itself, or the millions of dollars being spent on lawyers to navigate the Treaty claims process?

Both parties have challenged the continued role of the Waitangi Tribunal, making it a contentious issue in the lead-up to the 7 November general election.

But calls to abolish or fundamentally change the Tribunal risk overlooking an important distinction between the institution’s purpose and the legal system that has developed around its work.

Established in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal provides a formal mechanism for Māori to bring claims concerning alleged breaches of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the Crown.

Its role is to investigate those claims, examine historical and contemporary evidence, and make findings and recommendations.

For iwi, hapū and whānau, the Tribunal has provided an avenue to seek recognition of grievances involving whenua, resources, language, culture and Crown decision-making.

Yet the financial cost of participating in that process is substantial.

According to Ministry of Justice data published through Figure.NZ, legal aid expenditure associated with Waitangi Tribunal proceedings reached $23,342,119 in the financial year ending June 2025.

That represents approximately 8.1 percent of New Zealand’s total legal aid expenditure of $288,351,646 for the same period.

The figures place Waitangi Tribunal legal aid behind criminal and family legal aid, but ahead of civil legal aid expenditure.

The breakdown for the year ending June 2025 was:

The Tribunal’s legal aid bill has also grown over time.

Earlier reporting placed annual expenditure at approximately $19.4 million in the preceding financial year, compared with $13.8 million around a decade earlier.

Meanwhile, a New Zealand Law Society submission recorded 1,625 active Waitangi Tribunal legal aid files as at June 2025, spread across more than 20 Tribunal inquiries.

Those numbers raise legitimate questions about the cost, complexity and accessibility of the current system.

How much of the expenditure goes towards legal representation, preparation of evidence, research, hearings and procedural requirements?

Are repeated legal arguments and lengthy processes driving unnecessary costs?

Could more funding be directed towards iwi and hapū research capability, mediation, earlier resolution of claims and practical outcomes rather than prolonged legal proceedings?

And most importantly, are Māori claimants receiving value from a process that can take years to navigate?

These questions are not the same as questioning the legitimacy of the Tribunal or the rights of Māori to seek redress for Crown breaches of Te Tiriti.

Legal aid exists because many claimants would otherwise lack the financial resources to participate meaningfully in proceedings involving complex legal and historical issues.

Removing or severely restricting that assistance could disadvantage the very communities the Tribunal was established to hear.

Equally, spending more than $23 million annually on legal aid does not automatically establish waste, excessive lawyers’ fees or unnecessary litigation.

The figure measures legal aid expenditure associated with Tribunal proceedings, not the Tribunal’s entire operating budget, and a proper assessment would need to examine how that funding is distributed and what outcomes it delivers.

That distinction is central to the debate.

The Tribunal itself does not create the historical grievances or contemporary Crown decisions that give rise to claims. Nor can the cost of resolving those claims be considered independently of the legal and procedural requirements imposed on claimants.

If political parties are genuinely concerned about public expenditure, there is a strong argument for examining the structure of the claims process before proposing to dismantle the institution.

A comprehensive review could investigate whether legal aid funding is being used efficiently, whether hearings can be streamlined, and whether iwi and hapū can be better supported to participate without becoming dependent on expensive legal processes.

It could also examine whether greater investment in early engagement between the Crown and claimants would prevent disputes from escalating into lengthy inquiries.

For Māori, the issue is ultimately one of justice, access and tino rangatiratanga.

The Tribunal has played a significant role in documenting Crown actions, protecting Māori interests and informing public understanding of Te Tiriti.

But that does not mean its processes, funding arrangements or administrative systems should be beyond scrutiny.

The question for NZ First, ACT and every other political party is whether they are interested in improving the Treaty claims system or simply removing the institution that investigates Crown conduct.

Because abolishing the Waitangi Tribunal would not, by itself, resolve the underlying grievances, eliminate the Crown’s Treaty obligations or answer concerns about the cost of legal representation.

And if the real concern is the amount of public money flowing through legal aid, that deserves its own serious examination.

Perhaps the debate should not begin with whether the Waitangi Tribunal should survive, but with whether the current legal system is delivering timely, accessible and cost-effective justice for Māori.

With $23.34 million in annual legal aid expenditure at stake, that is a question worth asking before election slogans become government policy.

#WaitangiTribunal #TeTiritiOWaitangi #TreatyOfWaitangi #Election2026 #NZFirst #ACTParty #WinstonPeters #DavidSeymour #LegalAid #MinistryOfJustice #TreatyClaims #MaoriRights #TinoRangatiratanga #AccessToJustice #PublicSpending #GovernmentAccountability #MaoriPolitics #Iwi #Hapu #WhenuaMaori #TreatySettlements #NZPolitics #Aotearoa #RadioWaatea #WaateaNews