Key takeaways

Passing amending legislation can buy time, not immunity. This decision confirms that in the race to Parliament, the courts step back once reform is underway in the House, but scrutiny returns after enactment.

The High Court has put the Ngāi Tahu legal challenge to proposed conservation reforms on hold, confirming the “principle of non-interference” - that courts will not intervene while reform is before Parliament. But passing an Amendment Bill only buys time. Treaty settlement commitments can still be tested once the law is enacted.

In Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu v Minister of Conservation [2026] NZHC 722, Ngāi Tahu sought a declaration from the High Court that proposed conservation reforms would breach the commitments made by the Crown in the Ngāi Tahu Treaty settlement.

The proposed reforms are expected to be before Parliament imminently. The Conservation Act (Land Management and Other Matters) Amendment Bill is expected to be introduced into Parliament in early 2026 (at the time of writing, they have not been introduced) and passed before 1 October 2026, before Parliament dissolves before the election. 

The Ngāi Tahu claim focused on whether this legislative reform process was consistent with the Ngāi Tahu Deed of Settlement and the associated settlement legislation. Ngāi Tahu is seeking declarations that the Crown will breach the Ngāi Tahu Treaty settlement and its statutory obligations, rather than Parliament itself. The declarations sought were on both process and substance of the reform. However, by the time proceedings were filed by Ngāi Tahu, the Cabinet had already decided to introduce a bill to the House by early 2026, and the law is being drafted. 

This case forms part of a broader trend of iwi Māori turning to the courts to test whether Treaty settlements are being honoured when the Crown undertakes major system reform. The courts were asked to consider similar issues last year in the context of fisheries reform, see our earlier FYI on Te Ohu Kai Moana here. 

Why the Crown sought a stay

The Crown applied to pause the proceedings, arguing that:

• the Bill was already being prepared for Parliament; and
• allowing the case to continue would interfere with Parliament’s role in making law.

This relied on a long standing constitutional principle of non-interference and comity, that courts should not step into matters that would influence what Parliament considers or debates.

What the Court decided

The High Court agreed with the Crown and granted a stay of the court case.

The Court recognised the two propositions to principle of non-interference that: 

• courts can declare existing legal rights, even if legislation may later affect them; but 
• courts will not step in where rights would only be affected by proposed legislation.

While Ngāi Tahu argued that parts of the reform were still being worked through, the Court held this did not change the position. Once Cabinet decides to legislate, the courts must step back.

The Court expressly recognised that the proceedings may resume once the Bill is enacted. In short, scrutiny has been delayed - not avoided. It will be interesting to see how the conservation reforms pass through Parliament in light of this impeding judgment. 

Lessons from this case

For those fulfilling the Crown’s obligations to Māori under Treaty Settlements, this case is a reminder to understand relevant settlements and the Crown’s commitments. This applies to government departments, local authorities, and Crown entities. 

For PSGEs and Māori, this case is a reminder that law reforms might affect Treaty Settlements. Related issues are also raised by statutory requirements for decision-makers to ‘uphold’ Treaty settlements as included in the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 and the currently proposed reforms to the Resource Management Act 1991.

If you would like to discuss anything in this article, please get in touch with one of our contacts below.

Special thanks to Holly Soar, part of Te Pairanga Tai, for her assistance in writing this article.