In a statement, he said he had intended his comments to allude to Act's policies in general, rather than cause personal offence.
"I absolutely acknowledge Karen's whakapapa and hope my comments did not cause her personal offence, I probably could have made my point better and I have apologised for that," he said.
He said the policies he was criticising included Chhour's member's bill calling for a "colourblind" approach to child protection, which was drawn from the biscuit tin last week.
"This approach has failed Māori for generations - today 67 percent of children in state care are Māori - and I will never stop defending a by Māori for Māori approach," he said.
"The Act Party often preaches about being the party for all, but if they truly want that then I do encourage them to cross over the bridge that is Te Tiriti so that they can view the issues they care about from a Māori lens."
He had retaliated over Chhour's questioning yesterday of his ministry's relationships with Te Whānau o Waipareira Trust, after The New Zealand Herald revealed the trust was under investigation over charitable funds allegedly used to bankroll its chief executive John Tamihere's political campaigns.
The minister said Chhour needed to "cross the bridge that is Te Tiriti o Waitangi from her Pākehā world into the Māori world and understand exactly how the Māori world operates. It's no good looking at the world from a vanilla lens".
Chhour, who is Ngāpuhi but grew up in the care system, said yesterday the comments left her distressed and took away her mana.
Her member's bill would repeal section 7AA of the Oranga Tamariki Act, which requires Oranga Tamariki's chief executive to recognise and provide a practical commitment to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.
This includes reducing disparities by setting measurable outcomes for Māori children and young persons, having regard to the whakapapa of young people, developing partnerships with iwi and Māori organisations, and publicly reporting steps taken to improve outcomes for Māori children.
Chhour said although Davis' apology was genuine, she worried about the minister's views on urban Māori who had not grown up around their marae.
"Is it telling us that unless we see the world through the Māori lens like the Labour Party, that we can't question the decisions they're making and are they speaking for those Māori or only a particular Māori? It just confuses a whole where you belong within the Māori world," Chhour said.
"It made me feel like I had to justify my whakapapa, I had to justify my worldview and I had to justify myself as a Māori and nobody should have to go through that. We all have a different view of the world, and it's nobody's place to tell somebody else how they should view the world through a Māori lens."
She said her member's ballot around removing 7AA was because the act was long and very complicated.
"We already have sections within the act that achieves this purpose, section four, five and 13 of the act that came into place after Māori consultation in the 80s and it was brought in December 89. That's where family group conferences started and more involvement with family hapu and iwi. Around what was going to happen with their children.
"If only we implemented those sections of the Act and the way they were intended. We wouldn't be having this conversation today."
She had concerns around how the act could be interpreted and misused.
"Who is interpreting the principles of the Treaty and how they're interpreting it and we've had this play out in in a court case, the Moana case, with a reverse uplift where a child's in a really good home settled, doing well and removed based on cultural issues and being told that you know, being raised in a culturally appropriate way is more important."
