Graham Adams: Look who wants to debate Treaty issues now

Seymour’s proposed referendum has made discussion seem a very attractive alternative.

After the revolutionary He Puapua report was brought to public attention for the first time in April 2021, Judith Collins and David Seymour did their best to spark discussion about its implications — especially with regard to the threat that race-based policies pose to democratic principles.

The report — relying on a radical interpretation of the Treaty — charted a path of self-determination for iwi that culminated in a separate Maori Parliament to be put in place by the 200th anniversary of its signing in 2040.

Collins launched a campaign titled “Demand the Debate”, which was intended to cover a variety of topics she said were being suppressed — with He Puapua as her initial focus.

It didn’t take very long for journalists and rival MPs to shut her and David Seymour down by repeatedly implying they were racist for even criticising He Puapua. At the same time, the media uncritically accepted Jacinda Ardern’s argument that the report had never been presented to Cabinet and wasn’t official government policy — and was therefore irrelevant.

The fact that many of Ardern’s policies mirrored what had been proposed in He Puapua — including giving mātauranga Māori parity with science throughout the education system; legislating for Three Waters to grant iwi disproportionate control of water management; and allowing iwi roadblocks (as an expression of rangatiratanga over traditional territories) during Covid — was of little interest to journalists.

A NZ Herald editorial in August 2021 claimed all the topics Collins had highlighted were, in fact, already being debated. In short, there was nothing to see here.

Two and half years later, many of our media, academics and politicians suddenly appear to be much, much keener than they have been previously for a discussion about problems arising from current interpretations of the Treaty. The prospect of a binding referendum on Treaty principles — as proposed by David Seymour — has concentrated minds wonderfully.

On Newshub Nation this weekend, host Rebecca Wright asked Stuff journalist Carmen Parahi what might be a good alternative to a referendum. Parahi thought “a bit of public education” about Te Tiriti might be useful, with Wright herself recommending a national “conversation”.

Writing in The Post, editor Tracy Watkins thought Luxon should hold “a low-key select committee inquiry maybe, rather than a referendum” as a “compromise”.

Historian Dame Anne Salmond suggested that if the incoming government “wishes to clarify the meaning of Te Tiriti, rather than a referendum [it] would be wise to think about a new kind of inquiry”.

Among the impressive array of journalists, academics and politicians scrambling to head off Seymour by recommending debate or an inquiry is Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. On Newshub, she told Seymour she thought a discussion was appropriate but a referendum would be “dangerous”.

“If we actually want to have a meaningful and informed discussion then there are other deliberative democracy processes to facilitate that — the likes of a Citizens Assembly for example.”

Few, however, will be convinced by these novel bursts of enthusiasm for dialogue and official inquiries. It is obvious the dramatic change of stance is solely because David Seymour and Winston Peters have struck fear into the hearts of our elites with their stated aim to reverse the expansion of Treaty principles — including via co-governance and tikanga — into so many areas of law and policy. Faced with the possibility of a referendum, a debate suddenly seems to many of our betters the lesser of two evils.

Although the final shape of the government has not yet been established, the leaders of Act and NZ First are likely to be in a position to deliver at least some configuration of their pledges given they head two of the three parties making up a new National-led government.

Seymour wants a referendum that will endorse a law redefining the Treaty principles much more narrowly than they have been in recent decades, while NZ First’s deputy leader, Shane Jones, said last week there would be a “reset” in Māori policy under the new government. He took aim specifically at the liberal interpretation by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal of Treaty principles.

In fact, David Seymour wants a comprehensive public debate on the Treaty too — but as part of fashioning a new “Treaty Principles Act” that can then be put to a public vote.

Seymour’s pitch has the weight of experience behind it given he shepherded the End of Life Choice Bill though Parliament. It became law in 2019, but required further public validation via a referendum attached to the 2020 general election to activate it.

With a change of government, the shoe is now suddenly on the other foot over the Treaty. For years now, dissenters to Treaty orthodoxy have been demonised and patronised by both the media and politicians. As one way of shutting down debate, they have been asked, “What do you fear about co-governance?” The clear implication has been that critics had primarily an emotional objection rather than a more principled one (including a commitment to democracy of the one-person, one-vote-of-equal-value variety).

Implying opponents are emotional rather than rational has been a well-worn refrain from Chris Hipkins, the outgoing Prime Minister, as well as from journalists. As just one example, TVNZ’s political editor, Jessica Mutch-McKay, asked National’s Three Waters spokesman, Simon Watts, earlier this year: “What scares you about co-governance?” — and then: “What makes you nervous about it?”

Unfortunately, it’s now going to be difficult for those who have bridled at the metastasising of Treaty principles to refrain from asking referendum opponents solicitously: “So what exactly is it that scares you about a referendum?... What makes you nervous about it?”

It has certainly opened the door for Seymour to ask the same question. As he observed this month:

“It seems to me that there are some people who are afraid to see the Treaty principles being open to some sunlight, because they’ve largely been decided behind closed doors by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public service.”

The principles of “Participation, Protection and Partnership” have, of course, also been enthusiastically endorsed and promoted by the mainstream media for the past three years. Which is hardly surprising given that news organisations were obliged to adopt that stance towards the Treaty to be eligible for a share of the $55 million in taxpayer cash doled out from the Public Interest Journalism Fund.

There is much amusement and schadenfreude to be had in watching those who are discombobulated by a possible change to the status quo suddenly agreeing a debate is needed. And even if Seymour fails to get agreement from Luxon and Peters for a plebiscite, the overreaction to his proposal so far has been both highly entertaining and highly revealing.

Warnings — amounting to barely veiled threats — have been issued by senior Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs about impending civil unrest and perhaps violence. It seems no one has told them that if you really don’t want the idea of a referendum to gain widespread support, it’s probably best not to suggest to voters they may get roughed up if they are in favour. Many New Zealanders undoubtedly won’t take kindly to being threatened.

Referendums, of course, have long been an integral part of New Zealand’s democratic process, including for constitutional (or quasi-constitutional) questions. That’s how New Zealand came to adopt MMP as its preferred system of voting and how John Key’s proposal to change the flag was rejected.

And, as David Seymour has pointed out to Chloe Swarbrick, she was quite happy to have a referendum held in 2020 on the question of legalising recreational cannabis.

It seems that while voters are considered capable of deciding on the nation’s electoral system, which drugs should be legal, the design of the nation’s flag, and the desirability of assisted dying, asking New Zealanders who have to live under the Treaty’s prescriptions to formally express their views on it is —against reason — a step too far.

Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.