Yet current developments across the Tasman suggest that having a treaty is no guarantee of settling complex questions of indigenous rights. In fact, New Zealand’s experience shows how such documents can become focal points for ongoing – and often polarising – debates about national identity and governance.
The current debate reveals a deeper question: whether an ongoing and open-ended interpretation of a historical document best serves New Zealand’s future as a modern, multicultural society.
This was starkly illustrated last week as New Zealand’s Parliament held its first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. The legislation, championed by ACT Party leader David Seymour, attempts to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that have been referenced in New Zealand law since 1975 – but never actually defined by Parliament.
The history of these principles is worth examining. When Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975, it established the Waitangi Tribunal to hear Māori grievances. The legislation referred to Treaty principles but did not specify what they were.
Over subsequent decades, these principles have evolved through judicial interpretation, particularly following a 1987 Court of Appeal case which referred to the idea of Crown-Māori ‘partnership’.
This partnership concept has expanded into various aspects of governance. Treaty principles are now referenced in more than 50 pieces of legislation, affecting everything from resource management to local government decisions. Public entities must consider these principles in their operations, leading to consultation requirements and co-governance arrangements.
Seymour’s bill proposes three statutory principles. First, it affirms that the Government has full power to govern while Parliament has full power to make laws “in the best interests of everyone” and in accordance with maintaining a free and democratic society. Second, it recognises and protects Māori rights under the Treaty, but stipulates that these differ from general rights only in the context of specific Treaty settlements. Third, it establishes that everyone is equal before the law without discrimination.
These principles would mark a significant departure from how courts have interpreted the Treaty over recent decades. Where judicial decisions have emphasised concepts like Crown-Māori partnership, active protection of Māori interests and duties of consultation, Seymour’s principles would focus more squarely on parliamentary sovereignty and equality before the law.
The principles would only take effect if approved by referendum, yet the bill has provoked fierce opposition, with thousands joining protest marches and 42 King’s Counsels urging its withdrawal.
Both sides frame this as a debate about Treaty interpretation. Perhaps the real question is how New Zealanders want to live together today – a political and social question rather than one of historical or legalistic interpretations.
The political dynamics are complex. The bill emerged from coalition negotiations following New Zealand’s recent election, with centre-right National needing both ACT and New Zealand First to form government. While National agreed to support the bill to select committee stage, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently declared there was “nothing” he liked about it, stating “You do not negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion.”
Under Jacinda Ardern’s previous Labour government, Māori interests received increased recognition across public policy, including a separate Māori health authority and co-governance arrangements for water infrastructure.
These developments prompted significant pushback. In Parliament, Seymour argued his bill would democratise Treaty interpretation, giving all New Zealanders a say in principles that affect governance. “Where in the world,” he asked, “has it been a good idea to give citizens different rights based on ancestry?” He emphasised that the bill would not affect existing Treaty settlements or alter the Treaty text.
Opposition parties see things differently. Labour MP Willie Jackson condemned the bill as “a foul attempt to rewrite the constitutional framework,” while Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick argued it represents privileged resistance to equality. The Māori Party staged a protest in Parliament, performing a haka before walking out of the debate.
These disagreements reveal the bill’s central difficulty. It approaches the Treaty primarily as a contemporary governance document rather than acknowledging its historical and cultural significance to Māori. The proposed referendum would allow an 84% non-Māori majority to define the principles of a document viewed as sacred by a 16% minority.
Ironically, both the bill’s supporters and many of its critics share a vision of a New Zealand where all citizens can thrive regardless of ancestry. The difference lies in how to get there. Where Seymour proposes to achieve this through majority referendum and statutory definition, such an approach risks deepening rather than healing racial divisions. Using a referendum to redefine a minority’s treasured constitutional document could create precisely the kind of grievance that would make racial reconciliation harder to achieve.
This highlights a fundamental tension in liberal democracies: how to balance majority rule with the protection of minority rights. Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith expressed this concern, calling it “a crude way to handle a very delicate subject” and suggesting Treaty issues should be addressed case by case.
While Parliament and protesters focus on constitutional principles, New Zealand faces pressing challenges in health, education, crime and economic opportunity. These affect all New Zealanders but Māori, due to socio-economic circumstances, often disproportionately. Yet the country’s political energy seems increasingly consumed by debates about Treaty interpretation rather than solving these immediate problems.
For Australian observers, these debates carry relevance as discussion continues about indigenous recognition. New Zealand’s Treaty is often cited as a model. Still, its current controversies suggest that having a historical treaty does not automatically resolve questions of indigenous rights in a modern democracy.
Until around 2017, New Zealand largely managed to balance Treaty obligations with practical governance. Recent years have seen increasing focus on racial identity and Treaty interpretation, creating a pendulum swing in race relations that has proved difficult to stabilise. Perhaps it is time for New Zealand to focus less on racial distinctions and more on building a future that works for all its citizens.
Looking forward another 184 years to 2204, would New Zealanders still define themselves primarily through an 1840 document? Or might they see it as marking the beginning of a journey that, through good times and bad, helped forge a nation where people of all backgrounds could build their lives, pursue opportunities and realise their aspirations?
Perhaps the real challenge is not endlessly debating interpretations of the past but building a future that works for all New Zealanders.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
This was starkly illustrated last week as New Zealand’s Parliament held its first reading of the Treaty Principles Bill. The legislation, championed by ACT Party leader David Seymour, attempts to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi that have been referenced in New Zealand law since 1975 – but never actually defined by Parliament.
The history of these principles is worth examining. When Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975, it established the Waitangi Tribunal to hear Māori grievances. The legislation referred to Treaty principles but did not specify what they were.
Over subsequent decades, these principles have evolved through judicial interpretation, particularly following a 1987 Court of Appeal case which referred to the idea of Crown-Māori ‘partnership’.
This partnership concept has expanded into various aspects of governance. Treaty principles are now referenced in more than 50 pieces of legislation, affecting everything from resource management to local government decisions. Public entities must consider these principles in their operations, leading to consultation requirements and co-governance arrangements.
Seymour’s bill proposes three statutory principles. First, it affirms that the Government has full power to govern while Parliament has full power to make laws “in the best interests of everyone” and in accordance with maintaining a free and democratic society. Second, it recognises and protects Māori rights under the Treaty, but stipulates that these differ from general rights only in the context of specific Treaty settlements. Third, it establishes that everyone is equal before the law without discrimination.
These principles would mark a significant departure from how courts have interpreted the Treaty over recent decades. Where judicial decisions have emphasised concepts like Crown-Māori partnership, active protection of Māori interests and duties of consultation, Seymour’s principles would focus more squarely on parliamentary sovereignty and equality before the law.
The principles would only take effect if approved by referendum, yet the bill has provoked fierce opposition, with thousands joining protest marches and 42 King’s Counsels urging its withdrawal.
Both sides frame this as a debate about Treaty interpretation. Perhaps the real question is how New Zealanders want to live together today – a political and social question rather than one of historical or legalistic interpretations.
The political dynamics are complex. The bill emerged from coalition negotiations following New Zealand’s recent election, with centre-right National needing both ACT and New Zealand First to form government. While National agreed to support the bill to select committee stage, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon recently declared there was “nothing” he liked about it, stating “You do not negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion.”
Under Jacinda Ardern’s previous Labour government, Māori interests received increased recognition across public policy, including a separate Māori health authority and co-governance arrangements for water infrastructure.
These developments prompted significant pushback. In Parliament, Seymour argued his bill would democratise Treaty interpretation, giving all New Zealanders a say in principles that affect governance. “Where in the world,” he asked, “has it been a good idea to give citizens different rights based on ancestry?” He emphasised that the bill would not affect existing Treaty settlements or alter the Treaty text.
Opposition parties see things differently. Labour MP Willie Jackson condemned the bill as “a foul attempt to rewrite the constitutional framework,” while Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick argued it represents privileged resistance to equality. The Māori Party staged a protest in Parliament, performing a haka before walking out of the debate.
These disagreements reveal the bill’s central difficulty. It approaches the Treaty primarily as a contemporary governance document rather than acknowledging its historical and cultural significance to Māori. The proposed referendum would allow an 84% non-Māori majority to define the principles of a document viewed as sacred by a 16% minority.
Ironically, both the bill’s supporters and many of its critics share a vision of a New Zealand where all citizens can thrive regardless of ancestry. The difference lies in how to get there. Where Seymour proposes to achieve this through majority referendum and statutory definition, such an approach risks deepening rather than healing racial divisions. Using a referendum to redefine a minority’s treasured constitutional document could create precisely the kind of grievance that would make racial reconciliation harder to achieve.
This highlights a fundamental tension in liberal democracies: how to balance majority rule with the protection of minority rights. Minister of Justice Paul Goldsmith expressed this concern, calling it “a crude way to handle a very delicate subject” and suggesting Treaty issues should be addressed case by case.
While Parliament and protesters focus on constitutional principles, New Zealand faces pressing challenges in health, education, crime and economic opportunity. These affect all New Zealanders but Māori, due to socio-economic circumstances, often disproportionately. Yet the country’s political energy seems increasingly consumed by debates about Treaty interpretation rather than solving these immediate problems.
For Australian observers, these debates carry relevance as discussion continues about indigenous recognition. New Zealand’s Treaty is often cited as a model. Still, its current controversies suggest that having a historical treaty does not automatically resolve questions of indigenous rights in a modern democracy.
Until around 2017, New Zealand largely managed to balance Treaty obligations with practical governance. Recent years have seen increasing focus on racial identity and Treaty interpretation, creating a pendulum swing in race relations that has proved difficult to stabilise. Perhaps it is time for New Zealand to focus less on racial distinctions and more on building a future that works for all its citizens.
Looking forward another 184 years to 2204, would New Zealanders still define themselves primarily through an 1840 document? Or might they see it as marking the beginning of a journey that, through good times and bad, helped forge a nation where people of all backgrounds could build their lives, pursue opportunities and realise their aspirations?
Perhaps the real challenge is not endlessly debating interpretations of the past but building a future that works for all New Zealanders.
Dr Oliver Hartwich is the Executive Director of The New Zealand Initiative think tank. This article was first published HERE.
11 comments:
Oliver
Have you ever considered teaching journalism at varsity?
If only all opinions were as balanced as your.
I agree entirely. "Don't look back, we're not going that way".
Al Jazeera published in Australia pushes the maori perspective as God given - God help Australia if they follow that route.
A good article but the Maori radicals now have the bit firmly between their teeth with their end goal, not of cogovernance, but of full tribal control firmly in their sights. They are aided and abetted by ignorant, useless politicians, a lopsided biased MSM and an indoctrinating education system. How, do you suggest we turn this around without legislation such as Seymour’ bill??
What a sea of turmoil that has developed, not only here in New Zealand, but world-wide. It will take only one individual to release a nuclear devise upon another and it will be all on. And there are several who seem to be capable of doing it!
In 1832, just eight years before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, some 1000 Maori descended on the confluence of the Wanganui and Ongarue Rivers, Taumarunui, now called Cherry Grove, and slaughtered and ate many of the 600 Patupaiarehe people who lived there in peace. The Patupaiarehe people have been here since the year one, that is since the time of Jesus Christ! They were the first people here, followed by the Waitaha people, who arrived her some 300 years later, said to be from China. They should not be forgotten! These little-known stories should be more widely spread as it is part of our history.
Yet another story is how a Chinese junk was discovered in dense bush in South Westland about 100 years ago, said to be 500 years old then! Is it one of a Chinese fleet wrecked along the coast of the South Island at about that time? Nobody seems to want to know about this.
Kevan
the treaty is dead, time to completely drop it in everyday nz politics its a relic of a bygone age
Nice in theory but we have an argument being pushed by the Left, Maori radicals and the media that the Tribes didn't cede sovereignty. This is only going one way and that is Tribal control of the country. We have deeply unpleasant young leaders emerging on the Left.
Actually, it's not a debate.
We are simply being told by a bunch of Maori activists that they have decided that their version of the so called Treaty is the only one, and we should just do as they say .
No debate just do as we tell you.
And the younger indoctrinated generations are indeed doing what they are told and following the Maori line. History and truth are irrelevant - it is current reality that counts.
True and vital to emphasize: the goal is now tribal rule.This changes the game plan
As above: crucial to grasp this fact.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.