Centrist: Waitangi Day - A manufactured cycle of outrage

Waitangi Day is often framed as an annual exercise in outrage

With the most recent Waitangi Day behind us, we believe that the framing of Waitangi Day, often championed by the mainstream media, reveals a rigged narrative. One that is devoid of fair assessment, shaped by activists, and shields Māori and iwi leaders from scrutiny while ensuring dissent is risky. Instead of fostering a productive debate around the Treaty, the media amplifies political confrontation, undermining any opportunity for meaningful dialogue.

Waitangi Day, marking the Treaty’s signing is inseparable from the Treaty debate. Yet each year, the mainstream media’s narrative follows a predictable script—political confrontation, selective outrage, and the portrayal of Māori leaders as aggrieved and offended while politicians must tread carefully.

In 2024, Kelvin Davis called his opponents ‘Pākehā spiders’ with little pushback. In contrast, in 2025 David Seymour’s challenge to the Treaty’s interpretation was framed as divisive and incendiary. The media’s selective outrage ensures that some leaders can attack their opponents with impunity, while others are vilified for questioning Treaty orthodoxy.

This is despite millions of taxpayer dollars poured into the upkeep and betterment of the Treaty grounds at Waitangi, partly in anticipation of Waitangi Day.

The absence of scrutiny distorts public perception

Māori leaders are as individual and political as their Pākehā counterparts, yet their grievances are treated as universal, and their own actions rarely questioned or held accountable. Groups like the National Iwi Chairs Forum and the Kiingitanga movement are presented as unquestionably significant, while their actual influence and representation remain unexamined. What have these groups tangibly achieved for Māori? Do they speak for all Māori? These are questions the media refuses to ask.

It is also myopic to treat Māori conservatives as outsiders. RNZ’s Pita Tipene suggested Tama Potaka struggles between his party manifesto and his ‘people.’ But aren’t his people the constituents who elected him?

The assumption that Māori must align with left-wing or activist-driven politics is both patronising and exclusionary. The media’s refusal to engage with Māori voices that challenge activist narratives exposes the lack of genuine debate around Treaty politics.

Who benefits from this cycle?

Waitangi Day has become a trial to be endured—an open season on moderate and right-of-centre politicians rather than an opportunity for meaningful dialogue. This may be why Christopher Luxon chose not to attend this year.

Instead of fostering constructive discussion, the media focuses on outrage and protest, ignoring the substance of speeches and policy debates. Those who reject the activist-approved Treaty narrative are shouted down, mocked, or cast as agitators, while those who embrace it are framed as rightful leaders.

The political theatre at Waitangi ensures that activist groups, political figures who thrive on grievance narratives, and media outlets that support that narrative, all gain from keeping Waitangi Day a flashpoint for division rather than a platform for constructive engagement.

Will Middle New Zealand disengage from the Treaty debate?

Polling suggests support for David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill is not out of rejection of the Treaty but from a desire for clarity around its role in law. There is overwhelming public support for equal say and respectful dialogue—something this annual cycle of outrage may be actively discouraging.

NZ First Minister Shane Jones has warned that if the debate remains polarised and dominated by hostility, New Zealanders may simply disengage from the Treaty altogether.

The Centrist is a new online news platform that strives to provide a balance to the public debate - where this article was sourced.