The review is intended to refocus the "scope, purpose and nature" of the tribunal's inquiries back to its "original intent".
It will be chaired by legal expert Bruce Gray, KC, and will include career civil servant Kararaina Calcott-Cribb, lawyer David Cochrane, and Taranaki Te Atiawa leader Dion Tuuta, according to Maori Development Minister Tama Potaka on Friday.
The review will start next month, will consult with iwi entities, treaty law experts, and current and former tribunal members, will report back by September 2025, and legislative proposals will be introduced by the end of this year.
The first red flag is simply this.
Consultation limited those who benefit from the Waitangi Tribunal, such as iwi entities, treaty law experts, and current and former tribunal members, is hardly going to change anything because those beneficiaries would prefer to keep their benefits.
The next red flag is how the review is going to address the problem with the Waitangi Tribunal.
First, what is the problem that this review intends to fix?
The problem, according to ACT Party leader David Seymour, is that the tribunal is biased, composed of activists, and breached trust when leaking confidential details of his proposed Treaty Principles Bill.(1)
The problem, according to Shane Jones of New Zealand First, is that the tribunal has strayed from its original role and acts as if it is a supreme court and has started meddling in constitutional matters which is none of its business.(2)
Seymour and Jones could argue that a step towards solving these problems was made in January, when the coalition government replaced eight Waitangi Tribunal members people deemed to have steadier hands.(3)
This next step seeks to revive the original intent of the Waitangi Tribunal. So, what is that original intent?
The original intent, according to the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, is to “make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles”.
The first part of this clause is about making “recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles”.
Most are now well aware that in 1975, even though the Treaty of Waitangi Act referred to treaty principles, nobody could say what they were.
Five Appeal Court Justices in NZ Maori Council v Attorney General 1987 committed to paper ideas of what they thought those principles were.
The tribunal started off with citing those 1987 principles, which involved partnership, active protection, and, as the years went by and ideological fashions changed, moved on to equity and equal treatment, informed decision making, and self-determination.
“Kawanatanga” was a principle cited by the tribunal in a report on ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill.
Treaty principles is the subject of another Peters treaty review that is currently under way, but that is limited to the treaty clause in each of 28 laws.
That clause-by-clause review will either by leave each clause as it is, remove it, or amend it for clarity.
That methodology indicates that little will change with the treaty principles in those 28 laws.
And, 28 laws represent a fraction of the total number of laws on the books with treaty clauses since 1975.
I did try to find out that number but the best that I could do was find out that in the six years from 2010 to 2015, a total of 380 Acts became law.
The second part of the Treaty of Waitangi Act preamble empowers the tribunal “to determine its meaning and effect” of the treaty. Was the meaning and effect of the treaty unclear?
It wasn’t unclear in 1840, when 512 chiefs agreed to it.
It wasn’t unclear in 1860, when 200 chiefs ratified it at a conference in Kohimarama, Auckland.
It wasn’t unclear in 1922, when Sir Apirana Ngata published The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation.
It wasn’t unclear from 1922 to 1958, when a series of full and final treaty settlements were made in Rotorua, Taranaki, Waikato, the South Island (Ngai Tahu), Bay of Plenty, and the Ureweras.
The only person who seemed unclear about it was Maori Affairs Minister Mat Rata, the politician who shepherded the Treaty of Waitangi Act through Parliament in 1975.
It looks like since then, once empowered with the sole authority to interpret the treaty, the Waitangi Tribunal has made everything about the treaty unclear.
The tribunal can make up whatever far-fetched self-serving “meaning” of the treaty and we are required, by this law, to take it seriously.
This immediately creates a credibility problem for the tribunal because anyone who can read can check a tribunal utterance against what is written in the treaty, either English or Maori, and see whether the utterance makes any sense.
The tribunal’s exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the two texts is also specified in Section 5 (2) of the Act.
The tribunal rarely, if ever, states that the English text in the Act is not the final English draft from which the Maori text was translated.
The problem of the missing final draft was solved in 1989 with the discovery of the Busby February 4, 1840, draft of the treaty in English which has been confirmed as authentic, but has never been officially accepted.
The only official evaluation of that text, which is also referred to as the Littlewood treaty, was done in 2006, a full 17 years after the document was found, and the apparent purpose of that evaluation was to undermine a book titled The Littlewood Treaty by Martin Doutre published the previous year.
A text of the treaty, written in English, by British Resident James Busby, on February 4, 1840, that had just one word different from the Maori text that chiefs agreed to should have been of interest to the Waitangi Tribunal, don’t you think?
If it had been accepted, it could have replaced the English Text that is markedly different from the Maori text currently appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
Then the tribunal would no longer have to “reconcile the differences” between the two texts.
But it wasn’t. The Waitangi Tribunal continued to make lofty, far-fetched pronouncements on the treaty, which will continue despite this review.
A further original intent of the Act appears in Section 4 (2A)(a) which says that persons appointed to the tribunal “shall have regard to the partnership between the two parties to the Treaty”.
There is no mention of partnership in either of the Treaty of Waitangi texts appended to the Act.
But the Treaty of Waitangi Act implies a partnership of which appointees must have regard, according to Section 4.
I suspect few of those who voted for Zealand First because of Peters’ Waitangi Tribunal utterances dreamed they would be backing treaty partnership.
If you step back a little and consider the Waitangi Tribunal in the context of the swirl of ideologies that are currently undermining western nations, the nature of its damaging activity becomes starkly apparent.
One such ideology is that of human rights law, which is innately biased towards “powerless” minorities and against the “powerful” majority.
“Powerlessness” gives self-identified “victim groups” an exemption from their own obligations, while simultaneously allowing them to demand privileges from society.(4)
Viewed through this lens, the Waitangi Tribunal appears to give a self-identified victim group (Maori) exemption from their own obligations (to pay tax) while allowing them to demand privileges (financial redress, political power) from society (taxpayers).
That’s certainly how the Waitangi Tribunal operates.
Those are the reasons why I suspect the review of the Waitangi Tribunal will achieve little. I hope I am wrong. Was it planned to fail?
I really do think that the only appropriate review of the Waitangi Tribunal is to abolish it.
Sources 1. Seymour accuses Waitangi Tribunal of breaching trust, The Press, November 6, 2024. https://www.thepress.co.nz/politics/360476563/seymour-accuses-waitangi-tribunal-breaking-trust-over-treaty-principles-bill#:~:text=ACT%20Party%20leader%20David%20Seymour%20has%20accused%20the,Thursday%20-%20about%20two%20weeks%20earlier%20than%20planned.
2. Waitangi Tribunal review, NZ Herald, January 29, 2024. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/waitangi-tribunal-review-changing-role-set-to-come-under-scrutiny-by-new-government/GJ3OXYYUOZGFLGXRBLQYFY4NUM/
3. Changes to Waitangi Tribunal membership. https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/news/changes-to-waitangi-tribunal-membership
4. Melanie Phillips, The Builder’s Stone, Post Hill Press, New York, 2025. P121
The first red flag is simply this.
Consultation limited those who benefit from the Waitangi Tribunal, such as iwi entities, treaty law experts, and current and former tribunal members, is hardly going to change anything because those beneficiaries would prefer to keep their benefits.
The next red flag is how the review is going to address the problem with the Waitangi Tribunal.
First, what is the problem that this review intends to fix?
The problem, according to ACT Party leader David Seymour, is that the tribunal is biased, composed of activists, and breached trust when leaking confidential details of his proposed Treaty Principles Bill.(1)
The problem, according to Shane Jones of New Zealand First, is that the tribunal has strayed from its original role and acts as if it is a supreme court and has started meddling in constitutional matters which is none of its business.(2)
Seymour and Jones could argue that a step towards solving these problems was made in January, when the coalition government replaced eight Waitangi Tribunal members people deemed to have steadier hands.(3)
This next step seeks to revive the original intent of the Waitangi Tribunal. So, what is that original intent?
The original intent, according to the preamble of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, is to “make recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles of the treaty and, for that purpose, to determine its meaning and effect and whether certain matters are inconsistent with those principles”.
The first part of this clause is about making “recommendations on claims relating to the practical application of the principles”.
Most are now well aware that in 1975, even though the Treaty of Waitangi Act referred to treaty principles, nobody could say what they were.
Five Appeal Court Justices in NZ Maori Council v Attorney General 1987 committed to paper ideas of what they thought those principles were.
The tribunal started off with citing those 1987 principles, which involved partnership, active protection, and, as the years went by and ideological fashions changed, moved on to equity and equal treatment, informed decision making, and self-determination.
“Kawanatanga” was a principle cited by the tribunal in a report on ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill.
Treaty principles is the subject of another Peters treaty review that is currently under way, but that is limited to the treaty clause in each of 28 laws.
That clause-by-clause review will either by leave each clause as it is, remove it, or amend it for clarity.
That methodology indicates that little will change with the treaty principles in those 28 laws.
And, 28 laws represent a fraction of the total number of laws on the books with treaty clauses since 1975.
I did try to find out that number but the best that I could do was find out that in the six years from 2010 to 2015, a total of 380 Acts became law.
The second part of the Treaty of Waitangi Act preamble empowers the tribunal “to determine its meaning and effect” of the treaty. Was the meaning and effect of the treaty unclear?
It wasn’t unclear in 1840, when 512 chiefs agreed to it.
It wasn’t unclear in 1860, when 200 chiefs ratified it at a conference in Kohimarama, Auckland.
It wasn’t unclear in 1922, when Sir Apirana Ngata published The Treaty of Waitangi – an explanation.
It wasn’t unclear from 1922 to 1958, when a series of full and final treaty settlements were made in Rotorua, Taranaki, Waikato, the South Island (Ngai Tahu), Bay of Plenty, and the Ureweras.
The only person who seemed unclear about it was Maori Affairs Minister Mat Rata, the politician who shepherded the Treaty of Waitangi Act through Parliament in 1975.
It looks like since then, once empowered with the sole authority to interpret the treaty, the Waitangi Tribunal has made everything about the treaty unclear.
The tribunal can make up whatever far-fetched self-serving “meaning” of the treaty and we are required, by this law, to take it seriously.
This immediately creates a credibility problem for the tribunal because anyone who can read can check a tribunal utterance against what is written in the treaty, either English or Maori, and see whether the utterance makes any sense.
The tribunal’s exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the two texts is also specified in Section 5 (2) of the Act.
The tribunal rarely, if ever, states that the English text in the Act is not the final English draft from which the Maori text was translated.
The problem of the missing final draft was solved in 1989 with the discovery of the Busby February 4, 1840, draft of the treaty in English which has been confirmed as authentic, but has never been officially accepted.
The only official evaluation of that text, which is also referred to as the Littlewood treaty, was done in 2006, a full 17 years after the document was found, and the apparent purpose of that evaluation was to undermine a book titled The Littlewood Treaty by Martin Doutre published the previous year.
A text of the treaty, written in English, by British Resident James Busby, on February 4, 1840, that had just one word different from the Maori text that chiefs agreed to should have been of interest to the Waitangi Tribunal, don’t you think?
If it had been accepted, it could have replaced the English Text that is markedly different from the Maori text currently appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
Then the tribunal would no longer have to “reconcile the differences” between the two texts.
But it wasn’t. The Waitangi Tribunal continued to make lofty, far-fetched pronouncements on the treaty, which will continue despite this review.
A further original intent of the Act appears in Section 4 (2A)(a) which says that persons appointed to the tribunal “shall have regard to the partnership between the two parties to the Treaty”.
There is no mention of partnership in either of the Treaty of Waitangi texts appended to the Act.
But the Treaty of Waitangi Act implies a partnership of which appointees must have regard, according to Section 4.
I suspect few of those who voted for Zealand First because of Peters’ Waitangi Tribunal utterances dreamed they would be backing treaty partnership.
If you step back a little and consider the Waitangi Tribunal in the context of the swirl of ideologies that are currently undermining western nations, the nature of its damaging activity becomes starkly apparent.
One such ideology is that of human rights law, which is innately biased towards “powerless” minorities and against the “powerful” majority.
“Powerlessness” gives self-identified “victim groups” an exemption from their own obligations, while simultaneously allowing them to demand privileges from society.(4)
Viewed through this lens, the Waitangi Tribunal appears to give a self-identified victim group (Maori) exemption from their own obligations (to pay tax) while allowing them to demand privileges (financial redress, political power) from society (taxpayers).
That’s certainly how the Waitangi Tribunal operates.
Those are the reasons why I suspect the review of the Waitangi Tribunal will achieve little. I hope I am wrong. Was it planned to fail?
I really do think that the only appropriate review of the Waitangi Tribunal is to abolish it.
Sources 1. Seymour accuses Waitangi Tribunal of breaching trust, The Press, November 6, 2024. https://www.thepress.co.nz/politics/360476563/seymour-accuses-waitangi-tribunal-breaking-trust-over-treaty-principles-bill#:~:text=ACT%20Party%20leader%20David%20Seymour%20has%20accused%20the,Thursday%20-%20about%20two%20weeks%20earlier%20than%20planned.
2. Waitangi Tribunal review, NZ Herald, January 29, 2024. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/politics/waitangi-tribunal-review-changing-role-set-to-come-under-scrutiny-by-new-government/GJ3OXYYUOZGFLGXRBLQYFY4NUM/
3. Changes to Waitangi Tribunal membership. https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/news/changes-to-waitangi-tribunal-membership
4. Melanie Phillips, The Builder’s Stone, Post Hill Press, New York, 2025. P121
29 comments:
You are so right Mike.
Potaka is putting beneficial outcomes in place for "generations to come". He also sees the Waitangi Tribunal as benefitting all New Zealanders. How he arrives at that conclusion is anybody's guess. Therefore, one concludes it won't be dismantled any time soon. We are on the road to tribalism. To have a true democracy there should be no differentiation between races. Most of us know this but unfortunately we don't govern New Zealand.
A very depressing read. Incredible how much woolly, not critically thought through legislation has been passed in recent decades. Do all mps assume some other more able mp is critically considering? As intended, Luxom seems to have been spooked by the hikoi, and with a wife and family, and with so many crazed brainwashed hakaing maori on the loose, who would not be? Luxom, Potaka, and the make up of the review panel, taken with the ultra vague wording of the WT Act, guarantees a carry on regardless outcome. At least I will probably be gone when my descendants quit failing NZ. Hopefully, unlike South Africans they will get out while still able to take wealth with them.
Excellent article, Mike.
However no matter which way it is modified, the Waitangi Tribunal is actually the enemy within.
A truly progressive move would be to end all official recognition of race or ethnicity in all legislation.
With race/ethnicity no longer having official status, there could be:-
NO more race-based seats or race-specific party in Parliament.
NO more race-based wards in local government.
NO more census questions about ethnicity.
NO more co-governance, and NO more basis for claims of unending victimhood.
NO Waitangi Tribunal !
History tells us that no nation or society can survive while racist activists promote division and entitlement on the basis of race, (i.e. APARTHEID) and the only way to bring this to an end is by ceasing ALL official recognition of and status for race/ethnicity
Any government paying only lip service to a policy campaigned upon will always be found out.
Never before have so many promises been reneged upon, particularly anything treaty related by all elected governments this century.
At this stage of the coalitions tenure its fairly obvious the removal of the tribunal and for that matter, the Maori seats is highly unlikely.
This government is committed to continuing the maorification and drive to decolonize and destroy a once thriving western democratic society, as planned well over 50 years ago.
It seems the forces controlling this world wide Marxist movement is impervious to the simple idea of democratic representation.
Western society's idea of fair play and equality has been trampled upon. And it ain't coming back anytime soon.
Tribal rule is coming - as plain as day now.
The Waitangi Tribunal gives every impression of being a Trojan Horse, or perhaps a ticking timebomb for this country. I suspect all MPs know that, but feel sure that they will be able to relocate their existing gains in good time. Rather like Ardern and Bloomfield perhaps? Ah well, the rest of us will just have to cope as best we can.
” I really do think that the only appropriate review of the Waitangi Tribunal is to abolish it.”
Along with all other APARTHEID Acts and Statutes enacted since 1975, done behind closed doors and without the consent of the people.
Mike, how can you be sure that the Littlewood document is a draft and not a back translation as claimed by Fletcher and Parkinson, here:
“Preserved in the Archives of the Colony: The English Drafts of the Treaty of Waitangi,” Dr Phil Parkinson, Victoria University of Wellington, 2004. 11 RJP/NZACL YEARBOOK 2004, pp. 265 - ???
https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/law/research/publications/about-nzacl/publications/cljpjdcp-journals/volume-11,-2005/parkinson.pdf#:~:text=central%20assertion%20that%20the%20Littlewood%20document%20is%20a%20draft%20of
I am skeptical, although admittedly I have not read Doutre's book.
Store the powder and sharpen the swords - Hell is acoming to New Zealand!
Martin Doutre’s website records with historical evidence the first 13 draft attempts with Busby’s final draft recorded below.
On the morning and afternoon of the 4th of February 1840 the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi is penned by James Busby, under the direction of William Hobson. The W Tucker, 1833 paper upon which it is written comes from the personal stock of U. S. Consul, James Reddy Clendon, at whose premises the final draft is completed. Clendon also makes himself a copy, in his own handwriting, and on the same W Tucker 1833 paper stock He will later send his transcribed copy to the U.S. Secretary of State, John Forsyth, on the 20th of February 1840.
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyDraftsW1.html
Counterfactuals should be inserted into all tribunal discussions. What would Maori society be like today without any contact with 'settler colonists'?
Barrie, I think we can be sure to the extent that it simply doesn't make sense that it's a "back translation." If it were that, why is it dated the 4th of February and where is the Maori worded original of that date that it was back-translated from? And, why does it refer to, in Article The Third, "the people of New Zealand", whereas the final Te Tiriti refers to "tangata maori"? Surely, if you were being careful, you would translate that as "Maori people" as distinct from all the people of New Zealand as referred to in Article The Second? And, if you went to the trouble of back-translating something, wouldn't you sign it, or identify the author of the translation? We will unlikely ever know if there was another more "final" draft, but it is patently clear that apart from those two discrepancies, it essentially mirrors Te Tiriti, as also evidenced by the 'real' back translations of T E Young and that, some five decades later, by Apirana Ngata, all of which being very significantly different to the "Freeman" version of the Treaty that is erroneously inserted in the ToW Act.
As part of the review of the Tribunal's activities, the politicians should at least remove that false "Freeman" version from the Act, in order that there is at least a consistency of what Treaty wording is to be considered. But that won't happen, just as this review will prove to be a farce.
Barrie, I am sure that that the Littlewood treaty is the final draft because of reasons stated in the article above. Moreover, Fletcher fails to explain the absence of the word "Maori" in Article 3 of the Busby February 4 draft.
An excellent article Mike.
This review is nothing but barely disguised window dressing! A blind man could see the result.
Nothing will ever surprise me with Nationals furtherance of maori privilege.
There’s the outcome, right there!!!
“The review will ensure the Waitangi Tribunal remains focused, relevant, effective and fit for purpose not just for today, but for the generations to come.”
Political double speak for NO CHANGE!
Have a look at Bruce Gray KC speaking on this clip.
Speaks of colonisation, depravation and loss of power. You can “see” his heart bleeding. The outcome well and truly a done deal!
https://kurahautu.org/conferences/bruce-gray-kc/
I give myself another five years on earth - just long enough to get away without putting up with woke, mori rule, by fooools.... Bruce is good lawyer but doubt he has the mindset to fight moriness. ... and the clearly blind and stuuuuupid Nats.
Sad to say - you may be right !!
It is easy to dismuss all Englush documents as back translations because that avoids critical thinking and awkward truths. However Hobson started in English ( he didn't speak Maori) so those words are/were somewhere. The Littlewood document is either the English words of Hobson or a freakishly accurate back translation. Whatever it is, it upsets the current propagandists.
Personally, given the research of Martin Doutre and the explanations of the late Bruce Moon, I am convinced it is Hobson's document. That is more plausible than the Waitangi tribunal.
Thanks, for that link, John. Positively dripping with Maori wonderfulness, his genuflection, and with Te Reo always preceding the English terms. The outcome is as predictable and certain as death and taxes. Hand-picked by Potaka, no doubt?
John Porter, very illuminating link. Thank you. No change might be the best outcome. National is gaslighting us. Goodness knows what this review will recommend.
All members of the legal profession seem bound by the committment to maximise highly paid employment for their brothers; an accurate predictor of many inquiries and law reviews. The treaty and WT is a goldebn goose too lucrative to kill off, or to even just slightly maim.
If the majority of the voting public can see this review for what it is, a pretense. Why are NZ First so silent? Why are they not questioning the makeup of the review panel?
Could it be a case of ticking a box; Another election promise discharged. Tick.
But only with a charade Winston!
Alas, you are correct, John. Winston knows how to make the right noises come voting time, but to actually deliver on something meaningful in stopping (or even just slowing) the Maori grift gravy train, he's remarkably quiet. Just like his "no principles in the ToW" - while that's true, let's just see what his grandstanding produces. I'm prepared to wager it'll be nothing meaningful, unlike what Seymour's TPB could have accomplished. But just like those that currently back the very wayward 'Greens', they seem blind (deliberately or otherwise) to the realities that lie before us.
Perfectly said. This whole nonsense is actually great as it divides this nation even further. Eventually it will have to be sorted.
I suspect the majority of NZers are so brainwashed they will support the review with emphasis on the more outrageous the recommendations the better. It will show NZ is in sync with its colonial past guilt and battered displaced indigenous folk.
If I am wrong where are the voices protesting the WT nonsense ?
I suspect the majority of NZers are so brainwashed they will support the review with emphasis on the more outrageous the recommendations the better. It will show NZ is in sync with its colonial past guilt and battered displaced indigenous folk.
If I am wrong where are the voices protesting the WT nonsense ?
Potaka is the latest brown supremacist part-Māori mole in the National Party.
He is there to serve the self-interest o the paru huas, not New Zealanders of non-Māori descent.
As with the Treaty Principles Bill, the odds are stacked against a meaningful result. As someone said, mere box ticking. Furthermore why isn't the Littlewood/Busby Treaty not on prominent display in Te Papa? If Te Papa refuses to display it, it should be writ large on the corridor walls of the Beehive.
Very interesting comments. This review is akin to putting the fox in the hen house. The outcome is predictable. NZ is on a turbo charge to full apartheid..its sickening. I put it to you, where would Maori be today if there was no treaty. Maori as an ethnic group are producing children with other ethnicities and weakening their genetic makeup..eg look at Willie Jackson.
Post a Comment