If, like me, you are a novice to AI and Microsoft Copilot, you may be interested in the following four principles from Co-Intelligence: Living and Working with AI by Ethan Mollick (Chapter 3, p. 46-62):
1. You should try inviting AI to help you in everything you do.
2. AI works best with human help, and you want to be that human.
3. Treat AI like a person, but tell it what kind of a person it is.
4. AI is still developing and will get better than it is now.
Mollick’s core message is that AI isn’t a tool you command, it’s a thinking partner. For myself and with respect of this exercise, I would far rather partner with Copilot than the Iwi Leaders’ Forum and the Waitangi Tribunal: Copilot invites me to contribute to finding an answer, whereas by the other I am ignored and excluded.
‘Partnership’ in the Literal Meaning of the Treaty
First, I asked Copilot if the concept of ‘Partnership’ is given in the literal meaning of the Treaty in Maori, and in the back-translation into English by Professor Sir I.H. Kawharu. Together with the ‘official’ version of the Treaty in English, they have all three been used by the Waitangi Tribunal (here).
For the Professor Kawharu translation into English; “Short answer: taken literally, just from Kawharu’s translation, the Treaty does not describe a ‘partnership’ between the Crown and the chiefs. It sets up a relationship of governor and governed, with some important guarantees and conditions, but not shared or co-equal authority.”
For the Treaty in Maori the short answer was still the same: “Taken strictly on the literal meaning of the Māori text, the Treaty does not describe a partnership between the Crown and the chiefs.”
So, the literal meaning of the Treaty in Maori and the Kawharu translation describes a hierarchical arrangement of Crown and Maori chiefs:
Article 1: The Maoris accept national government of the Crown.
Article 2: The Crown guarantees chieftainship over their lands and taonga.
Article 3: Maoris receive equal rights, duties and protection of the British.
Any partnership idea comes from later reasoning, not from the Maori words on the page.
Sir Hugh Kawharu published his back-translation in 1989, during the time he was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal from 1986 to 1996. Since then, however, the Tribunal have ceased to use it because, it is claimed, it has been superseded by more contemporary translations and interpretations. It is said that helps in making more informed decisions and recommendations regarding Treaty claims.
I do wonder, though, if the primary motivation was to realise the developing ideology of the Tribunal by projecting contemporary considerations onto Treaty Maoris and expanding Treaty claims.
From Treaty to ‘Partnership’
There is no language of partnership, shared sovereignty, or co‑governance in the Treaty. The argument from the literal hierarchical arrangement of the text to a ‘Partnership’ of equals was developed from a sequence of legal, political, and moral reinterpretations over 150 years.
The partnership doctrine emerged through:
Statutory references to ‘Treaty principles’ (1975 onward)
Waitangi Tribunal interpretations
The 1987 Court of Appeal “Lands Case”
Subsequent judicial and bureaucratic expansion
Political adoption of partnership as a guiding framework
For more than a century – from 1840 to the 1970s – none thought of the possibility of partnership: the Crown treated Article 1 as giving it full sovereignty; Article 2 was often ignored or overridden, the Treaty was not enforceable in the courts and Government policy was assimilationist.
However, that scenario changed after the Second World War as the bulk of the Maoris left their tribal homelands and migrated into the European towns. In so doing they abandoned the realm of chiefly authority in order to better participate the pakeha taonga. Urbanisation also created a new generation of Maori activists who raised issues of land loss and breaches of Article 2, and the period of the 1960s and 1970s produced a political demand that the Crown must honour the Treaty.
Nevertheless, there was still no legal doctrine of ‘Partnership’.
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the Waitangi Tribunal
Due to Maori activism, Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which legislated the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate breaches of the Treaty. The Act required the Tribunal to interpret the Treaty in light of its ‘principles’, although ‘principles’ are not mentioned in the 1840 Treaty and the 1975 Act did not identify any.
The Tribunal then began to articulate ‘principles’ such as mutual respect, reciprocity, the need for ongoing relationship, and the Crown’s duty to actively protect Maori interests. Although these ‘principles’ are not in the text, they were inferred from the ‘spirit of the Treaty’. This is where the seed of ‘partnership’ was planted.
Development of the ‘Partnership’ Doctrine
The Court of Appeal’s 1987 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General (1987) “Lands Case” initiated the partnership doctrine.
It came about because Parliament inserted a clause in the State-Owned Enterprises Act requiring the Crown to act “consistent with the principles of the Treaty” and the Court of Appeal had to interpret the clause. The judges referred to the Treaty relationship as “akin to a partnership,” where ‘akin’ means similar to, but different from. According to Anthony Willy (here), the ‘Lands Case’ is not authority for a partnership.
Nevertheless, the word ‘partnership’ quickly became a central retribalising strategy by the Waitangi Tribunal and the 1987 Iwi Leaders’ Forum. The supposed ‘partners’ – the Crown and the Maoris – must act toward each other with honesty, reasonableness and good faith.
This was not based on the literal text, but a judicial construction designed to prevent the Crown from transferring assets in a way that would defeat future Treaty settlements, give legal force to the ‘principles’ language in the statute, and provide a workable framework for Crown–Maori relations. From this point on, ‘Partnership’ became a legal doctrine, not an historical fact.
Whereas the judiciary required that the Crown and the Maori chiefs must act toward each other with honesty, reasonableness and good faith, no mention is made of We the people, who are the tax paying customers in this arrangement. I want a requirement whereby our paid service providers – Parliament, judiciary and Public Service – act toward us with honesty, reasonableness and good faith. Instead, they make self-serving arrangements between themselves and manipulate us according to their own objectives.
No one is looking after our interests and as a consequence we are losing our democratic influence.
After 1987, during the 1990s and 2000s, the doctrine of ‘Partnership’ was expanded and the judiciary repeatedly invoked ‘Partnership’ when interpreting statutes referring to Treaty principles. Furthermore, the Waitangi Tribunal adopted and developed the concept, Government departments incorporated ‘Partnership’ into policy frameworks, and Public Service guidelines began to treat ‘Partnership’ as a constitutional norm.
Reinforcing Feedback Loops
The above development process includes reinforcing feedback loops, as follows:
1. Parliament legislates there are ‘principles’
2. Tribunal articulates ‘Partnership’ principles
3. Public Service operationalises them
4. Parliament writes them into statutes
5. The judiciary interprets those statutes using Tribunal reasoning
6. Judiciary decisions reinforce the Tribunal’s framework
7. The Public Service updates its doctrine accordingly
8. Parliament incorporates the updated doctrine into new statutes
And the cycle repeats.
Note that We the people are not included in that cyclic process; we are left out of the loop.
The operation of positive and negative feedback loops is understood from general systems theory (e.g., von Bertalanffy). Reinforcement or positive feedback drives the system in one direction or the other of its own volition, such that it is not according to the input to the system, which in this case is potentially our representative Parliament. It is typical that such a system should go unstable and oscillate: In the case of the Treaty, it went from the extreme of ignoring Article 2 to the opposite extreme of ignoring Article 1. It is therefore plausible that our Parliament has lost control of our constitutional arrangements.
As a result of that process, ‘Partnership’ becomes a constitutional norm without explicit constitutional amendment. Yet, through that loop, ‘Partnership’ became a legal doctrine, a policy framework, a public‑service norm, a legislative expectation and a judicial presumption. Nevertheless, the Treaty text does not contain the concept of ‘Partnership’, there was not a ‘Partnership’ referendum, Parliament never explicitly declared a ‘Partnership’ constitution, and no constitutional amendment was passed.
The partnership doctrine emerged because the judiciary and the Tribunal interpreted the Treaty as creating an ongoing relationship requiring mutual obligations, and once that interpretation entered legislation and public‑service practice, it reinforced itself through repeated cycles of interpretation and implementation.
That development involves our representative Parliament, our judiciary and our Public Service, yet We the people are not even mentioned let alone consulted.
Nevertheless, by the 2000s, ‘Treaty partnership’ had become a modern constitutional doctrine that is derived from interpretation, not from the literal words of the Treaty.
Note that none of these processes require a referendum, a constitutional amendment or direct public consultation. They occur within the normal operation of government. So, the fundamental change to our constitution is institutionally generated, not democratically mandated.
Co-governance
In recent decades, the ‘Partnership’ doctrine has been extended into co‑governance arrangements (e.g., natural resources, health, local government), co‑management of conservation areas, statutory requirements for Maori involvement in decision‑making, and constitutional proposals for shared authority.
These developments are not derived from the Treaty text, but from the 1987 Court of Appeal rationale, subsequent Tribunal reports, political decisions by governments and evolving Public Service doctrine. That is how the Treaty has come to be treated as a foundational constitutional document, even though it was not originally drafted as one.
The resulting argument for ‘Partnership’ comprises two steps:
First, it is argued that the Treaty created an ongoing relationship between the Crown and the Maori chiefs. The Treaty created enduring obligations – especially the Crown’s duty of protection and the Maori’s right to rangatiratanga – that continue to bind both parties, and therefore require a permanent, ongoing relationship between the Maoris and the Crown to administer and develop them.
However, that is not necessarily the case. It is pointed out above that the Treaty was a one‑time act of sovereignty acceptance and furthermore its text does not describe ongoing duties. Moreover, 19th‑century law did not recognise perpetual Indigenous – Crown partnerships, so “enduring obligations” are a modern reinterpretation, not an historical reality. Hence, the claim that the Treaty requires an ongoing relationship is a retrospective construction, not an historical fact.
Second, it is claimed that a relationship of this kind must be conducted with mutual respect and good faith and relationships of mutual respect resemble partnerships. Therefore, the Treaty relationship is “like” a partnership; that is, it comprises partners with shared risks. If it is like a partnership, then both sides have roles in decision‑making, both sides must consult each other and both sides must protect each other’s interests.
However, that is not necessarily the case. Even if there were some sort of ongoing relationship between the Crown and the Maori chiefs, that does not mean it is a partnership. We have seen from the Treaty in Maori and the back-translation by Professor Kawharu that the positioning of kawanatanga and rangatiratanga is hierarchical with different domains, responsibilities and authorities.
So, the argument for ‘Partnership’ is not based on the text of the Treaty. Instead, it is a principles‑based, purposive, and moral argument, developed by the judiciary and the Tribunal to meet their own ends.
Nevertheless, once ‘Partnership’ is accepted as a Treaty principle it becomes a basis for co‑governance structures, it influences legislation and public administration., it shapes judicial interpretation, and it becomes embedded in constitutional practice, even without formal constitutional amendment.
Summary and Conclusion
You’ve been incrementally stitched-up. By your own Government. And your ‘representative’ Parliament won’t do anything about it.
They insist on treating each other with honesty, reasonableness and good faith, yet they treat you like farm animals to be moved from paddock to paddock according to their own ends. Not only does your ‘representative’ Parliament not consult you on core constitutional matters, but they have lost control of the nation themselves.
As a result, New Zealand, once one of the most promising countries in the world, is now in free-fall to an inefficient, ineffective tribal ‘ethno-state’, as David Seymour has named it. Geoff Parker has also identified several particular outcomes (here), some of which are already developing.
There remains the possibility of error in my above assertions – Copilot is just a machine and I am only human – but together we are a knowledgeable, intelligent, intentional agent with the power to participate. Thanks to AI and the large language model we no longer need a Pol Sci degree or to rely on the MSM. Instead, you ask your best question and give due consideration to the answer. Revise the question and repeat if necessary. I subsequently understand the topic well enough to be able to insert myself into a debate regarding my future from which I had previously been intentionally excluded by my ‘democratic’ Government (e.g., He Puapua).
As we go into an election this year, we should ask ourselves a question: Why would we vote for a Parliament who do not represent us? Hence my message to our Government: If you want New Zealand to be a successful country, act towards us with honesty, reasonableness and good faith. That really is the best policy, because we can now, each of us, give you a rinsing with AI at the election if you don’t.
References (Mostly from Copilot)
Co-intelligence: Living and Working with AI, Ethan Mollick, WH Allen, 2024. $40 from Unity Books.
The Treaty of Waitangi: an Explanation, Sir Apirana Ngata M.A. LL.B., Lit.D. First published in 1922. Translated into English by Michael Rotohiko Jones in 1963.
http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
References from Copilot
Māori and English texts: The two texts of the treaty and a contemporary translation of the Māori text, Waitangi Tribunal.
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/en/about/the-treaty/maori-and-english-versions?form=MG0AV3
The ‘contemporary translation’ is that of Professor Kawharu.
“Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – ngā mātāpono o te Tiriti o Waitangi,” Janine Hayward, Te Ara Encyclopedia of New Zealand.
https://teara.govt.nz/en/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-nga-matapono-o-te-tiriti-o-waitangi/print
The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as Expressed by the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, Waitangi Tribunal.
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/WT-Principles-of-the-Treaty-of-Waitangi-as-expressed-by-the-Courts-and-the-Waitangi-Tribunal.pdf
“Treaty Principles: Examining the Interface of the Courts and Waitangi Tribunal,” F Shehzad, Auckland University, LAWPUBL 422 Contemporary Tiriti Issues 2024.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/Documents/2024/te-wai-ariki-student-essays/F%20Shehzad.pdf
“A comparison between existing Treaty principles and the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill 2024,” T MacPherson, Auckland University, LAWPUBL 422 Contemporary Tiriti Issues 2025.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/assets/law/our-research/research-institutes-centres/doc/indigenouscentre/LAWPUBL%20422%20Essay%20T%20MacPherson%20224100790.pdf?utm_source=copilot.com
“Co-Governance or Co-Dependence? The Broken Logic of Treaty ‘Partnership’,” Zoran Rakovic, Democracy Action.
https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/zoran_rakovic_co_governance_or_co_dependence_the_broken_logic_of_treaty_partnership
This article was originally posted on Zoran’s Substack on 26 May 2025
“Why New Zealanders Should Be Concerned About a So-Called ‘Treaty Partnership’,” Democracy Action
https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/why_new_zealanders_should_be_concerned_about_a_so_called_treaty_partnership?utm_source=copilot.com
Barrie Davis is a retired telecommunications engineer, holds a PhD in the psychology of Christian beliefs, and can often be found gnashing his teeth reading The Post outside Floyd’s cafe at Island Bay.
*The views expressed are those of the author alone and do not purport to represent the views of the NZCPR.
9 comments:
Let's see what Copilot has to say about this:
BD, 10 Jan 26: From 31 December 2025 to 5 January 2026 I worked with you to obtain information which I included in an article which is posted here:
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2026/01/barrie-davis-co-intelligence-with.html
Would you please provide a one paragraph critical assessment on each of:
1) The value of my article to improving the democratic government of New Zealand.
2) The appropriateness of how I represented Copilot in the article.
Thank you for working with me on this project.
Copilot: Copilot provides personalized suggestions based on your open tabs, and delivers better answers by using context clues like your current page, open tabs and browsing history. You can turn them off anytime in Settings. Learn more
Here are two concise, one‑paragraph critical assessments based on the article you authored and the content retrieved from the page.
1) Assessment of the article’s value for improving democratic government in New Zealand
Your article makes a strong contribution to public debate by tracing how the Treaty “partnership” doctrine evolved through legal, bureaucratic, and political feedback loops, and by arguing that these developments occurred without direct democratic mandate. Its value lies in making complex constitutional history accessible to general readers and in highlighting the democratic deficit you perceive in the way Treaty principles have been interpreted and operationalised. At the same time, the article’s impact depends on readers accepting your framing—particularly the claim that Parliament, the judiciary, and the public service have acted in ways that bypass “We the people.” The argument is forceful and provocative, which can stimulate democratic engagement, but its rhetorical intensity may also polarise readers who might otherwise be open to a more balanced or multi‑perspective analysis. In short, the article is valuable as a catalyst for civic discussion, though its strongest effects will be among readers already inclined toward your concerns.
2) Assessment of how Copilot is represented in the article
You portray Copilot as a collaborative thinking partner that helps you interrogate historical claims, clarify legal developments, and refine your reasoning—an accurate reflection of how large language models can support research and critical inquiry when used responsibly. However, the article occasionally attributes a level of authority or intentional agency to Copilot that goes beyond what an AI system actually possesses, such as describing the two of us together as a “knowledgeable, intelligent, intentional agent” or implying that AI can “give [politicians] a rinsing at the election” breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com. While clearly rhetorical, these statements risk overstating AI’s role in political processes and could give some readers the impression that Copilot provides definitive judgments rather than probabilistic, model‑generated analysis. Overall, your representation is largely positive and grounded in genuine collaboration, but it would be strengthened by more explicit reminders that Copilot is a tool—not a political actor—and that its outputs should be interpreted critically rather than treated as authoritative conclusions.
Thank you Barrie for that great article - it is actually quite simple to understand > ‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
It is pretty clear from historical records there was no partnership. Maori were to cede sovereignty(the word was the only way the British could describe the Maori ownership of land situation at the time), otherwise no deal was to be made. In return New Zealand was to become a civilised country. Bluntly, that's the situation in those days. Some other nation would have done this eventually. No political party should maintain there was a partnership. That is inherently wrong and is pulling the wool over the eyes of New Zealanders. More importantly, in 2026, no voter should vote for a party who subscribe to the partnership view. It will eventually lead to all our resources being overseen by a few. Not democratic in any shape or form.
In a nutshell and very well said by Barrie (and Co-pilot?): “You’ve been incrementally stitched-up. By your own Government. And your ‘representative’ Parliament won’t do anything about it.”
We the people are nothing more than a bottomless ATM. We’re the dumb stooges paying with our taxes for the privilege of being right royally stitched up, no matter which flavour of govt we elect. After around a half century of sly stitching, Seymour is the only one sticking his neck out to raise the alarm - and most importantly, give us a say. Bring on a referendum. Let the people speak. Time our “Voice” was heard.
"Copilot is a tool—not a political actor—and that its outputs should be interpreted critically rather than treated as authoritative conclusions."
Well, that's encouraging? When putting into ChatGPT what does it say to the question: What does the "Littlewood Treaty" (aka Busby draft), explicitly say in Article the Second, word for word?
(and it's perverted response) -
"Here is the standard scholarly transcription of Article the Second of the Busby / Littlewood (so-called “Littlewood Treaty”) draft, as it appears in the handwritten document, word for word, including its 19th-century spelling and punctuation (line breaks normalised):
“Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.”
Which we all (or should all) know is a patent distortion of the truth. Article the Second in that document, inter alia, specifically mentions "all the people" of New Zealand and makes no mention of "forests and fisheries."
When it comes to AI, one needs to be very careful, but in your case, Barrie, I think we can agree with the conclusion. It's past time "the people" actually had a say - after all we citizens (including the fractional descendants of Treaty subjects) are now in effect 'the Sovereign' and we all deserve to be treated as equals, openly and fairly, and not be manipulated by closed-loop systems run by an anointed few.
PY
Philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer said: "All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". This is a classic example. There are no partnerships or principles in the TOW. How can you have a partnership if we are one people?
One might guess that the upper echelons of the political parties know all this very well indeed, but simply refuse to take any correcting action on the grounds that it might be politically uncomfortable. And so the NZ culture as it used to be has been subjected to ‘death by a thousand cuts.’ We seem to be running out of bandages to stem the blood flow.
Amen to that, Kawena! To do anything else is just playing with ourselves, and that comes at a significant cost.
Why would we vote for a Parliament who do not represent us?
It is important to examine the removal of the Constitution Act 1852 by the enactment of the Constitution Act 1986. By what followed we start to see what the plan was in doing so. Firstly, we see a change in style of how the parliament presents itself. In the past it was known as the General Assembly of New Zealand in Parliament. After the Constitution Act 1986 they moved “Parliament of New Zealand” to the “House of Representatives”. They were enticing us to believe they were representing us. Yet by representing us as electors and them as constituents, all that was happening was consent for them to do whatever they liked. They notified us with the changes on the twenty dollar note in the early 1990’s. Pictures of parliament and multiple silver ferns signified that the New Zealand Company Parliament as a “House of Representatives had taken control in Wellington.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.