Mike Butler: Waitangi heckles and what’s ahead

The squabbles and heckles at Waitangi on Thursday and Friday can be rooted to fear of losing preferential treatment, according to my chosen research assistant. However, there is a qualifier.

Maori reactions were framed in terms of losing what they say is treaty guaranteed status, tino rangatiratanga (chiefly authority), and partnership obligations.

The “preferential treatment” framing came from outside Māori communities (opinion columns, talkback radio, and social media commentary), not within them, my researcher said, and interpreted Maori reactions as defending special treatment, opposing equality, and resisting reform.

When asked, my intelligent helper said that treaty rights, treaty partnership, defence of tino rangatiratanga, did not amount to rights that New Zealanders without Maori ancestry cannot claim.

But my helper seemed to contradict itself by saying both that these rights were not extra rights, AND, that these rights amounted to recognition of political rights that “indigenous” people have because they were here first.

There was strong pushback against Government speeches on Waitangi week, as it has grown into. Prime Minister Chris Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour, and New Zealand First leader were all booed and heckled.

Tensions surged because government leaders went to Waitangi.

And at Waitangi on February 6, every year, for more than 50 years, as you may well know, a ragtag mob infiltrates the crowd to heckle, abuse, or try to drown out government speakers.

This year, in the absence of any other target, debate renewed over the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill. Advocates of the bill argue that:

• current Treaty principles have been shaped by courts and the Waitangi Tribunal rather than by Parliament, that
• the bill would reinforce equal citizenship and prevent what they saw as race based differentiation in public policy, and that
• the public is entitled have the final say on any principles by public referendum.

Opponents argue that the bill:

• rewrites the treaty,
• would erase tino rangatiratanga and the Crown’s obligations,
• destabilises established law,
• that courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have developed Treaty jurisprudence over decades,
• Replacing these principles would create legal chaos in health, education, resource management, and so on,
• breaches the “Treaty partnership”, and
• enflames racial division.

Coverage of Waitangi events split between Maori and mainstream outlets, according to my artificially intelligent worker who is able to access massive amounts of information at the click of a key.

RNZ Maori, Maori Television, Te Ao News focussed on the cultural significance of the pōwhiri, expected unity among Maori leaders, framed Te Pati Maori squabbling as a breach of tikanga and a distraction, treated heckling as a legitimate expression of frustration, and emphasised Maori leadership voices.

Mainstream media focussed on conflict, highlighted heckling and drama, and treated Te Pati Maori disarray as a spectacle, put the government at the centre.

"These were not just different angles", my helper opined, "the two media 'ecosystems' were reporting different stories – one constitutional and cultural and the other political".

The atmosphere at Waitangi this year “was shaped by the competing interpretations of the Treaty Principles Bill”.

ACT frames the bill as in the interest of equality, clarity and modernisation.

The National Party is cautious and is concerned about coalition management.

NZ First didn’t support the bill but is cautious about judicial overreach.

Labour frames the Bill as divisive and unnecessary.

The Greens frame the Bill as a direct attack on Te Tiriti and Maori rights.

Te Pati Maori frames the Bill as an existential threat to Maori political status.

Constitutional warnings from Maori legal scholars, fed directly into the mood on the ground. “What we saw at Waitangi was the emotional and political expression of those deeper tensions”.

Public opinion isn’t breaking into simple “for” and “against” camps. It’s splitting into four distinct blocs, each aligned with a different interpretation of the Bill.

The “One Law for All” bloc, which includes many ACT supporters, some New Zealand First voters, parts of the white centre-right, see the Treaty Principles Bill is about fairness and ending “race-based policy.”

The “Cautious Middle”, which includes moderate National voters and some Labour centrists, think the bill is risky, but debate is acceptable.

The “Treaty Partnership” bloc, which includes most Maori, Labour Maori caucus supporters, and Greens, think the bill undermines Te Tiriti and Maori status as partners.

The “Tino Rangatiratanga” bloc, which includes Te Pati Maori supporters and younger Maori activists, believe the Bill is an existential threat to Maori authority and identity.

Here’s how the four blocs will shape the next 12 months, my helper suggests:

The “One Law for All” bloc will ensure “treaty principles” remain a recurring flashpoint in election campaigns, talkback, and culture-war style politics.

The “Cautious Middle” will act as a brake. It won’t drive bold Treaty reform, but it will resist anything that looks like open constitutional rupture

The “Treaty Partnership” bloc will use the overwhelming gerrymandered opposition to the bill in submissions—about 90% opposed, 8% in support—as evidence that the public does not want to weaken Te Tiriti.

The “Tino Rangatiratanga” bloc treats the bill’s defeat as proof that mobilisation works— the 307,000+ submissions and extensive Maori opposition showed real organising power.