Breaking Views: NZCPR Newsletter: Waitangi Day 2026

As New Zealand commemorates 186 years since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi it is important to remember exactly what the Treaty signifies.

It was an agreement between the British Crown and Maori chiefs, that was presented and signed on behalf of Queen Victoria on February 6th 1840 by Captain William Hobson, acting as her Consul. The venue was the Waitangi farm of the first official British Resident, James Busby – on the lawn in front of the residence.

While 43 chiefs signed on the day, after the Treaty was transported around the country to gather signatures, the final tally was over 500.

On 21 May 1840, Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson proclaimed British sovereignty over all of New Zealand – the North Island on the basis of cession through the Treaty of Waitangi, and the South and Stewart Islands by right of discovery.

In response to the on-going debate about the meaning of the Treaty, in 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata, the country’s first Maori lawyer and a long-serving Member of Parliament wrote an explanation of the Maori translation of the Treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. His explanation was held in such high regard that in 1963 the government had it translated into English by the country’s leading Maori translator and both versions were distributed to all Maori families.

In his Explanation, Sir Apirana describes how the ‘Heading’ sets out ‘the reasons for the making of the Treaty’:

“Victoria, the Queen of England, in Her feeling of affection towards the Chiefs of the Tribes of New Zealand and in Her desire to retain for them their Chieftainships and also that peace may reign and they live happily, has thought it wise to send a High Personage as her representative to negotiate with the Maori people of New Zealand, the Maori Chiefs, to agree to the Government of the Queen having access to all parts of the land including the islands. This is by reason of the fact, that so many members of Her race were living in this land, and many more were coming. Now, the Queen has thought it good to send me, William Hobson, a Captain of the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand, to be ceded now and for ever to the Queen and she invites the Chiefs of the assembled tribes of New Zealand and other Chiefs to accept the following provisions.”

He then quotes ‘the words of the first article of the Treaty of Waitangi’: “The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government of all of their lands.”

He quotes ‘the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi’: “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes and all their possessions…”

And ‘the third article of the Treaty’: “In consideration thereof, Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal Protection, and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects.”

In other words, the Treaty of Waitangi delivered British sovereignty, protected property rights, and granted Maori the full rights of British citizenship – including the protection of British law.

Over the years, however, the Treaty has been re-interpreted to mean something entirely different.

Following a Court of Appeal decision in the 1987 Lands Case, where a Judge used the phrase “as if in partnership” as a metaphor for good faith, there has been an on-going campaign to reframe the Treaty as a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown.

Maori rights activists in political parties, the public service, the courts, academia, the media, and advocacy groups, claim the Maori translation, “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”, guarantees “Partnership, Participation, and Protection”. And as a result, official references to the “Treaty of Waitangi” are being systematically replaced with the re-interpreted political version, Te Tiriti.

But these actions do not withstand historical nor constitutional scrutiny.

A ‘partnership’ requires two corporate entities capable of entering into a joint governance arrangement. But in 1840, there was no national Maori collective capable of doing so.

Nor was there anything in the Treaty’s text to suggest a “partnership” – the word does not appear in either the English or Maori versions.

And this, of course, is why Sir Apirana Ngata’s Explanation is so valuable. If the Maori version of the Treaty had contained anysuggestion of a ‘partnership’, he would have mentioned it. Instead, his explanation is the antithesis of a partnership: Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown and became equal citizens with everyone else.

In New Zealand, the Crown is the single, indivisible sovereign authority of the state – the sole source of law, the holder of executive power, and the institution to which all citizens owe allegiance.

If the Crown were to “partner” with Maori, it would no longer be sovereign but would instead share governance with Maori.

The effect of such a ‘partnership’ would be to replace Crown authority with 50:50 co‑governance divided along racial lines – a bastardised version of democracy that no other nation in the world has been foolish enough to entertain.

This separatist takeover is being attempted without the consent of the public: New Zealanders need to wake up to what’s going on and decide whether they want their country governed by a single, democratically accountable sovereign, or by two parallel authorities defined by race.

Let’s be honest about what ‘partnership’ entails. While it sounds benign, it’s not. A Treaty “partnership” would mean tribal totalitarianism, veto rights and race‑based rule. All the power would ultimately be in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable Maori elite.

It hardly needs stating, but the consequences of going down this path would be devastating – democracy would be crushed and the very foundation of our social structure, destroyed.

A recent example highlights the direction in which all of this is heading. It involves protest action by the northern Ngatiwai tribe in October last year, when they landed on the highly protected Poor Knights Islands, erected a flagpole and cemented in a carved wooden post as a “direct challenge to Crown sovereignty.”

Multiple laws were broken that day including the Marine Reserves Act 1971 and the Reserves Act 1977. By erecting structures, they should have been subjected to penalties of up to two years jail and a fine of up to $100,000 – or $200,000 for a company.

Under the Official Information Act, the Department of Conservation was asked why Ngatiwai was not prosecuted for their “unauthorised landing”.

The response from Senior DOC Adviser Matiu Mataira is alarming.

He firstly explained, “This decision is grounded in our obligations under Section 4 of the Conservation Act 1987, which requires us to interpret and administer the Act in a way that gives effect to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

He then went on to claim, “Enforcement in this context could: Undermine Treaty principles of partnership, active protection, and redress. Damage the relationship between DOC and Ngatiwai, which is vital for ongoing conservation efforts. Compromise DOC’s credibility and integrity as a Treaty partner…”

And to justify their refusal to prosecute, he stated: “This decision does not diminish the importance of our protocols—it reflects a broader responsibility to uphold both ecological and Treaty values.”

In other words, instead of taking legal action against Ngatiwai for their blatant breach of conservation law, DOC claimed enforcement action would undermine their Treaty “partnership”, damage their “relationship”, and compromise DOC’s credibility as a Treaty “partner.”

This shows DOC now regards its primary duty is not to the law, the public, or the conservation estate, but to a political reinterpretation of the Treaty that elevates “relationships” above statutory obligations.

This is not what Section 4 of the Conservation Act requires. Section 4 does not authorise DOC to ignore illegal activity, nor create race‑based exemptions from prosecution. And it most certainly does not turn the department into a “Treaty partner.”

This incident is not isolated. It’s indicative of how the Treaty ‘partnership’ is being used across the public sector to override legislation, avoid accountability, and normalise co‑governance.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Fiona Mackenzie explains how DOC is undermining the public conservation estate and warns that a new Bill, that is expected to be passed this year, will make the situation even worse:

“DOC administers one-third of New Zealand’s landmass. This estate has been held by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders for conservation, recreation, and public benefit. Over the past three decades, however, DOC has increasingly transformed from a public-oriented agency into a mechanism for embedding tribal control, preferential access, and commercial opportunity.

“Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to foot the bill — funding tribal-controlled visitor centres, tribal legal challenges, tribal maintenance staff, and DOC staff whose roles are dedicated to advancing tribal interests.

“The principle of democratic accountability has been inverted: the public pays, while authority and revenues are progressively transferred to unelected, hereditary, or self-selecting tribal elites.

“The Conservation Acts (Land Management) Amendment Bill, expected to pass by mid-2026, hastens this trajectory. Rather than restoring democratic oversight, these reforms hard-wire identity-based authority in conservation law.”

The big question is, how has this false “partnership” claim been given such power and authority that it is now redirecting public institutions for the benefit of Maori instead of the common good?

The reality is that the Treaty “partnership” claim is gaining traction not because it’s correct, but because of how deeply it has been embedded inside public institutions.

This was orchestrated by the Ardern Labour Government through a mass indoctrination campaign run by the newly established Office of Maori-Crown Relations – an agency co-governed by tribal leaders – in order to create the illusion of legal authority, where none exists.

The partnership doctrine was normalised throughout the bureaucracy and came to shape everything from conservation policy to resource management, health, education, and local government. And while that Office has now been disestablished by the Coalition, the Treaty ‘partnership’ requirements it spread across the public service remain firmly in place.

Defeating this subversive campaign to replace democracy with tribal rule, requires rejecting Treaty partnership claims at every turn and repeating the simple truth that the Treaty created one sovereign authority, protected property rights, and granted equal citizenship — nothing more.

Furthermore, public agencies must be held to account. Instead of allowing departments like DOC to invoke a fictitious Treaty ‘partnership’ as a shield for differential treatment on the basis of race, the Coalition should require them to return to their statutory purpose and administer the law impartially.

Waitangi Day illustrated how urgent this has become: alongside the ranting and posturing from protesters and the tribal infighting, the orchestrated narrative was all about a Treaty partnership with the implication that it represents unity.

News reporters repeated it, activists claimed it and politicians – like Labour Leader Chris Hipkins – reinforced it. When asked, “Is Labour still committed to the idea of a partnership with Maori”, he responded: “Absolutely – it is the only way forward…”

So, heading into the 2026 election campaign, we now know that Labour remains strongly committed to a Treaty partnership – signalling an on-going commitment to their He Puapua roadmap to tribal rule by 2040.

Meanwhile the Coalition, in spite of claiming they are committed to equal rights and opposed to race-based law, is not doing nearly enough to protect New Zealand from the threat of tribal rule.

What they should be doing is removing the partnership doctrine – along with race and culture – entirely from the State sector in order to ensure public agencies refocus on their core responsibility of treating all New Zealanders equally under the law .

Unless the Coalition does this, the partnership lie will become an accepted truth, and our democracy will ultimately descend into darkness.

Please note: To register for our free weekly newsletter please click HERE.

THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:

*Would you like to see ACT and New Zealand First oppose the passing of the Conservation Acts (Land Management) Amendment Bill unless all race-based provisions are removed?