I have been talking to iwi leaders ... for the past 12 months.
— Christopher Luxon, April 2025
No reasonable New Zealander would object to the Prime Minister meeting Māori leaders. In a democratic country, governments should engage with all sectors of society. Farmers, business owners, unions, community groups, churches, environmental organisations and iwi all have a right to be heard.
The problem is not that Luxon met with iwi leaders.
The problem is that iwi leaders increasingly appear to enjoy a privileged position in shaping government policy, while many concerned New Zealanders are left wondering who is standing up for them.
The National Iwi Chairs Forum requested this meeting after objecting to the Government's review of Treaty clauses throughout legislation. Their complaint was that they had not been sufficiently consulted before Cabinet considered reforms.
Think about that for a moment.
The Government was elected by the people of New Zealand. It has a democratic mandate to review legislation. Yet iwi leaders are effectively arguing that government policy affecting all New Zealanders should not proceed without their approval or participation.
That is not democracy. That is the gradual elevation of one group above all others.
Christopher Luxon should be meeting with New Zealanders from every walk of life with the same enthusiasm he shows for iwi leadership. Where are the special forums for ratepayers concerned about co-governance? Where are the closed-door meetings with taxpayers who fund the growing network of race-based programmes? Where are the invitations to the millions of New Zealanders who simply believe that every citizen should have equal rights and equal political influence regardless of ancestry?
Many New Zealanders are becoming increasingly concerned about the steady expansion of Treaty-based provisions throughout government, local government, resource management, health, education and public administration. They see a growing system in which ethnicity determines influence, consultation rights, representation and access to public resources.
Yet on these concerns, Luxon remains largely silent.
Even more disappointing was his role in killing ACT's Treaty Principles Bill.
Whether one supported the Bill or opposed it, the proposal sought to answer a fundamental question: what are the principles that should govern the relationship between citizens and the state in modern New Zealand?
ACT argued that all New Zealanders should enjoy equal political rights and equal treatment under the law. Millions of New Zealanders supported at least having that debate.
Instead, Luxon shut it down.
By refusing to allow a meaningful national conversation about the Treaty and its place in modern governance, he sent a clear message. The political establishment was prepared to discuss almost anything except the growing influence of Treaty-based governance itself.
The result is that many New Zealanders now feel politically homeless. They watch as more powers, consultation requirements and decision-making influence flow toward tribal organisations, while politicians dismiss concerns about democratic equality as somehow unreasonable.
Luxon insists his Government is merely seeking clarity around Treaty clauses. If that is true, then why does he appear so reluctant to challenge the continual expansion of Treaty-based obligations throughout public life? And since when did iwi leaders become the final arbiters of what the Treaty means? The Treaty was drafted by representatives of the Crown, written first in English and then translated into Māori. Its interpretation affects the rights and responsibilities of every New Zealander. It should not be treated as the exclusive preserve of any one group.
The National Iwi Chairs Forum requested this meeting after objecting to the Government's review of Treaty clauses throughout legislation. Their complaint was that they had not been sufficiently consulted before Cabinet considered reforms.
Think about that for a moment.
The Government was elected by the people of New Zealand. It has a democratic mandate to review legislation. Yet iwi leaders are effectively arguing that government policy affecting all New Zealanders should not proceed without their approval or participation.
That is not democracy. That is the gradual elevation of one group above all others.
Christopher Luxon should be meeting with New Zealanders from every walk of life with the same enthusiasm he shows for iwi leadership. Where are the special forums for ratepayers concerned about co-governance? Where are the closed-door meetings with taxpayers who fund the growing network of race-based programmes? Where are the invitations to the millions of New Zealanders who simply believe that every citizen should have equal rights and equal political influence regardless of ancestry?
Many New Zealanders are becoming increasingly concerned about the steady expansion of Treaty-based provisions throughout government, local government, resource management, health, education and public administration. They see a growing system in which ethnicity determines influence, consultation rights, representation and access to public resources.
Yet on these concerns, Luxon remains largely silent.
Even more disappointing was his role in killing ACT's Treaty Principles Bill.
Whether one supported the Bill or opposed it, the proposal sought to answer a fundamental question: what are the principles that should govern the relationship between citizens and the state in modern New Zealand?
ACT argued that all New Zealanders should enjoy equal political rights and equal treatment under the law. Millions of New Zealanders supported at least having that debate.
Instead, Luxon shut it down.
By refusing to allow a meaningful national conversation about the Treaty and its place in modern governance, he sent a clear message. The political establishment was prepared to discuss almost anything except the growing influence of Treaty-based governance itself.
The result is that many New Zealanders now feel politically homeless. They watch as more powers, consultation requirements and decision-making influence flow toward tribal organisations, while politicians dismiss concerns about democratic equality as somehow unreasonable.
Luxon insists his Government is merely seeking clarity around Treaty clauses. If that is true, then why does he appear so reluctant to challenge the continual expansion of Treaty-based obligations throughout public life? And since when did iwi leaders become the final arbiters of what the Treaty means? The Treaty was drafted by representatives of the Crown, written first in English and then translated into Māori. Its interpretation affects the rights and responsibilities of every New Zealander. It should not be treated as the exclusive preserve of any one group.
The Treaty belongs to New Zealand's history, but its interpretation shapes New Zealand's future. That future affects every citizen, and the conversation should never be confined to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and iwi leaders alone.
His critics increasingly see a Prime Minister who talks about economic growth while avoiding the constitutional questions that concern many voters. They see a leader who appears more comfortable negotiating with iwi leaders than confronting the growing public unease about race-based governance.
Fair or unfair, that perception is becoming harder to ignore.
Christopher Luxon was elected to govern for all New Zealanders. Not just those with political influence. Not just those with Treaty settlements. Not just those with access to ministers and government departments.
All New Zealanders.
Until he demonstrates that commitment more clearly, many voters will continue to ask whether he and his ally Tama Potaka are merely managing the pace of constitutional change rather than challenging it.
And if that question continues to grow, Luxon may discover that silence carries a political cost of its own.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
7 comments:
Well said. I agree with everything you have said. But Mr Luxon is the leader of a party that has a history of being pro-Māori.
Simple answer. Vote ACT.
I completely agree with you Geoff. Luxon has no courage or he wants co governance. I live in his electorate. I for one will not vote for him if he does not change his position on this, this to me is more important than economic growth. It must be sorted.
Dont treat us as ignorant children who just dont understand. Who are you governing for ?????
Well said. Who well lead the charge?
This is what so many are questioning.
He appears to be captured by the elite.
Minister Potaka may have a conflict of interest as well.
Our left leaning friends contacted Willow Jean Prime when she was our MP about a matter. She said that if they were not Maori, she was not interested. You know, they could have been talking with PM Luxon as they might have received the same response. Yes, he has been captured by the Iwi elite, this has been obvious from the outset. If you contact a National MP you get the usual boilerplate BS and if you are raising the Maorification/cogovernance issue it is met with absolute silence!
Quite right, Geoff. The saying "It's the economy stupid" may be appropriate if everyone genuinely has equal opportunity and is pulling in the same direction, but a country divided by self-identification, involving different motivations and objectives, will not work. The economy will never truly prosper while this fundamental issue remains. There can be little doubt that PM Luxon's arrogance and failure to listen will rightly have its consequences for him and his Party. More's the pity, after the election, it could have wider reaching consequences for us all.
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.