Dominic O'Sullivan: The Opportunity Party’s Treaty policy is closer to Labour than National. But is it a bottom line?

During the current parliamentary term, the debate over te Tiriti o Waitangi’s place in public life is arguably more polarised than at any time in the past 50 years.

But the parliamentary split on the issue could shift if the Opportunity Party becomes a player in forming the next government.

The most recent 1News Verian poll showed the party at 8%. If that holds, it would easily make it into parliament with nine seats.

Right now, three parties have put the Treaty at the centre of their campaigns – but for quite different reasons. Te Pāti Māori wants to restore and increase its influence. ACT and NZ First want to keep diminishing it.

If the Opportunity Party makes it on current numbers, it could keep all three out of government by doing a deal with Labour and the Greens.

National and Labour, for the most part, seem keen to avoid overtly campaigning on the Treaty. It’s not the main issue for their potential voters. Treaty policy contributed to Labour’s loss in 2023, and has made managing coalition partners ACT and NZ First a constant problem for Prime Minister Christopher Luxon.

And while he recently said he’d rather not have “some yahoo or numpty from some other party” around the cabinet table, he’s also ruled out working with Opportunity.

Opportunity and the Treaty

Opportunity calls itself a centrist party and says it could work with either Labour or National in government. But its “honouring te Tiriti” policy would seem to make working with ACT or NZ First very difficult.

However, there’s not much detail in its policy proposals, and no public record of candidate speeches on the Treaty. If the latest poll numbers were translated into seats, it would have one Māori list member. So far it has announced a candidate in only one Māori electorate, Waiariki.

Opportunity opposed ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill and says it would repeal the government’s Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Amendment Act, which tightened the legal test for Māori customary marine title.

It would support “equitable Treaty settlements”, more Māori language teachers in schools, and “include Aotearoa history, including te Tiriti, at all levels of the education system”.

Its most significant Treaty policy is to “support devolution of services – backed by real resources and autonomy – in key areas where outcomes are unequal, especially health and justice”.

This looks like rangatiratanga (political authority) of some sort, though it’s not clear just how far this would go. Equitable is also a vague term. Equitable to whom?

Opportunity’s criminal justice policy is to “be smart on crime”. Again, this isn’t defined, but given the disproportionate number of Māori within the criminal justice system, maybe there’s a connection with “honouring Te Tiriti”?

It would be helpful if the party said more – just as each of its policy priorities needs greater scrutiny.

For example, its proposed land value tax – 1.5% of the value of urban land and 0.75% for rural land – is intended to shift the tax burden from work to wealth, and fund a universal basic income to replace welfare benefits.

But rangatiratanga would suggest the tax shouldn’t apply to Māori land – unless, perhaps, the revenue is earmarked for spending by Māori for Māori purposes. The party doesn’t say.

This may be hypothetical, as Labour, National and ACT have all said they wouldn’t let the land tax policy into government.

What policies are for sale?

Opportunity says policy should be led by evidence, not ideology. In policy discussions, “ideology” is often a byword for zealotry. Yet the meaning of the Treaty is a deeply philosophical question. Evidence only helps once we know what we want to do.

Opportunity proposes citizens’ assemblies to help make hard, long-term policy decisions. Members would be chosen at random to weigh up the views of different experts, debate options, and use collective reasoning – rather than political calculation and point scoring – to make decisions.

From a Treaty perspective, citizens assemblies raise real concerns – Māori views could be crowded out, equal tikanga (cultural values and the right way of doing things) might not be upheld. But these are not insurmountable, and the idea also has real possibilities.

As I discuss in my recent book Te Tiriti, Equality and the Future of New Zealand Democracy, assemblies bring Māori people together with others as equal citizens, not as the Crown’s “junior partner”. A voice in public policy that’s not mediated by the Crown could be a stronger voice.

Like some of Opportunity’s other positions, citizens’ assemblies and a Treaty policy based on Māori self-responsibility are not inherently left or right. They can be defended and critiqued from either perspective.

But what other parties make of them is still important. Luxon has said National won’t work with Opportunity because of its tax and universal basic income policies. ACT says it might entertain a confidence and supply agreement, but Opportunity would have to drop its tax and basic income commitments.

Labour and NZ first have ruled each other out, with Labour also distancing itself from Te Pāti Māori. And given Opportunity’s wish to “dial down the anger” in politics, it would seem a difficult match for ACT and NZ First especially.

But Opportunity has also suggested its land tax policy is a longer-term goal that would not be a bottom line in coalition negotiations. We have to ask, then, is its commitment to “honouring te Tiriti” any different?

Dominic is a Professor of political science at Charles Sturt University and Adjunct Professor in the Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences at the Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.