AI told me that evaluating whether the review is the "correct" course of action involves navigating one of the most significant, complex, and deeply polarizing constitutional debates in modern New Zealand history.
This is because "correctness" in public policy is subjective and depends entirely on one's foundational political, legal, and social values, there is no universal consensus.
Instead, the issue is best understood by looking at the two primary, competing perspectives held by different segments of the New Zealand public.
Proponents of the review—including the current coalition government parties (National, ACT, and New Zealand First)—argue that reviewing and redefining Treaty clauses is necessary for the following reasons:
1. Supporters argue that the interpretation of treaty principles has shifted too far away from the original text of the Treaty of Waitangi. They contend that courts, state agencies, and tribunals have gradually expanded these principles over decades, effectively creating public policy without a mandate from elected members of Parliament.
2. A core argument for the review is the principle of legal equality. Proponents argue that the current application of Treaty principles has led to a "two-tier" citizenship or co-governance models that divide New Zealanders by race. A uniform legal framework ensures that all citizens have identical rights before the law, regardless of ancestry.
3. Over time, varied and vague Treaty clauses have been inserted into dozens of different acts. This has created legal uncertainty, bureaucratic delays, and expensive litigation for infrastructure, resource management, and public services. A comprehensive review aims to streamline legislation and provide clear rules for businesses and public agencies.
Opponents of the review—including iwi leaders, Maori organisations, legal scholars, and opposition parties—argue that the review is deeply damaging and legally flawed for the following reasons:
1. Critics view the review as a unilateral attempt by the Crown to alter a foundational constitutional agreement without the consent of its treaty partner (Maori). They argue that the treaty established a partnership based on good faith, and rewriting its terms via majority parliamentary vote undermines national unity.
2. The principles of the Treaty have been carefully defined and refined over 50 years by the judiciary, the Waitangi Tribunal, and successive governments. Legal experts argue that discarding or weakening these established interpretations creates severe legal instability, risks rolling back Maori rights, and ignores the historic context of structural disadvantage.
3. Opponents point out that the review has sparked widespread protests, deep racial division, and social friction across New Zealand. They argue that targeting provisions designed to protect vulnerable indigenous rights, language, and resources (taonga) harms the well-being of Māori and fractures the broader social fabric of the country.
My view is that the carefully constructed partnership edifice, based on a re-written treaty and treaty principles, in which power and money flow only on one direction, which is towards the tribal “partners”, should be deconstructed.
Instead, the issue is best understood by looking at the two primary, competing perspectives held by different segments of the New Zealand public.
Proponents of the review—including the current coalition government parties (National, ACT, and New Zealand First)—argue that reviewing and redefining Treaty clauses is necessary for the following reasons:
1. Supporters argue that the interpretation of treaty principles has shifted too far away from the original text of the Treaty of Waitangi. They contend that courts, state agencies, and tribunals have gradually expanded these principles over decades, effectively creating public policy without a mandate from elected members of Parliament.
2. A core argument for the review is the principle of legal equality. Proponents argue that the current application of Treaty principles has led to a "two-tier" citizenship or co-governance models that divide New Zealanders by race. A uniform legal framework ensures that all citizens have identical rights before the law, regardless of ancestry.
3. Over time, varied and vague Treaty clauses have been inserted into dozens of different acts. This has created legal uncertainty, bureaucratic delays, and expensive litigation for infrastructure, resource management, and public services. A comprehensive review aims to streamline legislation and provide clear rules for businesses and public agencies.
Opponents of the review—including iwi leaders, Maori organisations, legal scholars, and opposition parties—argue that the review is deeply damaging and legally flawed for the following reasons:
1. Critics view the review as a unilateral attempt by the Crown to alter a foundational constitutional agreement without the consent of its treaty partner (Maori). They argue that the treaty established a partnership based on good faith, and rewriting its terms via majority parliamentary vote undermines national unity.
2. The principles of the Treaty have been carefully defined and refined over 50 years by the judiciary, the Waitangi Tribunal, and successive governments. Legal experts argue that discarding or weakening these established interpretations creates severe legal instability, risks rolling back Maori rights, and ignores the historic context of structural disadvantage.
3. Opponents point out that the review has sparked widespread protests, deep racial division, and social friction across New Zealand. They argue that targeting provisions designed to protect vulnerable indigenous rights, language, and resources (taonga) harms the well-being of Māori and fractures the broader social fabric of the country.
My view is that the carefully constructed partnership edifice, based on a re-written treaty and treaty principles, in which power and money flow only on one direction, which is towards the tribal “partners”, should be deconstructed.
15 comments:
Get rid of Luxon who clearly approves of racial division in NZ.
Get rid of the bloody Treaty - that caused so much harm to NZ and will continue to do so indefinitely.
"Should be deconstructed" Must be deconstructed.
Well and succinctly expressed Mike. I cling to the belief that there exists a solid core of common sense like yours, which surely will prevail over the woke and the apathetic in this country. Hopefully ACT - and to a lesser extent, NZF will win a stronger voice within the Luxon-led government, which has been dishonest in its claim to rectify this racist division.
Quite right, Mike.
The Crown is no longer the Crown as it existed in 1840. and Maori are no longer the Maori that existed in 1840. Maori had no sovereignty to cede and the purpose of the Treaty, which was never a "partnership", has long since served its original intent. It may have been founded on the principle of the utmost good faith, but the realty is now very different and any that existed has long since dissipated.
It should now be put to the people that make this nation - are we to go forward 'as one' (with equality before the law for all, and consign the Treaty to a Museum), or forever be divided (leaving the current ToW legislation intact, whereby unsatisfied grievances will forever continue to fester)?
Luxon and Willis do not have the guts to go anywhere near this subject nor do they think they should. They need to be a minor party of the next govt.
I really hope Act and NZ First pick up this subject and run with it for the election.
The country would be so much better off if we could move on
I heard Luxon talking with Jamie McKay at lunchtime.
Asked a direct question about race, Luxon just ducked the question as though he never heard it, and then waffled on about how well he personally was doing with the economy.
And that is exactly why Luxon can not be trusted again.
We believed him 3 years ago, he lied to us, and has point blank refused to even talk about the greatest issue besetting NZ.
I have reached a stage , probably like many NZers, who flinch at the sound of his voice - just the same as Ardern's, or Hipkins.
Everything and anything can break principles, not just treaty principles. That's why intelligent people know to avoid vague terms such as 'principles '.
What is sparking a national division is the push to make the Maori culture a dominant one in New Zealand. Or at least to explore this niche for personal gains. When a job description for an engineering position start with requirements on ToW and Maori language instead of competencies and experience, this is not about protecting a native language and culture. Like somebody said - the year in not 1840. Time to speak up.
The question is not whether the Treaty has principles but whether our politicians have principles. Commenters have covered this well,"let's move on"," it's not the same Maori" .
"We are not the same country as in 1840".
I don't know what the principles are or where they appear in the Treaty. It's like inserting modern principles into the Declaration of Independence".
Luxon needs to understand "Get out of politics now" ... and disappear.. asap !!! Go an live with Ardern in Oz... anywhere but NZ..
Seems pretty simple to me.Both parties of a Treaty need to negotiate and agree.
The Treaty does not apply in NZ today as we are not one, and there are no Maori left in NZ, just various mixes of DNA, ALL of which is from places other than NEW ZEALAND.. Abolish the ToW, abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, repeal the Waitangi Act, abolish the part-Maori reserved seats in Parliament. Replace all the above, and hence forestall further lies, deceit, the gravy-train, by the simple expedient of an Act that states all NZers are equal before the law. End of story, end of gravy-train, end of waste of scarce resources: productive time, money, labour. Maybe then the country can start earning itself a living.
My understanding is that if the parties to a Treaty do not agree with what they believe it means; it is null and void. Great we disagree. Let’s move forward and rip up the ToW.
Hear, hear anon@6.27. It was never a 'true' Treaty anyway, as the Maori didn't have a sovereign nation to enter one. Any disagreement now only further undermines its status and its time we removed it from all legislation.
In this very challenging 21st Century, this country needs unity not division.
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.