There is certainly nothing illegitimate about debating constitutional reform. New Zealand has no single written constitution, and questions about the relationship between Parliament, the courts, the Treaty and fundamental rights deserve serious public discussion. Those are legitimate constitutional questions.
But something considerably bigger has emerged in recent years.
A constitutional-transformation movement has been developing for more than a decade, and it is no longer confined to academic discussion. Mātike Mai Aotearoa, the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation, was promoted through the Iwi Chairs’ Forum in 2010. Its work produced six indicative constitutional models based on tikanga and kawa, He Whakaputanga, Te Tiriti and indigenous human-rights instruments. The models envisage distinct “rangatiratanga” and “kāwanatanga” spheres, together with a “relational sphere” in which Māori and Crown authorities would work together. Mātike Mai set a goal of constitutional transformation by 2040 and says that work is continuing.[1]
This is not simply a debate about interpreting the Treaty differently.
It is a debate about who ultimately holds political authority in New Zealand.
That distinction matters enormously.
The movement has not disappeared. Indeed, it has become increasingly organised and academically supported. The University of Auckland’s Te Wai Ariki centre explicitly identifies transformation of New Zealand’s Constitution as a particular focus, including “structural change” to better realise Māori rights to self-determination. It also describes its people as supporting constitutional transformation through a wider social movement, NGOs, government working groups, the United Nations, the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts.[2]
Carwyn Jones has continued to develop and explain the Mātike Mai models, describing them as frameworks for a “Tiriti-based constitution” and noting that they assume Te Tiriti allows the continuation of a Māori constitutional order.[3]
Professor Claire Charters has now taken the argument further into the mainstream constitutional debate with Sovereignty: The Case for Constitutional Transformation. The University of Auckland describes her book as arguing that New Zealand’s constitutional system fails to protect Māori rights and calling for fundamental constitutional change.[4]
This is not simply a debate about interpreting the Treaty differently.
It is a debate about who ultimately holds political authority in New Zealand.
That distinction matters enormously.
The movement has not disappeared. Indeed, it has become increasingly organised and academically supported. The University of Auckland’s Te Wai Ariki centre explicitly identifies transformation of New Zealand’s Constitution as a particular focus, including “structural change” to better realise Māori rights to self-determination. It also describes its people as supporting constitutional transformation through a wider social movement, NGOs, government working groups, the United Nations, the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts.[2]
Carwyn Jones has continued to develop and explain the Mātike Mai models, describing them as frameworks for a “Tiriti-based constitution” and noting that they assume Te Tiriti allows the continuation of a Māori constitutional order.[3]
Professor Claire Charters has now taken the argument further into the mainstream constitutional debate with Sovereignty: The Case for Constitutional Transformation. The University of Auckland describes her book as arguing that New Zealand’s constitutional system fails to protect Māori rights and calling for fundamental constitutional change.[4]
Stephen Winter, Associate Professor of Political Theory at the University of Auckland, provides another important perspective. Writing in October 2026, Winter argued that New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements are being changed through short-term political and legislative decisions without sufficient recognition that they have constitutional consequences. He pointed specifically to changes involving Te Tiriti, Māori wards and electoral law, and argued for stronger institutional processes to recognise and scrutinise constitutional change.[5] His analysis reinforces an important point: the constitutional question is no longer theoretical. New Zealand is already experiencing significant constitutional change — the real question is who is deciding its direction and whether the public is being given a meaningful opportunity to decide.
And the issue has now moved directly from academic and activist discussion into electoral politics.
Te Pāti Māori’s 2026 Te Tiriti Entrenchment Policy proposes a $220 million Mātike Mai Fund over four years, an independent Te Tiriti Commission with powers to investigate breaches and issue compliance orders, binding Waitangi Tribunal recommendations, implementation of UNDRIP and a target of constitutional transformation by 2040.[5]
Te Pāti Māori is entitled to pursue that programme. But opposition to it should not be dismissed as an attack on Te Tiriti or Māori rights.
There is another legitimate democratic position: that whatever constitutional reforms New Zealand adopts must have the consent of all New Zealanders, not merely emerge from an intellectual, political or activist movement that regards constitutional transformation as its destination.
The Post asks whether Te Tiriti’s place should be determined by whichever politicians happen to hold power. A better question is this: who gets to decide whether New Zealand should fundamentally change the constitutional basis of the state?
If the answer is “the people”, then constitutional transformation cannot be smuggled in incrementally through Treaty clauses, judicial interpretation, institutional arrangements and administrative practice.
It requires an open national debate in which the competing visions are put plainly before the public.
One vision seeks an increasingly Treaty-based constitutional order incorporating tino rangatiratanga and shared or divided authority.
The other seeks to retain parliamentary democracy, universal citizenship, equality before the law and a government ultimately accountable to all voters.
New Zealanders deserve to hear both sides.
The question is not whether constitutional transformation can be advocated for. Of course it can. The question is whether such fundamental change should emerge incrementally through Treaty clauses, judicial interpretation, institutional arrangements and administrative practice — or whether New Zealanders themselves should have the final say.
If the proposed destination is a fundamentally different constitutional order, then the public deserves an open and honest national debate about what that means: who holds political authority, how Parliament operates, what role iwi and hapū would have, and whether all New Zealanders remain equal citizens under one system of law.
The choice should not be predetermined by academics, activists, politicians, institutions or the media. It belongs to the people of New Zealand.
References
[1] Mātike Mai Aotearoa — Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation.
https://matikemai.maori.nz/matike-mai-aotearoa/
[2] University of Auckland, Te Wai Ariki — “Transforming New Zealand’s constitution”.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/law/our-research/research-centres/te-puna-rangahau-o-te-wai-ariki/constitutional-transformation.html
[3] Carwyn Jones, “Making Matike Mai happen”, E-Tangata, 11 May 2025.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/making-matike-mai-happen/
[4] University of Auckland, “A constitution in question: new book argues case for reform”, 30 September 2026.
And the issue has now moved directly from academic and activist discussion into electoral politics.
Te Pāti Māori’s 2026 Te Tiriti Entrenchment Policy proposes a $220 million Mātike Mai Fund over four years, an independent Te Tiriti Commission with powers to investigate breaches and issue compliance orders, binding Waitangi Tribunal recommendations, implementation of UNDRIP and a target of constitutional transformation by 2040.[5]
Te Pāti Māori is entitled to pursue that programme. But opposition to it should not be dismissed as an attack on Te Tiriti or Māori rights.
There is another legitimate democratic position: that whatever constitutional reforms New Zealand adopts must have the consent of all New Zealanders, not merely emerge from an intellectual, political or activist movement that regards constitutional transformation as its destination.
The Post asks whether Te Tiriti’s place should be determined by whichever politicians happen to hold power. A better question is this: who gets to decide whether New Zealand should fundamentally change the constitutional basis of the state?
If the answer is “the people”, then constitutional transformation cannot be smuggled in incrementally through Treaty clauses, judicial interpretation, institutional arrangements and administrative practice.
It requires an open national debate in which the competing visions are put plainly before the public.
One vision seeks an increasingly Treaty-based constitutional order incorporating tino rangatiratanga and shared or divided authority.
The other seeks to retain parliamentary democracy, universal citizenship, equality before the law and a government ultimately accountable to all voters.
New Zealanders deserve to hear both sides.
The question is not whether constitutional transformation can be advocated for. Of course it can. The question is whether such fundamental change should emerge incrementally through Treaty clauses, judicial interpretation, institutional arrangements and administrative practice — or whether New Zealanders themselves should have the final say.
If the proposed destination is a fundamentally different constitutional order, then the public deserves an open and honest national debate about what that means: who holds political authority, how Parliament operates, what role iwi and hapū would have, and whether all New Zealanders remain equal citizens under one system of law.
The choice should not be predetermined by academics, activists, politicians, institutions or the media. It belongs to the people of New Zealand.
References
[1] Mātike Mai Aotearoa — Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation.
https://matikemai.maori.nz/matike-mai-aotearoa/
[2] University of Auckland, Te Wai Ariki — “Transforming New Zealand’s constitution”.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/law/our-research/research-centres/te-puna-rangahau-o-te-wai-ariki/constitutional-transformation.html
[3] Carwyn Jones, “Making Matike Mai happen”, E-Tangata, 11 May 2025.
https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/making-matike-mai-happen/
[4] University of Auckland, “A constitution in question: new book argues case for reform”, 30 September 2026.
[5] Stephen Winter, “How to fix our short-sighted constitutional instability”, University of Auckland, 16 October 2026.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2026/10/16/How-to-fix-out-short-sighted-constitutional-instability.html
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2026/09/30/constitution-nz-sovereignty-book.html
[6] Te Pāti Māori, “Te Pāti Māori launches Te Tiriti Entrenchment Policy”, 1 September 2026.
https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/te_p_ti_m_ori_launches_te_tiriti_entrenchment_policy
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
https://www.auckland.ac.nz/en/news/2026/09/30/constitution-nz-sovereignty-book.html
[6] Te Pāti Māori, “Te Pāti Māori launches Te Tiriti Entrenchment Policy”, 1 September 2026.
https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/te_p_ti_m_ori_launches_te_tiriti_entrenchment_policy
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
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.