By Chris Trotter*
Christopher Luxon has shown himself to be a fast learner when it comes to mastering the skills required to win. Now, having won, he cannot avoid revealing how quickly he can master the art of governing.
The first lesson he will have to learn is that being Prime Minister is not at all the same as being CEO. Political power is always and everywhere a matter of negotiation. Even dictators discover how dangerous it is to try and rule arbitrarily, and alone. Those who tried did not remain dictators very long.
And, it won’t be long before New Zealand’s new leader’s ability to manage change is put to the test. We must all hope that Luxon takes to governing as readily as he took to campaigning.
Who’s going to test him? Not Winston Peters. The leader of NZ First is in the box seat – and he knows it. Without NZ First’s 8 votes, Luxon cannot inform the Governor-General that he has the confidence of the House of Representatives. No, the person most likely to test Luxon’s political abilities is the biggest loser from the final vote count, David Seymour.
National needed the Act Party to do much better than it ended up doing in the 2023 General Election. In the final tally, Act’s Party Vote, at 8.64 percent, was only 1.05 percentage points higher than the party’s 2020 total. The actual result was well short of the support it was racking-up in pre-election polls – which climbed as high as 14 percent.
No one needed to tell Seymour who was responsible for Act’s collapse from double to single figures. Winston Peters campaigning skills (not insignificantly boosted by several large donations to NZ First) did not take long to manifest themselves – not once the triennial Joker in the pack got back out on the road. It was a test. Could Seymour maintain his winning political persona in the face of Peters’ superb demonstration (best ad’ of the campaign) of just how comfortable he was in the saddle? The answer turned out to be: “Only just.”
The first sign of Seymour’s jitters was his truculent response to the discovery of one or two questionable candidates on Act’s Party List. It was a nothing story. By the time the airwaves were carrying their names, the “unacceptable” candidates were no longer standing. The incident, responded to sensibly, could have reaffirmed Seymour’s impressive control over his party. Yes, someone had blundered, but just look at how quickly the problem was solved. That’s the sort of leader New Zealand needs!
Truculence – bordering on petulance – was a new look for Seymour, and the voters didn’t like it. One didn’t need a degree in political science to join the dots. As NZ First continued its relentless rise towards electoral viability, the Act leader was showing dangerous signs of losing his political composure altogether. How else to explain his otherwise inexplicable threat to get rid of the statutory holiday after New Year’s Day? No one was asking for it. No one wanted it. Act appeared to be going doolally.
Seymour’s threat to take his party onto the cross-benches and restrict its support for National to votes of confidence – but not supply – received much criticism, but it was exactly what Act needed. It served as a jarring reminder, not only to Luxon and National, but also to all right-wing voters, that Seymour and his party were not the sort of politicians to be taken for granted. They may not be able to ride horses, but they sure-as-shit could shoot them.
Christopher Luxon would be wise to bear that in mind as he and his negotiating team flit between Act and NZ First in search of sweet harmony. Seymour absolutely cannot be made to look like an MMP cuckold: watching the object of his political affections lavishing generous concessions upon a third party. Making Act look impotent would be the surest way of making Seymour prove to the whole world what a hard bargainer he can be.
The issue most likely to ensure that Act and its leader become the centre of attention is the future of Te Tiriti. No other policy is more likely to test the mettle of New Zealand’s new prime minister. No other policy is more likely to make National jump the wrong way.
Luxon’s advisers are practically certain to tell him that this is not an issue which engages the concern of more than a very small percentage of New Zealanders, and that exposing his new government to the barrage of abuse that was bound to follow any major concession to Act on Te Tiriti would be a catastrophic mistake.
Luxon should ignore his advisers.
No other issue speaks as clearly to the political and cultural divide presently separating New Zealanders than the current definition of Te Tiriti, and all the highly controversial policy decisions mandated and empowered by its constitutionally transformational elements. If National refuses to address this issue, humiliating Act in the process, then two very dangerous things will happen.
First. Among a significant percentage of the electorate (the people who no longer tell pollsters what they truly believe) the perception will take hold that Luxon lacks the courage to accept the mandate which his election victory has bestowed upon him. At the heart of that mandate is a commission to confront, head-on, the constitutional and cultural assumptions of the judicial, bureaucratic, academic and media elites, as they have grown and developed since 2017, and to roll them back. To make it clear from the very start that “decolonisation” and “indigenisation” are not among the priorities of the incoming government. If Luxon encourages the perception that he is “wimping out” on his mandate, then National’s political hegemony will be put at serious risk.
Second. Any attempt by National to rule out a referendum on Te Tiriti, will leave Seymour and Act with no option but to seize the mandate, which Luxon has spurned, for itself. That can only mean taking up an independent position on the cross-benches, and forcing National and NZ First to win Act’s support for every single item on their legislative agenda.
To avoid this political disaster – the most likely outcome of which would be a new election, throwing up a balance of parliamentary forces little changed from the present – Luxon must display the full range of his leadership skills.
If Seymour and Peters could be jointly commissioned by the Prime Minister with organising and encouraging the broadest possible discussion and debate about Te Tiriti, involving the broadest possible cross-section of the New Zealand population, then Act’s referendum would likely not be necessary. Such a genuinely democratic exercise would expose just how isolated the promoters of decolonisation and indigenisation are from the rest of the nation. Nothing could make clearer the elites’ lack of genuine political support. The revolutionaries embedded in the nation’s key institutions would have to come up with a new and improved strategy.
Luxon, himself, would likely emerge from this process as both a statesman and a peacemaker. Simply allowing Seymour’s plan to proceed, unmoderated, to the point of staging a binding referendum on the meaning of Te Tiriti, would provoke massive – and potentially violent – political resistance. Certainly, Te Pāti Māori and the Greens are gearing-up for a stoush which, according to Labour’s Willie Jackson, would be “five times, ten times” worse than the hugely divisive Springbok Tour protests of 1981. Opting, instead, for an open-ended, state-facilitated, and truly public discussion about the country’s constitutional future would cast National as the wise and courageous champion of New Zealand’s liberal democracy. The last time the party had a leader who made that his mission, it was in office for the next 12 years.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
105 Comments
ACT's proposed referenda question:
Would you support or oppose a Treaty Principles Act that defined the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi as follows:
1 The New Zealand Government has the right to govern New Zealand.
2 The New Zealand Government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property.
3 All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties
Shockingly worded question to my mind.
Interesting. I wonder why this referendum question would cause civil unrest worse than the Springbok tour?
P.S I would make the third principle the first principle with the added statement - "including the right to democratically elect the NZ government". Governments should always be the servant of the people. Not the reverse.
The re-write has already happened - by the courts over the last 30 years , in half-stealth , entirely undemocratic mode. I have not heard you objecting to that.
Now that a clear above board consultation with the citizenry is proposed it is suddenly shock / horror , "you cannot do this" . Suck it up.
I do oppose the re-write by the High Court and subsequently, a Labour government whereby each devised a version of what the "principles" of the ToW are.
I support Te Tiriti as it is worded, using the literal English interpretation of the Māori version of the document (as opposed to the English version which is not a literal interpretation of the document signed by the chiefs).
I suspect you really don't know what you are talking about if you think the ACT 'version' is what the treaty actually says - theirs is a very poor adulteration; a fiction if you prefer.
Your original post stated " you cannot re-write .." etc. and I responded to that.
You have now switched to claiming that Act's version is poor - which is a different argument entirely.
It seems that you are the one who does not know what is she talking about from one minute to the next.
I don't get where you are coming from - I stick by my statement that 'you cannot re-write' Te Tiriti itself - and what I'm saying is that ACT is trying to re-write it, and that is as incorrect an approach as is/are all the other attempted re-writes.
No re-writes of Te Tiriti - it is what it is and the words are what they are.
Anne Salmond's article on Newsroom recently said it well
That being said, there are questions that can be fairly asked about more recent official interpretations of the Treaty.
These include the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, in which the government of the day defined the Treaty as a bi-lateral agreement ‘between Her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the Maori people of New Zealand.’ It added that in making appointments to the Waitangi Tribunal, ‘the Minister of Maori Affairs shall have regard to the partnership between the two parties to the Treaty.’
This bi-lateral, ‘two party’ reading of the Treaty was taken further in the 1987 Lands Case, in which the judges of the Court of Appeal described Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between two races,’ or between ‘Maori and Pakeha’ or ‘the Crown and the Maori race.’ Here, the colonial idea of ‘race,’ with its origins in social evolutionary theory and scientific racism, was imported into the translation.
This is unfortunate, given the lack of scientific validity of this imperial concept and its association with slavery and other atrocities. It has fostered increasingly racialised readings of Te Tiriti, at a time when whakapapa lines in New Zealand are increasingly entangled.
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/ideasroom/dame-anne-salmond-on-treaty-referendum
You cannot unilaterally decide that the Maori version is the only legitimate version - & it's wording meaning has been subject to self serving revisionism over the century since Sir Apirana Ngata went to the trouble of explaining both versions to everyone.
It could equally be stated that the Maori version may not be a literal interpretation of the version signed by the Crown. That doesn't invalidate either.
There were 2 parties who signed, in 2 languages. Both should be respected & reconciled.
Under international law, where a difference exists in two language versions then the most favourable version to the signers is to be upheld The significance of Te Tiriti o Waitangi - News and Opinion: University of Waikato.
Given that at the time of the signing, the dominant language was Te Reo Māori and the majority of the discussions would have been conducted orally, the Māori text of Te Tiriti reflects the intentions of the chiefs. It is a critical reference point in informing our understandings, reinforced by the international convention of contra proferentem in relation to treaty making. This rule in contract law states that any clause considered to be ambiguous should be interpreted against the interests of the party that requested the clause to be included.
But note that the Treaty is not considered a legal document in NZ law, to avoid a ruling on this.
People (including the usual Treaty industry suspects & some parties in the UN) may very well think they can extend that however contra proferentem has it's basis in commercial contracts not countries constitutional foundations.
Contra proferentem - Wikipedia
- please prove independent links & evidence to support your argument.
To enter a career in nursing in New Zealand, you have to be able to recite the Principles of The Treaty. Ive been told that 25% of the coursework in a nursing degree are questions related to the Treaty. If you were to say there are no Principles, then you would fail!
Sounds a bit OTT to me - would be much better to teach tikanga Māori as opposed to treaty principles given nursing work is all about practice, as opposed to theory. To be able to care for Māori, or indeed any ethnicity or nationality, in a way that understands the norms, protocols and culture seems a whole lot more important to me.
What if ACT widened it's referendum question?
In such a way that ACT's three principles not only applied to the Treaty of Waitangi but to all international and domestic treaties, all legislation, and all court decisions?
Basically, that asserted a simple set of citizen rights that all New Zealanders hold equally.
It is in all the references to the 'principles' (be they either in case law and/or other government documents) that the concept of partnership is introduced.
Neither the te reo words, partner or partnership appear in either the preamble, or the articles of Te Tiriti - nor does co-governance. Governance does, the word used is kāwanatanga (Article 1). The other concept of authority used is rangatiratanga (Article 2, often referred to as self-determination).
Agreed. I myself have to 'check' myself each time I use/write those two different words.
As a teacher in my distant past taught me: the principal is the person in charge of the school; the school's principles are those things he/she wants you to follow in terms of appropriate conduct in school.
Thanks, yes, it is frightening, but then when my husband went to school he was never taught anything about the treaty at all - not even the fact that there is a Māori version understood and signed by the chiefs - and a different/separate English version written in a way that would be understood/acceptable to the Queen.
I support the English translation of the Māori version (a literal translation) - which is quite different than the English version written for the monarch.
I still am not sure my husband understands the differences, as he can't be bothered studying each of them in concert with one another... let alone read the two different "principles" of the treaty as subsequently written by the High Court and then by Labour ministers.
My point being, frightening because my husband is typical of most folks who would likely vote in a referendum without being really informed about what the history of the problem is, or how the question being asked fits (or not) within these various texts.
Even if one accepts the the Treaty is a constitutional document - and that it has not been reinterpreted by the courts beyond any recognition - there is no reason why it cannot be changed by popular will.
All constitutions are subject to change and amendment .
The barriers to that are usually - and rightly - higher than those to changing "just any " law - a legislative super majority is typically required - or a referendum. This is exactly what is being proposed by Act.
Which is why the referendum proposal is so utterly stupid when if they want to 'get rid' of the High Court and the Labour ministers earlier references to the "principles", it make so much more sense to remove those words from all existing legislation and simply just refer to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
To create a new Act is fraught with complications - including that it can be repealed unless enshrined with a 75% majority vote in Parliament..
Couldn't agree more Kate. This is the neatest solution to cut of the "rolling storm" of interpretations all desiring to turn the Treaty into something legally applicable in this modern age.
In my view ACT's wish for a referendum, whilst no doubt honestly based on a wish to restore some sanity to the Treaty debate, is a "hiding to nowhere" for the incoming government. Far from settling any debate about meaning and application, the very process of establishing debating and voting on such a referendum is going to be extremely messy as indicated by Willy Jackson's most intemperate comments to Jack Tane.
I don't think our nation needs this slow motion cultural train crash. I think the best of many bad possibilities is to do as you suggest. Remove the word "principles" from any legislation. Let the Treaty stand on it's own merits. And let the current government state as a matter of policy, (to inform its actions on the subject) how it proposes to deal with Treaty issues which may come up from time to time.
Frankly over two unlamented Labour governments, we have suffered their nostrums (mainly socialist but also racial) on why most folk don't live in the leafy suburbs with a Porsche or two in the garage. Basically, they tell us,.."you have been robbed"! Either by the "boss class ", or by the wicked "colonists". The radical change in Maori voting favouring younger, more radical MP's suggests these ideas resonate.
I don't envy the task facing the incoming PM!
What appears to be setting out as simple cannot possibly remain as such. Individual interpretation of the questions and then opinion in the answers will diverge into one bloody big argument and it is highly likely that not even 50% of the population will be inclined to participate in the first place.
Couldn't agree more. Then there comes the stark realisation that of those that did, many would not properly research and understand the entirety and impact of the matter, and would instead vote on closed-minded ideas or here say based on what their peers may say. As the general level of education and vocabulary declines in NZ, I feel we will only see more radicalism.
Not sure what you mean by reverse the wording?
I oppose any referendum on the subject - same as I opposed the referendum on cannabis; although I did vote in it.
These matters are not decisions for majority rule - that is just legislators ducking their responsibilities to my mind. And as was the case with the cannabis referendum, the chief political officer, the PM refused to provide her opinion on the matter. That was just ridiculous - we elect our politicians to review evidence and legislate accordingly; in the best interests of governance of the nation based on their highly informed knowledge on these legal/statutory/constitutional matters.
They are supposed to have the benefit of knowledge that many in the public do not have. THAT is their job..
As I said earlier, my husband is knows nothing of this matter, but he will vote, I'm sure (as he sees voting a civic right as well as an obligation). He voted on cannabis having never used it; having no idea about who uses it and why; nor the size of the black market profiting from it in NZ. He (and likely the majority of NZers) would likely also vote to make alcohol consumption illegal.
These really aren't matters the general public go to lengths to research - voting is based on a values (most often a prejudice, or pre-judged opinion) and/or a personal loss/benefit basis. Bad decisions for society as a whole can be made by an unqualified majority.
The treaty really was a stuff up it should have had an expiry date when it was written. I think that 150 years was more than enough, after that point it was everyone is equal as New Zealanders, I mean seriously this crap is still going to be going in 1000 years time, time to move on. Given a public referendum the whole treaty would be booted out the door.
It would win by a landslide and that is exactly why that racist Marama D and TPM are apply such heat in the media. They are very scared at the possibility of a referendum going ahead. With ACT and NZ First in Govt there is a very real chance that National will go with the push for a referendum. It can’t come soon enough the vast majority of our population have had enough of it.
I actually think it was the 1975 legislation that was amiss. It related to the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate future breaches of the treaty, i.e., in all legislation post-1975. Its powers of investigation into historical breaches (post-1840) was then introduced by amendment in 1985 (10 years later).
Had the 1975 legislation instead been to investigate historical breaches between 1840 and 1975 (giving Māori the right to then seek compensation for those breaches), that would have been preferable.
Any breaches subsequent to 1975 would then have been a matter for democratic politics (i.e., representative democracy and Parliamentary process).
Did he really win the election, more like Labour lost.
All 3 parties focus will be to survive the next election. Individually, more so than as a group. Are Act and NZ first going to campaign on how bad each other is. National on how much better it would be if it can govern alone. I expect a whole heap of populist policy, and little substance, or hard decisions.
From here on in, the global stage is one of de-globalisation, increased competition for resources, increased conflict, and de-growth.
On that canvas, no growth-promising leader/government, will have delivered at the end of any given 3-year period.
So we're looking at a one-term Government, and a series of same - as we vote 'out' each time, in growing frustration.
Meantime, infrastructure decays; health decays; education goes broke Local Government goes broke; the rich get richer at the expense of the poor until the system cracks. The new political order will be local, regenerative-thinking, ground-up. It won't be this past-its-use-by-date format/echelon.
NZF is neither left nor right (don't forget their flagship initiative last time in Government was the Provincial Growth Fund and they introduced the SuperGold card) - so you need to deduct their %age in defining left and right blocs, I think.
Hence the equation is:
Left: TPM, Green, Labour
Right: ACT, National.
Chris Trotter is on the money yet again.
Coincidentally, at the same time today Christopher Luxon is already repeating his craven rolling over to Willie's Thugs Veto
https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/501775/national-leader-christopher…
Perhaps illustrating the difference between a manager and a leader, rather than a CEO & a politician: “Management is doing things right; leadership is doing the right things.” Drucker
From what I recall of Winston Peters' previous position on Te Tiriti was that the word "principles" of the treaty should be removed from all legislation. This would not remove reference to Te Tiriti itself.
So, take for example section 8 of the RMA - as currently written:
In achieving the purpose of this Act, all persons exercising functions and powers under it, in relation to managing the use, development, and protection of natural and physical resources, shall take into account the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).
Remove the words, "the principles of" and the fundamental intention of both ACT and NZF's issues are solved.
It is so much easier to understand than ACTs current referenda question which is an attempt to re-write yet another interpretation of Te Tiriti..The treaty articles are the treaty articles. We simply need to read it in an originalist way (not in an interpretive jurisprudence or political way).
And that kind of omnibus legislative change doesn't need a referendum to enact.
Perhaps not, it depends on the context. For example, the first spectrum claim from Māori related to the Crown's pending sale of radio broadcast frequencies - the argument being that Article 2 of Te Tiriti protected taonga - and that te reo Māori was a taonga. Therefore to protect the language, te reo needed to be promoted and spoken via radio broadcasts.
And indeed the resulting Māori broadcasters did an amazing job of doing just that once the frequencies were created and allocated after the Tribunal decision. The same applies generally to television broadcast frequencies to my mind - a dedicated Māori channel has been a wonderful vehicle in terms of Māori language and culture.
Those cases applied an originalist interpretation of the treaty words and the decision was a correct one.
That said, whether the same was correct for the allocation of cellular spectrum is quite different - not the same originalist interpretation - if I recall correctly, the key argument was one of Māori economic development, so (to my mind) that stretched into the "principles" as opposed to the actual wording of the treaty.
Kate, I think the "fundamental intention" of Act relates to establishing who has power when interpreting the treaty - parliament versus judiciary. If all the new govt does is remove that wording from current Acts, you still leave interpretation of the treaty to the judiciary, which has been the problem.
Ah, is that their intent/theory - I never read anything in background from them regarding the coming up of that wording for the referendum. but if that is their intention, the point I'd make is that the judiciary interprets all NZ laws - so any proposed Act would be no different.
I found the language they (ACT) proposed for the referendum to be poorly constructed from a legal perspective. It 'makes no sense' legally - but of course that is not what I assume they would expect to be the final wording of the proposed statute - and therein lie another complication.
Yes the judiciary will still interpret laws. But as with any law, the better defined it is, the less room for interpretation. Taking away the wording puts us back to square one, with the judiciary interpreting the treaty like they have done, giving rise to the partnership notion. What would you do in Seymour's position to avoid that, and give better clarification to the courts based on what they have written as the principles?
I definitely wouldn't have a referendum - it is divisive - it attempts to 'vote out' the treaty itself via a re-wording.
Better they draft the entire proposed new Act while in government and let the Select Committee and House process, adopt or reject it.
Or, as Dame Anne Salmon suggests, perhaps it is far easier to simply amend the existing Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.
Okay. Two things to clarify:
1. If they produce a new Act which puts in place their new principles - is that better than a referendum?
2. Your wording of 'vote-out' I think goes to the heart of this, in that you are stuck between interpreting it (or re-wording as you put it) via voting (i.e. Parliament) or via an unelected judiciary. The benevolent and totally fair dictator does not exist. When our starting point is a document that is divisive no matter which way you interpret it, then surely it needs to be better clarified. I would argue that this is the job of democratically elected leaders, as opposed to unelected judges. To be then passed over to judges to judge within that law. Unfortunately we don't have a good constitution as a starting point.
1. Yes it is. Reason being, when the judiciary interpret legislation they often refer back to SC reports and discussions to determine what the framers of the legislation intended at the time of its writing. This is an 'originalist' approach to judicial interpretation which I lean toward. The framers of the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, for example, added in the notion of partnership themselves (as I mentioned in an early post) and as is covered by Dame Anne Salmond in her recent article.
2. No, I don't want Te Tiriti interpreted at all - my position is that I accept the literal translation of the te reo version of the treaty as the treaty. It does not discuss partnership in the sense that we are discussing it today, but it (Article 2) does prescribe certain rights of tangata whenua in NZ, particularly that of iwi and hapū self-determination.
Wait... Do I have this wrong? I thought the notion of partnership came from a judgement?
In any case, I tend to hold the same originalist view as you (otherwise what is the point of the document) in general, where it relates to a constitution. If we want to treat the treaty like a constitution, then we should at least have some rule whereby we can amend it. Life is for the living, and you shouldn't be able to rule from the grave like this.
What Seymour's principles do is offer a some very base rules to live by that no one in their right mind could disagree with, unless they like the idea of ruling from the grave to benefit their descendants over others.
The relevant passages of the Act are in the Preamble (refers to principles of the Treaty); and section 4 (refers to partnership between the Crown and Māori).
https://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1975/0114/latest/DLM435368.html
But as I said, Te Tiriti itself uses neither of these terms.
My understanding is, the notions of principles and partnership started with the 1975 legislation wording and was interpreted by various courts (and governments and political parties/individuals) thereafter. When the High Court decided to clarify the 'principles', the then Labour government (the Clark government I think) didn't agree and wrote it's own (an alternate) set of principles to be applied by its departments (executive branch). But this is just from memory - I haven't actually read either of these documents for years and years. Not even sure the government's text has any legal meaning or application these days, whereas I think the HC's definition is still used/referred to by the courts. I also think, perhaps the Waitangi Tribunal has also written a set of principles it uses?
Nightmare, eh?
Hi Kate. After having looked it up again, the concept of partnership was established by the courts, not parliament. The very brief reference to partnership in section 4 relates to setting up the Waitangi Tribunal, and does not at all relate to governance. (The principles, as you say, come from the 1975 Act.)
This is the key point I am referring to. The courts have already re-worded the treaty, which you have said you don't want. So, as I said above, irrespective of whether you want the revert to the original wording, or establish new principles, the question has to be who has the power to decide which way. I say parliament, because they are elected to govern.
If you agree with that, then the next question is, as an originalist, how do you enforce the courts to revert, and not re-word it as they have done already? I think Seymour's approach is a good one because it makes a few basic ideas very clear, including that the NZ Govt has the right to govern, and we are all equal under the law.
As an originalist, can you please tell me which part of the treaty that this goes against?
You make some interesting points Kate. If the principles of partnership were somehow set aside (how ironic, to set aside the much vaunted English common law when it doesn't suit) and the Te Reo version applied, it would result in considerably greater Maori assertion over how the nation is run then any co-governance to date.
The principles (as I refer to them) are the things created by legislation and courts - they are the 'made up' "principles" of the Treaty (as opposed to its actual words). Partnership is what the original legislation which recognised the Treaty in domestic law referred to (it is an international treaty and as such can only be given effect to if ratified or incorporated in to domestic law).
So, in 1975 our Parliament did just that (brought Te Tiriti into effect) via the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which is still statute today (although it has since been amended to include the Waitangi Tribunals consideration of historical breaches of Te Tiriti).
I see the English version of Te Tiriti best be considered null and void - it should not be included in the TOW Act as that is not the version signed by the chiefs. They signed the te reo version - and the te reo version has since been translated back to English.
If we accepted that the English translation of the te reo version and the te reo version were the appropriate constitutional texts, then in my reading, Māori would be afforded tino rangatiratanga (self-determination) and Parliament would be responsible for governance/governing (making laws and operation of the executive).
We already have a form of co-governance with respect to the Māori seats in Parliament - although they were not established for this reason. It was more to ensure representation.
The question really is, how do we honour Te Tiriti with respect to iwi/hapū/Māori self-determination. I don't see the optimal way of doing that via governance boards having an equal split of Māori vs Crown appointments on them (which is what all the fuss was about with respect to 3 Waters entities).
Te Tiriti assigned the responsibility of governance to the Crown - which these days means the GG, the Executive (and its departments), the Legislature and the Courts. That to me is where it should stay. The Crown should govern in a way that progressively works toward self-determination for Māori/iwi/hapū. Te reo educational institutions is one such way that such self-determination has been enacted/expressed in our governance structure. Giving Te Awa Tupua the rights of personhood in legislation is another. The establishment of a Māori Health Authority was another.
We could go so far as to dis-establish the Māori seats in Parliament and establish an upper house, along the lines of the UK's House of Lords and it could take over the functions of the Waitangi Tribunal in terms of current claims of breaches of Te Tiriti - and the WT could subsequently just finish the historical claims (pre-1975) and then be disestablished. These are simply my 'ideas' about a way forward that honours Ture 2/Article 2 of Te Tiriti.
It isn't to my mind about a power struggle - it is about co-existence of our two cultures and fulfillment of and being true to the words of Te Tiriti as signed by the chiefs in 1840.
The thing with co-governance is that it isn't a hill most Maori would die on, it's more a bellweather for how the Crown is taking Te Tiriti obligations. There is a good 140 years of the Crown not living up to it's side of the bargain, but pakeha have also done a lot of good for Maori - but that's been more isolated acts of generosity than the State. Treaty settlements have been <2% GDP.
I see an incredibly talented cohort of Maori entering the work force now. Fluent in Te Reo, lawyers, bankers, accountants - with or without co-governance we are going to have a very different layer of management here and it's going to confront some pakeha. So I don't worry too mch about co-governance because I see what is coming into large institutions grad programs, I can see what is coming and that is our pre-eminent employers are lining up to hire Maori.
I actually prefer the status quo - which is more flexible and all encompassing - that being that our current constitution is made up of a collection of statutes (Acts of Parliament), Treaties, Orders-in-Council, Letters patent, decisions of the Courts and unwritten constitutional conventions.
I read the Law Society's exercise in drawing up a single-document constitution back in 2018 - and my main thought was too long, very difficult/complicated - and as a result highly controversial as different factions would argue over what's in, what's out and exact wording for years and years. John Key's government also had a go at constitutional review back in 2010 (when in coalition with The Māori Party, as it was known in those days) and after years of work - the key recommendation/outcome was to 'keep the conversation going' - LOL.
Not again, please :-). So many more pressing matters to solve.
Does anyone else find it ironic that Te pati Maori have forced National and Act to bargain with Winston peters who wants the Maori electorates disestablished? Removing Maori electorates does not appear to be something that either ACT or National felt strongly about either way, paving the way for Winston to essentially get rid of the Maori party by disestablishing the only seats they have ever won!
The issue I have with the idea of a "treaty referendum" is that from what I've seen of ACT's proposal they seek to ask the public of today, what the principles of a treaty signed 180 years ago are... Am I crazy for thinking that's ridiculous? Everyone who signed the Treaty is long dead, you can't retrospectively vote as to what they thought they were agreeing to. Whatever outcome you want that doesn't make sense to me.
RE : " Everyone who signed the Treaty is long dead, you can't retrospectively vote as to what they thought they were agreeing to."
Please explain why it makes more ( any ? ) sense for the courts to retrospectively re-interpret that same Treaty ?
Either approach to re-interpretation is equally valid ( or not ) .
Were they "reinterpreting" it, or were they, as a court does, examining the best evidence they have in order to form a conclusion as to how Maori of the time would have interpreted the wording presented? Imperfect though that may be, that's the most logical way in my head. When you have a contract dispute or a dispute over an international agreement, it goes to court, you don't put it to the public vote.
Whether you agree with the outcome of the processes used to find the "principles of the treaty" or not, there is at least a mountain of reasoning available to support their decision (easily findable on the internet) - it's as close to a "fact" about what Maori cheifs were agreeing to as we can really get in this case. History is full of expert interpretation, which means we can seldom be 100% sure of any fact, but again, we don't leave it to a public opinion poll as to whether the works of Tactius are an accurate recount of contemporary Roman history, nor is it appropriate for the voting public to determine what the parties to the Treaty thought they were signing.
Whether or not that interpretation should apply in law is a different matter entirely, but that's not what ACT is proposing to question.
If the Treaty is a mere " historical document" ( and not part of our constitution ) it should not have bearing on our laws and we should not have to vote on it .
If it is a constitutional document ( and that is how it has been used or abused ) it is only proper for its interpretation to be subject to change by popular will .
The current outcome is already binary and divisive that’s that is exactly the issue. We already have people telling other people born and raised here for many generations that the only reason they are permitted to be in this country to this day is because of an 1840 document it’s just beyond absurd.
We already have people telling other people born and raised here for many generations that the only reason they are permitted to be in this country to this day is because of an 1840 document it’s just beyond absurd.
It's kinda true though...
Without it the English would have most likely left and Aotearoa would have been an ex-colony like oh I don't know, the other 50 or 60
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_that_have_gained_indepe…
Do you really think that the settlers have not lost their land here thanks to the existence of the Treaty ? - and conversely had to leave India as there was no equivalent in place ?
I rather think it has something to do with the ultimate balance of military and other strength between the settlers and the indigenous population.
I do not suppose your tribe can produce a copy of the treaty they made with the prior occupants of their lands ; that does not make their hold on it illegitimate.
"Military path" etc.
The treaty was of course breached in short order after being signed and the wars went on ; the Treaty has not really settled anything on a permanent basis . Trying to pretend otherwise is just PC fiction.
"What prior occupants are you referring to?"
I do not know what tribe you are part of ; the point is that all land in NZ had been conquered and re-conquered multiple times before Europeans have even arrived. Or are you claiming that your tribe settled the land upon arriving , has never been displaced by another tribe - or itself displaced another tribe ?
Not suggesting that at all - I think you are deliberately misreading what I wrote to make it sound absurd.
What I wrote - quite clearly - is that every Maori tribe in NZ holds land that other Maori tribes occupied before being displaced through inter-tribal warfare.
Instead of going into a full blown Tiriti bust-up the three parties could act on confidence building measures like repealing three waters. They could then get used to working together, preparing for a stable, moderate govt reflecting the wishes of the majority that will last for 15 years. The rights of Maori to use their own land as they see fit can still be respected within this type of framework, Iwi elites just won't be able to tell everybody else what to do.
Most people knew that the way Labour acted was against the will of the majority but some excused it by thinking it was all in the cause of ,re-indigenising New Zealand. It was a transgression, but you can see in the faces of the defeated candidates that they don't quite see what they did wrong and why it all went so wrong.
I can tell them why it was a mess
1/ They forced something on the society that would affect people in their day to day lives without consensus or consultation in a sneaky and controlling way.
2/ They failed to do anything practical for the poorer and disadvantaged people in the society, the people that rely on them to help economically.
My advice to the new govt is - do something to help the poorer sectors of society out and you will retain their vote. Do nothing about that and people will go back the other way.
I wonder as to the nature of the conversation around this proposed referendum on the relevance of the treaty in modern society. In other words get rid of it. By repealing the 1975 and subsequent acts and removing all reference to the treaty in legislation. The discussion for me is how would the voting public vote if the questions basically get rid of the treaty in statute and law. I think it would be supported by the majority as many people see it as a racist document that favours one race over others and therefore is unfair and unjust. Along with Winston’s desire to remove the Maori seats there is a fair chance that both policies could come to pass. This would be a disaster for out Maori people and cause many of us to take to the streets in protest. Which ultimately be futile because the majority rules of course. Look to the jail cells and prisons around Aotearoa to fill up rapidly as the civil disobedience kicks in. It may not happen of course but as Chris states the new coalition needs to address the disenchantment with co-governance and the insertion of treaty principles into legislation along with Government Departments trying to follow those principles that has up the nose of much of the voting populace.
> Simply allowing Seymour’s plan to proceed, unmoderated, to the point of staging a binding referendum on the meaning of Te Tiriti, would provoke massive – and potentially violent – political resistance.
What amazes me about this whole situation is how casually threats of violence are now being mentioned as a reason to not debate/vote on the Treaty of Waitangi and its place in NZ. The whole commentary around "having the debate will be divisive" misses the point in my opinion, the way the Treaty is being interpreted and incorporated into NZ's political and social structures is ALREADY very divisive hence why the issue has arisen at all. Preventing a debate while continuing the status quo of implementing deeply controversial changes is not a way to limit division, it is the way to increase it.
Now that we are at the point where people are casually discussing the possibility of political violence if the potential outcome of a debate/referendum doesn't go one way or the other, it is all the more important to have that debate. We can't live in a society governed by rule of law where core questions of political legitimacy can't even be discussed/changed without violence. Especially when what is being discussed is the IMPLEMENTATION of racially exclusive roles within the government of our society.
The main issue we are facing around the ToW is in many ways similar to what happened in the USA with the implementation (and now repeal) of Roe vs Wade. Using the judiciary to implement changes that need significant society-wide buy-in and legitimate process through the legisilature will always run the risk of ending in situations like where we are now as push back will inevitably come no matter how much people try and insist something is "settled law".
Because this is a substantial change and clearly a very divisive one, it is all the more important that this debate does occur and people get to have a say in the outcome. The consent of the governed is the core tenant of democracy and it really doesn't seem like the changes being pushed through under the guise of "Treaty Obligations" have the consent of the vast majority of the population. The average NZer believes very strongly that ethnicity should not play a role in the de jure political rights granted to citizens and if we intend to move away from that then it needs to openly debated/discussed/voted upon.
I find it sad that the upshot of the changing of legislation to pro-treaty “principles” and implementation of said principles has resulted in an anti-Maori sentiment in the community. The poorly articulated proposed co-governance stance has also ended up adding to this anti-Maori feeling. To the point where we Maori are questioned on and expected to defend these changes as if they came bout at out behest whereas we are as much in the dark as the rest of the community. Changes have occurred on our behalf without any consultation and has currently partially determined the shape of the new Government. As Chris outlines Luxon cannot afford to ignore that feeling as it one of the major determinants of his ascension.
I tend to agree. I know many Maori who aren't interested in these changes and think they are undesirable/unfair/unwise. I often find the people most passionately arguing it must be done are zealot whites larping as civil rights activists from the 60s without really having any intellectual framework to defend the changes they think have to be made.
As you say though, these zealot whites don't have to actually live with any consequences of their rabid pushing of co-governance etc as if push comes to shove they can just change their tune and fade into the background. Maori don't have this option.
In the long-run I think this push for co-governance will be a disaster for integrating Maori culture/language into NZ society. The way it is being done is building very real resentment amongst many people which is counterproductive to more worthwhile endeavours like saving and supporting what is really quite a beautiful language.
I believe CT has nailed it extremely well. I would also add that up to now Luxon is doing exceedingly well, although he is not giving the political commentators much to chew on. Perhaps the best advice for them would be silence speaks loudly when there is nothing of substance to discuss.
Let's just wait and see shall we? I am impressed with his acknowledgement that he must now govern for ALL of NZ not just the Blue voters.
Seymour and his One Nation suzerain backers want to tear up the "pesky treaty" and take us back to the likes of "Twenty Negro Laws" and using the Crown as a vassal for lobbyists and capitalists, all under the guise of freedom. I wonder who they're lining up for voting machine contracts? The banjo's are getting louder.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.