The past seven days seem like the hardest seven days I have experienced politically, both, globally and in New Zealand. So below, whats on my mind in an unpolished and reflexive way.
What would you put forward as Te Tiriti Principles? I would love to learn everyone's answer to that question and I admit to spending a bit too much time online searching! As an American, I am fascinated by the meat of this discussion (not so much the noise of the politics).
The proposed Treaty Principles Bill states:
Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for diving into this topic with such curiosity. It’s great to see someone engaging so deeply, especially from outside New Zealand. That willingness to learn is such an important first step.
The principles you’ve outlined from the proposed Treaty Principles Bill reflect a key tension in how New Zealand navigates Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) in a modern, multicultural democracy. Even the concept of “principles” is heavily contested—by Māori academics, Māori public servants, and non-Māori alike. What’s crucial to understand are the Articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the significant differences between the Māori and English versions.
I’m not an expert at all, I just one person that has been doing my best to build my intellectual understanding of the history of Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi for over a decade from a political science lense and as a public servant and immigrant in NZ. It’s been a challenging and complex journey, full of contradictions and learning. So I hope you’ll keep that context in mind as you read my articles or comments—I’m still navigating this terrain myself.
I’d welcome a conversation about the tensions between our responsibilities under Te Tiriti and the values of democracy—and further, how these tensions intersect with liberal democracy. That said, I don’t think this proposed Bill will address those issues effectively. In my view, the Bill is flawed because it’s redundant. The three principles ACT has put forward are already being implemented in various ways, so why open the door to a nationwide heated debate on something unlikely to add value to the real discussions we need to have?
Some of the ideas I keep coming back to about Te Tiriti are:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga (Self-Determination): Recognizing the authority and sovereignty of hapū (sub-tribes) to govern themselves and their resources, as affirmed in the Māori version of Te Tiriti. This principle calls for meaningful partnership, ensuring Māori have a voice in decisions affecting their communities and taonga (treasures). Which competes directly with democratic values, so this is where my brain scrambles. That doesn’t mean I disagree, it just means I am working through how to reconcile these idas.
2. Partnership: The Crown and Māori are treaty partners. This principle demands mutual respect, good faith, and cooperation to uphold their commitments under Te Tiriti. However, “partnership” is a complex and contested idea, especially given the diverse interests and capacities of both Māori and the Crown to collaborate across different areas.
3. Active Protection: The Crown has an obligation to protect Māori rights, including their culture, language, and resources, as explicitly agreed to in the Treaty. This requires more than non-interference—it necessitates proactive efforts to address disparities and ensure Māori can thrive. And again with this idea, my brain scrambles on how this is reconciled with new immigrants, especially immigrants from non-English speaking countries from SouthEast Asia, Latin America, Middle East and Africa
Your summary of the proposed Bill raises an important point: there’s often a gap between the intention of legislation and the lived reality of partnership. For instance, Principle 1 emphasizes the government’s full power to govern, but how does that reconcile with Principle 2, which acknowledges hapū and iwi rights? And does Principle 3’s focus on “equality before the law” truly account for historical and systemic inequities?
I share your curiosity about how others interpret the principles of Te Tiriti. What insights have your searches uncovered so far? Are there any parallels to how the U.S. approaches similar issues around treaties and Indigenous rights?
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully—conversations like these make this space so much richer. Nat
(while I am American, I have been living here in NZ for awhile).
I totally hear you about some people not even accepting the need for "principles" (I've heard this from both side of the issue too). I've come around to it, as it may be a helpful way we agree what Te Tiriti means to us currently and how we use it in law.
But I have to say again, I do not like the anger and tension the Bill has brought up, while at the same time, I'm desperate for a discussion. A discussion that doesn't stop with the Te Tiriti, but goes farther to what happened after and how we have gotten to where we are. I find what Paul Moon says interesting - Maori did not cede sovereignty with the signing of Te Tiriti, but with time, sovereignty was ceded. (or that is my interpretation of him).
So we stand in a place where the government is our government, for all of us. But what then is Tino Rangatiratanga? I've read it to be the hierarchy of how hapu governed themselves, pre European contact, but how could that system possibly translate to today's world? So it seems like a thought-cancelling cliche to say "Maori never ceded sovereignty!" Like where does that statement even get us? What is the purpose of saying this?
It seems to me, the history of the two cultures meeting each other, started with the fascinating Declaration of Independence, and then Te Tiriti, but then things turned pretty bad and Maori never got to decide their own course, things got decide for them with riffles. So we don't know how they would have evolved their concept of Tino Rangatiratanga to the new realities of nation/states that developed most rapidly after WWII. It would have been so fascinating to see what could have been if the land grabs and other misdeeds of NZ settlers and bad actors in government and land "sales" had not occured. What governing order would Maori have chosen for themselves, noting that most agreed to keeping their tino rangatiratanga under the käwanatanga of the Crown (a strange balance would be required, surely?)
So back to the principles, I do admire the Bill in that it takes each Article and turns it into a Principle. I think that is the trick, as the hodge-podge of principles that have been put together to date don't seem to be supported by the text of either the Treaty or Te Tiriti (not that they aren't great ideals to aspire to!).
So ACT has taken a swing at putting English words against Te Reo to decipher the treaty for us (and that somehow we have a civilized conversation and magically agree with - fat chance sadly!).
So in Article One, Käwanatanga given to the Crown is stated to mean the right govern. In Article Two, Tino Rangatiratanga means the rights iwi and hapu signatories had at time of signing and any rights they have since been granted by Tribunal. And in Article Three, all the indigenous people of NZ are given the same rights and protections of British citizens. That seems pretty close to how I translate the 3 Articles, but I am open to learning that I am wrong and that their is much more nuance.
Once again, I have to bemoan the fact that of all the reading I am doing, I am not getting this level of discussion. But I thank you for what you and your comments section have shared, it has been very helpful, as has the chance you've given me to try out some of my thoughts here, humbly submitted.
Hi Ingrid. I think the bill is a simple statement of arrangements that have been hammered out, mainly in the west, over hundreds of challenging years on how disparate people can come together in community. On the other hand the treaty of Waitangi was pulled together by a very small number of not very talented or educated people, in haste, to meet some of the needs of a specific context 180 years ago. And a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.
Resistance to the bill today seems to me to be an attempt to leverage politicised history in the service of a sub-group in our community. The attempt is being made by sincere people, and of course it is legitimate that sub-groups try to persuade the rest of a polity to accept ideas that the sub-group prefers. That is politics and I think politics is good.
But what would I put forward as constitutional principles for New Zealanders to live by? The proven ones in David Seymour’s bill.
"My only way to process this is to keep writing, keep learning and keep talking about it, hoping this journey will shine a light into my own political blind spots, removing me as far away from my own political certainty as possible."
I really appreciate this, I just wish it were safer to ask questions and think out loud, dig deeper, without fear of being shut out by potentially saying the "wrong thing".
I'd personally love to read challenging but respectful thoughts that try suggesting answers to real questions or propose tradeoffs that improve something specific --- not just writing that stirs up emotion or rants or preaches to the choir.
Like what if we really did have a conversations about what we think the Principles of Te Tiriti should be? Do the current ones suit us? Why do we even need Principles? What if we really discuss what the 3 Articles mean to us in 2024? I am search for that content, but cannot find it amidst all the noise and anger.
Hi Ingrid, thanks so much for your comment. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I think we need to talk about the tensions between Te Tiriti o Waitangui and democracy and then again with liberal democracies. The tension between Māori and the Crown, and Māori and multiculturalism. I’ll aim to write more about that in the future, because this is what I mean by thinking in a counterintuitive way. I hear you 💗
I agree Ingrid. I don’t know if our politics align but I am absolutely with you on “… challenging but respectful thoughts that try suggesting answers to real questions or propose tradeoffs that improve something specific --- not just writing that stirs up emotion…”
Not to beat around the bush, I think a discussion of how the Treaty can be a unifying document for our country is a good thing. It needs to be a unifying document, and have us generally align with its principles, or else it might not be that useful a document. I support the treaty principles bill debate.
The best presentations of the more recent treaty renaissance position that I have seen come from Helmut Modlik, Kaumātua of Ngāti Toa. I have a lot of time for how he speaks and look forward to hearing more from him. Not that I agree with him at present, but then I expect to learn relevant things over the next months.
I agree john, Helmut Modlik, is by far one of the most important voices in this space. I had the privilege of meeting him last year during my campaign in Wellignton Central as a Wellignton Central candidate for TOP and he blew my mind. I really liked how he engaged with David Seymour and shared his debate and thoughts with everybody. He ticked all my boxes for an effective, open and transparent political leader. Even if he doesn’t consider himself a political leader, in this moment that is what he became for me.
Blakeley’s article attends to real things laying behind the surface perceptions of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’. At the end of the day social cohesion is the deep reality of the political process when it works.
Underneath those chilled, colliding tectonic plates is a unitary fire that binds our singular planet together.
When my wife and I fight, and I go with her way, I am neither losing nor conceding. I am not participating in a failed negotiation. I am married and the two of us do the other thing to what I was pushing for, that was what she wanted, and I can enjoy her satisfaction. The core of our marriage is nurtured and that is the real win. (We did start off by retreating to our stubborn chilly corners, but after a couple of decades we worked out that that didn’t work.)
‘Ideologies as GPS’ is definitely a handy shortcut to help guide choices, but the ideologies aren’t ends in themselves. The question loosened up by the events of the last week is not how do we fight for ‘justice’ and ‘truth’, it’s how do we be together as a pluralistic community.
Thank you for this—it’s a beautifully articulated reflection, and I think you’ve hit on something profound. Social cohesion really is the deep reality of politics when it’s working as it should. That imagery of tectonic plates and fire beneath captures it perfectly: the surface collisions can feel sharp and unyielding, but underneath, there’s a shared humanity binding us together, but one that we have drifted away from.
I love the parallel you’ve drawn with marriage. Thanks for sharing that. It’s a relatable way to think about compromise—not as losing, but as investing in the relationship itself. That idea of enjoying someone else’s satisfaction feels like a lost art in our increasingly adversarial political culture. Too often, we think of negotiation or concession as a zero-sum game when, really, the “win” is in nurturing the collective.
Your point about ideologies is sharp too—they’re tools, not the destination. It reminds me that the heart of any meaningful political process isn’t just about fighting for abstract ideals like “justice” or “truth” (though those are critical), but about how we live and work together as a pluralistic community.
Thanks again for this—it’s a perspective we need more of in these conversations.
Hi Mark, thanks for your comment. I struggle with what you say for a couple of reasons:
1. The term *woke* feels lazy, overused and vague—it’s often a catch-all with no clear meaning. What do you mean by it here? If we go beyond the superficial, and be more specific, we can have a serious political conversation. Which is what I want to encourage.
2. I’m not trying to please everyone—or anyone, really. What I share are my honest and genuine ideas. If they come across as an attempt to walk some tightrope of accommodation or agreeability, that’s not it. So labeling me or my ideas as *woke* is really just lazy and unhelpful because it’s so broad and imprecise.
What I want to know more about is your perspective. What do you think about what’s happening in the U.S.? What’s your take on the Treaty Principles Bill? If you shared your views on those, we could have a real political conversation. What do you think?
The Woke term was referring to the certainty you expressed that Democrats would win, and the shock that it didnt happen. It is probably partly the media's fault for bias reporting, and the same kind of thing happened in our last election in NZ. My sister agrees with you that "woke" is vague and ill defined, and I can say that it doesnt seem like a compliment, more of a dis. And my sister thinks that Bernie Sanders would have been a much better choice than Kamila Harris for the Democrats to beat Trump, and I agree. He has more conviction, and seems more authentic, with more political experience, but he is a pale stale male, so he wasnt even considered. Do you think Kamila Harris was chosen because she is a woman of colour, or because she had the best skills to beat Trump ? The Democrats had a billion dollar campaign budget, and didnt pick the best person for the job, even when he was right in front of them. Are you a Democrat supporter who is wondering why Bernie Sanders wasnt chosen ?
Hi Mark. I’m with you when you have frustration with aggressive and strident people, convinced of the correctness of their … dare I say it, woke ideas (which I frequently think are loopy) and who shout down and stifle all opposition. It is tiresome. And then when the same commentators radiate snowflake grief at not getting their way, well, no sympathy. I get it.
It is quite likely that neither of us would stand shoulder to shoulder on the same side of the barricade as Natalia. But, you’ve got to say, she does her damndest to give us a place in this Substack that is calm and reasoned. She does try very hard to find middle ground, and that is a treasure. We have both seen her manage rude and bitchy comments with curiosity and dignity.
I always read your comments with interest and I look forward to them in the future.
Hi John, thank you for your very thoughtful and generous respond. I appreciate your honesty and the kind words about the space I’m trying to create here. It’s important to me that this Substack remains a place where people can engage constructively, especially when perspectives differ and even compete. I feel you are picking up what I am putting down and I really appreciate that.
I completely understand a lot of peoples frustrations with stridency and dismissiveness in public discourse—it can feel so exhausting, lazy and polarizing. While I’m sure we might not always find ourselves aligned on every issue or standing “shoulder to shoulder,” as you put it, that is the point of this space. To find the people we disagree with, and stay the course, keep talking and stay engaged.
I’m glad we can meet here with mutual curiosity, disagreement and respect. That middle ground, for me, is where the most important conversations happen, and it’s readers like you who make that possible.
Thank you also for recognizing the effort it takes to manage competing views and discussions—it means a lot. I hope this space continues to feel like one where ideas can be exchanged freely, openly and thoughtfully. I look forward to hearing more of your insights in the future!
Thanks for taking the time to share such a detailed and honest comment. To be honest, your ideas is where the rubber hits the road for me, its the kind of exchange where I hope to engage in meaningful conversations—especially when it’s clear we might not agree on a lot, including Māori rights and the protests. I appreciate you sharing where you’re coming from, and I’ll do my best to lean into this thoughtfully, in a balanced way and honesty.
Starting at the top, I’ll admit I’m not deeply literate on the current political shifts in Europe beyond some broader themes like post-Brexit border challenges and Hungary’s pivot toward illiberal democracy. As for the U.S., I understand why some might see Trump’s leadership style as decisive, but for me, it’s neither a form of leadership I admire nor one I support. In fact, I’ve written before about the importance of strong leadership in Wellington by our Mayor and our current MP, but I’m more inclined to advocate for collaborative, decentralized and inclusive styles—ones that avoid concentrating too much power in one individual.
Here in NZ, I think our MMP system protects us from the pitfalls of overly centralized authority. Historically, systems where one person wields outsized power have often led to instability, inequality, and even national security and violence issues. Decentralized governance, despite its challenges, allows for more voices to be represented, more stability and more peace—principles I strongly support, regardless of which political party is in charge.
Regarding protests, I agree with you that they can be polarizing. However, I think the right to protest is fundamental in any democracy, and I will also fight for everybody to be able to protests, as long as it’s done peacefully. I’ve consistently defended people’s right to demonstrate, whether it’s for Posie Parker or the current Hīkoi. For me, the key is that protests remain peaceful, as both seem to have been, to my knowledge.
On the Hīkoi specifically, it’s worth clarifying that this isn’t about demanding more government influence but rather opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which protesters argue diminishes Māori self-determination. It’s understandable that this can feel like a clash between Te Tiriti o Waitangi and democratic values—it’s a tension we need to navigate thoughtfully. Personally, I see these discussions as opportunities to redefine what liberal democracy can look like in Aotearoa, incorporating both self-determination and collective equity. If liberal democracies still have a fighting chance. Now your thoughts about the Treaty not being able to be read in English, is incorrect. You Can find the English version as easily as you can the Māori version, and I can even go a step further and say that the English version you mention is the only one you can find, because in reality the Māori original versions have disappeared.
I agree wholeheartedly that we can’t do tribal politics, which is why I am against identity politics, however I can see and support the idea that some groups get consistent and effectively discriminated against specific sectors like health, justice, education and housing. So how do we stop that type of institutional discrimination whilst not getting caught in cultural and identity politics?
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—it’s clear you care deeply about these issues, and I appreciate the chance to discuss them with you. Let me know what you think of what I’ve said ..
Thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant—I appreciate it, it’s exactly what I care about, your ideas. Politics is all about ideas, more so than about people.
I think these kinds of back-and-forths are important to understanding where each of us is coming from, and John’s response to your earlier comment captured some of what I hope to foster here: a space for calm, reasoned conversation especially when we disagree or ideas compete.
On the term “woke,” I’m glad you’re open to acknowledging that it can be seen as dismissive and vague—it’s part of why I’m cautious about it. It’s often used to shut down discussion rather than dig into the ideas that underpin political or social positions. That’s where my focus is: understanding and engaging with ideas, not labels.
As for your thoughts on Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, I think you raise a valid question about how political candidates are chosen and what criteria matter most. While I’m not interested in identity politics (e.g., wokeism, “woman of colour” vs. “pale stale male”), I think it’s worth interrogating whether the system of selecting candidates is prioritizing the best person for the job—or who is perceived as electable within current power structures.
To answer your question directly: No, I’m not a Democrat supporter, I’m a radical centrist and that is context and country dependent.
I’m interested in how policies and ideas align with creating a fairer, more cohesive society, regarded of the Left Right Binary, i care about more counterintuitive political ideas.
I’ve certainly wondered about Bernie Sanders’ potential as a candidate, however I disagree with Left of Left ideas more than I do with any others.
But I can see how his competency, authenticity and focus on economic inequality struck a chord with many people, and I do think his ideas deserved more serious attention. But whether he could have beaten Trump is ultimately unknowable, given how polarized the electorate was (and still is).
I heard an interview yesterday by Fancisis Fukuyama, one of the political scientist I follow and read the most say that if Mitt Romney would have beat Barack Obama in his second term, we could have avoided Trump, which I thought was a very interesting insight.
What do you think is the main takeaway from the Democrats’ decision-making process? Is it about their campaign strategy, the role of identity in politics, or something else? I’d be curious to hear more about your perspective there.
Looking forward to continuing this conversation! Nat
Kia ora Natalia there is plenty of politics to comment on right now in France, Germany, and even the UK are having instability problems, and people in those countries may be envying the strong leadership happening in the USA with Trump. Even here in NZ we just needed somebody with authority to step up and say "no phones at school". The Green Party could never achieve this cos they couldnt all agree, but that doesnt provide the leadership that people want. I voted for our Coalition govt to get rid of Labour govt, and especially to protect womens rights from men in dresses. The assault on Posie Parker showed how bad things can get when you have a bunch of cowards running the place. I am glad to see the back of all those politicians who encouraged the rainbow thugs into violence at Albert Park.
Now we have a big Hikoi protesting against the govt I voted for, and against all those Maoris in the Coalition on my team. I endorse self determination as the best way forward for Maori, and people in general, along with less government, but those people in the Hikoi want more govt influence. It certainly is a polarizing situation for many NZers, and I think the protesters are unrealistic about what is possible in these difficult times when people dont have enough. The activists are demanding Maori sovereignty, whatever that looks like, but I think self-determination would be more achievable. One concern I have about the Waitangi Treaty is there isnt an English version I can read, as the English version in the museum was defaced by activists cos it wasnt accurate enough to be legitimate. What do you think about following a treaty that can only be read by a few percent of NZers? I dont think that you will find any one social theory that will fix everyones problems, and I am not sure that we can all revert to tribalism. Where will we be in a week from now ? The protest wont stop till they get sovereignty, whatever that looks like.
Yeah, Francis is my go to political scientist at the moment. I have read Steven Kotkin, but because his focus is more on history and geopolitics, I haven’t engaged with his ideas as much. But definitely in my top 5. Why do you like him so much? Any favorite books I should read from him that you like?
I look out for long form YouTube videos from them both although I have a couple of Frank’s books. The issue I have with YouTube is that most videos have that echo chamber quality of aligned people agreeing with each other, and agreeing that the other side is obviously wrong. This doesn’t turn over many stones. Long form debates between able and polite protagonists is my dream! I enjoyed David Seymour and Helmut Modlik the other day, where they had an opportunity to speak in whole paragraphs at least. If I was to stand back from that debate I would say that one thing they share is a caring for the state of our community going forwards.
What would you put forward as Te Tiriti Principles? I would love to learn everyone's answer to that question and I admit to spending a bit too much time online searching! As an American, I am fascinated by the meat of this discussion (not so much the noise of the politics).
The proposed Treaty Principles Bill states:
Principle 1: The Executive Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and the Parliament of New Zealand has full power to make laws, (a) in the best interests of everyone; and (b) in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
Principle 2: (1) The Crown recognises, and will respect and protect, the rights that hapū and iwi Māori had under the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi at the time they signed it. (2) However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, subclause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975
Principle 3: (1) Everyone is equal before the law. (2) Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to (a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.
Hi Ingrid,
Thank you for your thoughtful comment and for diving into this topic with such curiosity. It’s great to see someone engaging so deeply, especially from outside New Zealand. That willingness to learn is such an important first step.
The principles you’ve outlined from the proposed Treaty Principles Bill reflect a key tension in how New Zealand navigates Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) in a modern, multicultural democracy. Even the concept of “principles” is heavily contested—by Māori academics, Māori public servants, and non-Māori alike. What’s crucial to understand are the Articles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the significant differences between the Māori and English versions.
I’m not an expert at all, I just one person that has been doing my best to build my intellectual understanding of the history of Māori and Te Tiriti o Waitangi for over a decade from a political science lense and as a public servant and immigrant in NZ. It’s been a challenging and complex journey, full of contradictions and learning. So I hope you’ll keep that context in mind as you read my articles or comments—I’m still navigating this terrain myself.
I’d welcome a conversation about the tensions between our responsibilities under Te Tiriti and the values of democracy—and further, how these tensions intersect with liberal democracy. That said, I don’t think this proposed Bill will address those issues effectively. In my view, the Bill is flawed because it’s redundant. The three principles ACT has put forward are already being implemented in various ways, so why open the door to a nationwide heated debate on something unlikely to add value to the real discussions we need to have?
Some of the ideas I keep coming back to about Te Tiriti are:
1. Tino Rangatiratanga (Self-Determination): Recognizing the authority and sovereignty of hapū (sub-tribes) to govern themselves and their resources, as affirmed in the Māori version of Te Tiriti. This principle calls for meaningful partnership, ensuring Māori have a voice in decisions affecting their communities and taonga (treasures). Which competes directly with democratic values, so this is where my brain scrambles. That doesn’t mean I disagree, it just means I am working through how to reconcile these idas.
2. Partnership: The Crown and Māori are treaty partners. This principle demands mutual respect, good faith, and cooperation to uphold their commitments under Te Tiriti. However, “partnership” is a complex and contested idea, especially given the diverse interests and capacities of both Māori and the Crown to collaborate across different areas.
3. Active Protection: The Crown has an obligation to protect Māori rights, including their culture, language, and resources, as explicitly agreed to in the Treaty. This requires more than non-interference—it necessitates proactive efforts to address disparities and ensure Māori can thrive. And again with this idea, my brain scrambles on how this is reconciled with new immigrants, especially immigrants from non-English speaking countries from SouthEast Asia, Latin America, Middle East and Africa
Your summary of the proposed Bill raises an important point: there’s often a gap between the intention of legislation and the lived reality of partnership. For instance, Principle 1 emphasizes the government’s full power to govern, but how does that reconcile with Principle 2, which acknowledges hapū and iwi rights? And does Principle 3’s focus on “equality before the law” truly account for historical and systemic inequities?
I share your curiosity about how others interpret the principles of Te Tiriti. What insights have your searches uncovered so far? Are there any parallels to how the U.S. approaches similar issues around treaties and Indigenous rights?
Thanks again for engaging so thoughtfully—conversations like these make this space so much richer. Nat
Thank you both for your comments!
(while I am American, I have been living here in NZ for awhile).
I totally hear you about some people not even accepting the need for "principles" (I've heard this from both side of the issue too). I've come around to it, as it may be a helpful way we agree what Te Tiriti means to us currently and how we use it in law.
But I have to say again, I do not like the anger and tension the Bill has brought up, while at the same time, I'm desperate for a discussion. A discussion that doesn't stop with the Te Tiriti, but goes farther to what happened after and how we have gotten to where we are. I find what Paul Moon says interesting - Maori did not cede sovereignty with the signing of Te Tiriti, but with time, sovereignty was ceded. (or that is my interpretation of him).
So we stand in a place where the government is our government, for all of us. But what then is Tino Rangatiratanga? I've read it to be the hierarchy of how hapu governed themselves, pre European contact, but how could that system possibly translate to today's world? So it seems like a thought-cancelling cliche to say "Maori never ceded sovereignty!" Like where does that statement even get us? What is the purpose of saying this?
It seems to me, the history of the two cultures meeting each other, started with the fascinating Declaration of Independence, and then Te Tiriti, but then things turned pretty bad and Maori never got to decide their own course, things got decide for them with riffles. So we don't know how they would have evolved their concept of Tino Rangatiratanga to the new realities of nation/states that developed most rapidly after WWII. It would have been so fascinating to see what could have been if the land grabs and other misdeeds of NZ settlers and bad actors in government and land "sales" had not occured. What governing order would Maori have chosen for themselves, noting that most agreed to keeping their tino rangatiratanga under the käwanatanga of the Crown (a strange balance would be required, surely?)
So back to the principles, I do admire the Bill in that it takes each Article and turns it into a Principle. I think that is the trick, as the hodge-podge of principles that have been put together to date don't seem to be supported by the text of either the Treaty or Te Tiriti (not that they aren't great ideals to aspire to!).
So ACT has taken a swing at putting English words against Te Reo to decipher the treaty for us (and that somehow we have a civilized conversation and magically agree with - fat chance sadly!).
So in Article One, Käwanatanga given to the Crown is stated to mean the right govern. In Article Two, Tino Rangatiratanga means the rights iwi and hapu signatories had at time of signing and any rights they have since been granted by Tribunal. And in Article Three, all the indigenous people of NZ are given the same rights and protections of British citizens. That seems pretty close to how I translate the 3 Articles, but I am open to learning that I am wrong and that their is much more nuance.
Once again, I have to bemoan the fact that of all the reading I am doing, I am not getting this level of discussion. But I thank you for what you and your comments section have shared, it has been very helpful, as has the chance you've given me to try out some of my thoughts here, humbly submitted.
Hi Ingrid. I think the bill is a simple statement of arrangements that have been hammered out, mainly in the west, over hundreds of challenging years on how disparate people can come together in community. On the other hand the treaty of Waitangi was pulled together by a very small number of not very talented or educated people, in haste, to meet some of the needs of a specific context 180 years ago. And a lot of water has gone under the bridge since then.
Resistance to the bill today seems to me to be an attempt to leverage politicised history in the service of a sub-group in our community. The attempt is being made by sincere people, and of course it is legitimate that sub-groups try to persuade the rest of a polity to accept ideas that the sub-group prefers. That is politics and I think politics is good.
But what would I put forward as constitutional principles for New Zealanders to live by? The proven ones in David Seymour’s bill.
"My only way to process this is to keep writing, keep learning and keep talking about it, hoping this journey will shine a light into my own political blind spots, removing me as far away from my own political certainty as possible."
I really appreciate this, I just wish it were safer to ask questions and think out loud, dig deeper, without fear of being shut out by potentially saying the "wrong thing".
I'd personally love to read challenging but respectful thoughts that try suggesting answers to real questions or propose tradeoffs that improve something specific --- not just writing that stirs up emotion or rants or preaches to the choir.
Like what if we really did have a conversations about what we think the Principles of Te Tiriti should be? Do the current ones suit us? Why do we even need Principles? What if we really discuss what the 3 Articles mean to us in 2024? I am search for that content, but cannot find it amidst all the noise and anger.
Hi Ingrid, thanks so much for your comment. I agree with you wholeheartedly, I think we need to talk about the tensions between Te Tiriti o Waitangui and democracy and then again with liberal democracies. The tension between Māori and the Crown, and Māori and multiculturalism. I’ll aim to write more about that in the future, because this is what I mean by thinking in a counterintuitive way. I hear you 💗
I agree Ingrid. I don’t know if our politics align but I am absolutely with you on “… challenging but respectful thoughts that try suggesting answers to real questions or propose tradeoffs that improve something specific --- not just writing that stirs up emotion…”
Not to beat around the bush, I think a discussion of how the Treaty can be a unifying document for our country is a good thing. It needs to be a unifying document, and have us generally align with its principles, or else it might not be that useful a document. I support the treaty principles bill debate.
The best presentations of the more recent treaty renaissance position that I have seen come from Helmut Modlik, Kaumātua of Ngāti Toa. I have a lot of time for how he speaks and look forward to hearing more from him. Not that I agree with him at present, but then I expect to learn relevant things over the next months.
I agree john, Helmut Modlik, is by far one of the most important voices in this space. I had the privilege of meeting him last year during my campaign in Wellignton Central as a Wellignton Central candidate for TOP and he blew my mind. I really liked how he engaged with David Seymour and shared his debate and thoughts with everybody. He ticked all my boxes for an effective, open and transparent political leader. Even if he doesn’t consider himself a political leader, in this moment that is what he became for me.
Another good one Natalia.
Blakeley’s article attends to real things laying behind the surface perceptions of ‘winning’ and ‘losing’. At the end of the day social cohesion is the deep reality of the political process when it works.
Underneath those chilled, colliding tectonic plates is a unitary fire that binds our singular planet together.
When my wife and I fight, and I go with her way, I am neither losing nor conceding. I am not participating in a failed negotiation. I am married and the two of us do the other thing to what I was pushing for, that was what she wanted, and I can enjoy her satisfaction. The core of our marriage is nurtured and that is the real win. (We did start off by retreating to our stubborn chilly corners, but after a couple of decades we worked out that that didn’t work.)
‘Ideologies as GPS’ is definitely a handy shortcut to help guide choices, but the ideologies aren’t ends in themselves. The question loosened up by the events of the last week is not how do we fight for ‘justice’ and ‘truth’, it’s how do we be together as a pluralistic community.
Hi John,
Thank you for this—it’s a beautifully articulated reflection, and I think you’ve hit on something profound. Social cohesion really is the deep reality of politics when it’s working as it should. That imagery of tectonic plates and fire beneath captures it perfectly: the surface collisions can feel sharp and unyielding, but underneath, there’s a shared humanity binding us together, but one that we have drifted away from.
I love the parallel you’ve drawn with marriage. Thanks for sharing that. It’s a relatable way to think about compromise—not as losing, but as investing in the relationship itself. That idea of enjoying someone else’s satisfaction feels like a lost art in our increasingly adversarial political culture. Too often, we think of negotiation or concession as a zero-sum game when, really, the “win” is in nurturing the collective.
Your point about ideologies is sharp too—they’re tools, not the destination. It reminds me that the heart of any meaningful political process isn’t just about fighting for abstract ideals like “justice” or “truth” (though those are critical), but about how we live and work together as a pluralistic community.
Thanks again for this—it’s a perspective we need more of in these conversations.
It sounds like the Woke rug has been pulled out from under your feet. It sounds like you are trying to please everyone, which is impossible.
Hi Mark, thanks for your comment. I struggle with what you say for a couple of reasons:
1. The term *woke* feels lazy, overused and vague—it’s often a catch-all with no clear meaning. What do you mean by it here? If we go beyond the superficial, and be more specific, we can have a serious political conversation. Which is what I want to encourage.
2. I’m not trying to please everyone—or anyone, really. What I share are my honest and genuine ideas. If they come across as an attempt to walk some tightrope of accommodation or agreeability, that’s not it. So labeling me or my ideas as *woke* is really just lazy and unhelpful because it’s so broad and imprecise.
What I want to know more about is your perspective. What do you think about what’s happening in the U.S.? What’s your take on the Treaty Principles Bill? If you shared your views on those, we could have a real political conversation. What do you think?
Looking forward to hearing more from you.
The Woke term was referring to the certainty you expressed that Democrats would win, and the shock that it didnt happen. It is probably partly the media's fault for bias reporting, and the same kind of thing happened in our last election in NZ. My sister agrees with you that "woke" is vague and ill defined, and I can say that it doesnt seem like a compliment, more of a dis. And my sister thinks that Bernie Sanders would have been a much better choice than Kamila Harris for the Democrats to beat Trump, and I agree. He has more conviction, and seems more authentic, with more political experience, but he is a pale stale male, so he wasnt even considered. Do you think Kamila Harris was chosen because she is a woman of colour, or because she had the best skills to beat Trump ? The Democrats had a billion dollar campaign budget, and didnt pick the best person for the job, even when he was right in front of them. Are you a Democrat supporter who is wondering why Bernie Sanders wasnt chosen ?
Hi Mark. I’m with you when you have frustration with aggressive and strident people, convinced of the correctness of their … dare I say it, woke ideas (which I frequently think are loopy) and who shout down and stifle all opposition. It is tiresome. And then when the same commentators radiate snowflake grief at not getting their way, well, no sympathy. I get it.
It is quite likely that neither of us would stand shoulder to shoulder on the same side of the barricade as Natalia. But, you’ve got to say, she does her damndest to give us a place in this Substack that is calm and reasoned. She does try very hard to find middle ground, and that is a treasure. We have both seen her manage rude and bitchy comments with curiosity and dignity.
I always read your comments with interest and I look forward to them in the future.
Hi John, thank you for your very thoughtful and generous respond. I appreciate your honesty and the kind words about the space I’m trying to create here. It’s important to me that this Substack remains a place where people can engage constructively, especially when perspectives differ and even compete. I feel you are picking up what I am putting down and I really appreciate that.
I completely understand a lot of peoples frustrations with stridency and dismissiveness in public discourse—it can feel so exhausting, lazy and polarizing. While I’m sure we might not always find ourselves aligned on every issue or standing “shoulder to shoulder,” as you put it, that is the point of this space. To find the people we disagree with, and stay the course, keep talking and stay engaged.
I’m glad we can meet here with mutual curiosity, disagreement and respect. That middle ground, for me, is where the most important conversations happen, and it’s readers like you who make that possible.
Thank you also for recognizing the effort it takes to manage competing views and discussions—it means a lot. I hope this space continues to feel like one where ideas can be exchanged freely, openly and thoughtfully. I look forward to hearing more of your insights in the future!
Nat
I enjoy your openness, your energy and your erudition. I look forward to Tuesdays!
That’s incredibly kind and generous John, thank you 🙏🏽
Hi Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to share such a detailed and honest comment. To be honest, your ideas is where the rubber hits the road for me, its the kind of exchange where I hope to engage in meaningful conversations—especially when it’s clear we might not agree on a lot, including Māori rights and the protests. I appreciate you sharing where you’re coming from, and I’ll do my best to lean into this thoughtfully, in a balanced way and honesty.
Starting at the top, I’ll admit I’m not deeply literate on the current political shifts in Europe beyond some broader themes like post-Brexit border challenges and Hungary’s pivot toward illiberal democracy. As for the U.S., I understand why some might see Trump’s leadership style as decisive, but for me, it’s neither a form of leadership I admire nor one I support. In fact, I’ve written before about the importance of strong leadership in Wellington by our Mayor and our current MP, but I’m more inclined to advocate for collaborative, decentralized and inclusive styles—ones that avoid concentrating too much power in one individual.
Here in NZ, I think our MMP system protects us from the pitfalls of overly centralized authority. Historically, systems where one person wields outsized power have often led to instability, inequality, and even national security and violence issues. Decentralized governance, despite its challenges, allows for more voices to be represented, more stability and more peace—principles I strongly support, regardless of which political party is in charge.
Regarding protests, I agree with you that they can be polarizing. However, I think the right to protest is fundamental in any democracy, and I will also fight for everybody to be able to protests, as long as it’s done peacefully. I’ve consistently defended people’s right to demonstrate, whether it’s for Posie Parker or the current Hīkoi. For me, the key is that protests remain peaceful, as both seem to have been, to my knowledge.
On the Hīkoi specifically, it’s worth clarifying that this isn’t about demanding more government influence but rather opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, which protesters argue diminishes Māori self-determination. It’s understandable that this can feel like a clash between Te Tiriti o Waitangi and democratic values—it’s a tension we need to navigate thoughtfully. Personally, I see these discussions as opportunities to redefine what liberal democracy can look like in Aotearoa, incorporating both self-determination and collective equity. If liberal democracies still have a fighting chance. Now your thoughts about the Treaty not being able to be read in English, is incorrect. You Can find the English version as easily as you can the Māori version, and I can even go a step further and say that the English version you mention is the only one you can find, because in reality the Māori original versions have disappeared.
I agree wholeheartedly that we can’t do tribal politics, which is why I am against identity politics, however I can see and support the idea that some groups get consistent and effectively discriminated against specific sectors like health, justice, education and housing. So how do we stop that type of institutional discrimination whilst not getting caught in cultural and identity politics?
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts—it’s clear you care deeply about these issues, and I appreciate the chance to discuss them with you. Let me know what you think of what I’ve said ..
Ngā mihi,
Nat
Hi Mark,
Thanks for taking the time to clarify what you meant—I appreciate it, it’s exactly what I care about, your ideas. Politics is all about ideas, more so than about people.
I think these kinds of back-and-forths are important to understanding where each of us is coming from, and John’s response to your earlier comment captured some of what I hope to foster here: a space for calm, reasoned conversation especially when we disagree or ideas compete.
On the term “woke,” I’m glad you’re open to acknowledging that it can be seen as dismissive and vague—it’s part of why I’m cautious about it. It’s often used to shut down discussion rather than dig into the ideas that underpin political or social positions. That’s where my focus is: understanding and engaging with ideas, not labels.
As for your thoughts on Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris, I think you raise a valid question about how political candidates are chosen and what criteria matter most. While I’m not interested in identity politics (e.g., wokeism, “woman of colour” vs. “pale stale male”), I think it’s worth interrogating whether the system of selecting candidates is prioritizing the best person for the job—or who is perceived as electable within current power structures.
To answer your question directly: No, I’m not a Democrat supporter, I’m a radical centrist and that is context and country dependent.
I’m interested in how policies and ideas align with creating a fairer, more cohesive society, regarded of the Left Right Binary, i care about more counterintuitive political ideas.
I’ve certainly wondered about Bernie Sanders’ potential as a candidate, however I disagree with Left of Left ideas more than I do with any others.
But I can see how his competency, authenticity and focus on economic inequality struck a chord with many people, and I do think his ideas deserved more serious attention. But whether he could have beaten Trump is ultimately unknowable, given how polarized the electorate was (and still is).
I heard an interview yesterday by Fancisis Fukuyama, one of the political scientist I follow and read the most say that if Mitt Romney would have beat Barack Obama in his second term, we could have avoided Trump, which I thought was a very interesting insight.
What do you think is the main takeaway from the Democrats’ decision-making process? Is it about their campaign strategy, the role of identity in politics, or something else? I’d be curious to hear more about your perspective there.
Looking forward to continuing this conversation! Nat
Kia ora Natalia there is plenty of politics to comment on right now in France, Germany, and even the UK are having instability problems, and people in those countries may be envying the strong leadership happening in the USA with Trump. Even here in NZ we just needed somebody with authority to step up and say "no phones at school". The Green Party could never achieve this cos they couldnt all agree, but that doesnt provide the leadership that people want. I voted for our Coalition govt to get rid of Labour govt, and especially to protect womens rights from men in dresses. The assault on Posie Parker showed how bad things can get when you have a bunch of cowards running the place. I am glad to see the back of all those politicians who encouraged the rainbow thugs into violence at Albert Park.
Now we have a big Hikoi protesting against the govt I voted for, and against all those Maoris in the Coalition on my team. I endorse self determination as the best way forward for Maori, and people in general, along with less government, but those people in the Hikoi want more govt influence. It certainly is a polarizing situation for many NZers, and I think the protesters are unrealistic about what is possible in these difficult times when people dont have enough. The activists are demanding Maori sovereignty, whatever that looks like, but I think self-determination would be more achievable. One concern I have about the Waitangi Treaty is there isnt an English version I can read, as the English version in the museum was defaced by activists cos it wasnt accurate enough to be legitimate. What do you think about following a treaty that can only be read by a few percent of NZers? I dont think that you will find any one social theory that will fix everyones problems, and I am not sure that we can all revert to tribalism. Where will we be in a week from now ? The protest wont stop till they get sovereignty, whatever that looks like.
Francis Fukuyama and Steven Kotkin are a couple of my faves!
Yeah, Francis is my go to political scientist at the moment. I have read Steven Kotkin, but because his focus is more on history and geopolitics, I haven’t engaged with his ideas as much. But definitely in my top 5. Why do you like him so much? Any favorite books I should read from him that you like?
I look out for long form YouTube videos from them both although I have a couple of Frank’s books. The issue I have with YouTube is that most videos have that echo chamber quality of aligned people agreeing with each other, and agreeing that the other side is obviously wrong. This doesn’t turn over many stones. Long form debates between able and polite protagonists is my dream! I enjoyed David Seymour and Helmut Modlik the other day, where they had an opportunity to speak in whole paragraphs at least. If I was to stand back from that debate I would say that one thing they share is a caring for the state of our community going forwards.