To mark the week, I’m sharing a few brief thoughts and resources on the Treaty Principles Bill—not a comprehensive take, just some key points to consider.
The left failed to provide a way for the wider NZ society to debate so we got Seymour. We left the gap, he filled it. His Treaty Principles Bill is less about coorectly framing what was signed and more about what Seymour & Co wish had been signed. It needs to be addressed on that front as much as trying to put him right on points of history and law. And whatever your position, both approaches need discussion. I only wish the left had been smart enough to have set the terms of that debate. Maybe it's not too late if we stop throwing rascist accusations too easily and start engaging.
I disagree with your thesis but enjoy your clarity in this article.
I think we need to have a conversation as a community that will indeed be regressive and divisive, on one perspective, while consciousness-raising and essential on the other.
The treaty is a red herring. The core issue is the stealthy (as in ‘not-yet publicly debated’) shift in New Zealand’s constitution over the past five decades. This has been brought about by an unelected vanguard of virtue.
I support the treaty principles bill as a simple and corrective statement of what a democracy is.
Thanks for your comment and for engaging with the article—even though we see things differently!
I agree that a national conversation is important, even if it feels divisive at times. But I see this Bill as a bit of a shortcut that oversimplifies complex issues. While some may view the Treaty as a red herring, I think it’s a key part of New Zealand’s identity and history—both legally and symbolically. It's not just about democracy in theory but about how we’ve shaped it in practice as a nation.
I also think the Bill tries to clarify things that are already happening—like the government governing all New Zealanders and us having agency over our land and property. So, why frame it that way? I believe there are better ways to have this conversation that could lead to more understanding and justice, especially for Māori.
I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on how we could balance these concerns while staying true to democratic values.
Thanks again for reading and sharing your insights!
I think we do agree that having conversations, as a community, on topics of social importance, matters. How do we have such conversations in a democratic manner? I would say ‘out loud, in public and leave out the violence’.
As I see it the bill’s value is in jump-starting a conversation about how we want to be with each other, here in New Zealand over the next few decades. Is it ‘a shortcut that oversimplifies complex issues’? Well maybe. I would frame it though as a pithy, potent and effective political message that puts important issues in play. Will it pass? I doubt it, but it doesn’t need to.
It has already surfaced a substantial reaction from the pure of heart ~20-25% of our community. This is healthy. Our wider community can see this reaction and engage. The chosen ones in their turn can rise to the emerging challenge, see this and think about how to pitch effectively to wider community values and worldview. A successful process will be messy and the outcome probably won’t look like today’s status quo.
Bryce Edwards put out an article today that starts “The Establishment in New Zealand is becoming deeply unpopular.” Unrepresentative conformity fosters a festering isolation and discontent. For the sake of social cohesion I commend the heavy lifting the bill has done and is doing.
Do you know of any english translation of the Waitangi Treaty I can read that is considered valid and accurate ? I noticed that the translation that was defaced in the museum was considered inaccurate.
Martin, I hear you and agree—the Left has definitely dropped the ball in some areas, and this Bill feels like a consequence of that. Policies like the "No new mines in conservation land" really affected communities like those on the West Coast, just as an example. We’ve missed opportunities to bring everyone into the conversation, and that’s allowed Seymour to step in with his own framing. We need to focus on higher quality and more transparent engagement instead of shutting down debate with accusations.
John, I completely agree that we need to talk about our future as a community, especially with all our opposing views. But it’s important that we ground that conversation in a solid understanding of the Treaty’s historical and legal context so we don’t lose sight of why it matters. Building our own historical, cultural, and political competence is key for everyone.
Mark, there are definitely a lot of debated translations of the Treaty. A good starting point is Te Papa’s side-by-side comparison of the English and te reo Māori versions. It shows the key differences in wording, especially around sovereignty and governance, and helps explain why the Treaty’s meaning is still such a topic of debate.
Thanks to all of you for your insights, it means a lot that you read and engage.
“But it’s important that we ground that conversation in a solid understanding of the Treaty’s historical and legal context so we don’t lose sight of why it matters.” Having a discussion about whether Christianity should be the state-advocated religion of New Zealand will be difficult if the conversation has to be based on the bible and its apologetics. Same with the treaty.
The left failed to provide a way for the wider NZ society to debate so we got Seymour. We left the gap, he filled it. His Treaty Principles Bill is less about coorectly framing what was signed and more about what Seymour & Co wish had been signed. It needs to be addressed on that front as much as trying to put him right on points of history and law. And whatever your position, both approaches need discussion. I only wish the left had been smart enough to have set the terms of that debate. Maybe it's not too late if we stop throwing rascist accusations too easily and start engaging.
I agree Martin, we need the debate that has not been had. What is our vision for the future as a community.
I disagree with your thesis but enjoy your clarity in this article.
I think we need to have a conversation as a community that will indeed be regressive and divisive, on one perspective, while consciousness-raising and essential on the other.
The treaty is a red herring. The core issue is the stealthy (as in ‘not-yet publicly debated’) shift in New Zealand’s constitution over the past five decades. This has been brought about by an unelected vanguard of virtue.
I support the treaty principles bill as a simple and corrective statement of what a democracy is.
Hi John,
Thanks for your comment and for engaging with the article—even though we see things differently!
I agree that a national conversation is important, even if it feels divisive at times. But I see this Bill as a bit of a shortcut that oversimplifies complex issues. While some may view the Treaty as a red herring, I think it’s a key part of New Zealand’s identity and history—both legally and symbolically. It's not just about democracy in theory but about how we’ve shaped it in practice as a nation.
I also think the Bill tries to clarify things that are already happening—like the government governing all New Zealanders and us having agency over our land and property. So, why frame it that way? I believe there are better ways to have this conversation that could lead to more understanding and justice, especially for Māori.
I’d be keen to hear your thoughts on how we could balance these concerns while staying true to democratic values.
Thanks again for reading and sharing your insights!
Best,
Natalia
Hi Natalia
I think we do agree that having conversations, as a community, on topics of social importance, matters. How do we have such conversations in a democratic manner? I would say ‘out loud, in public and leave out the violence’.
As I see it the bill’s value is in jump-starting a conversation about how we want to be with each other, here in New Zealand over the next few decades. Is it ‘a shortcut that oversimplifies complex issues’? Well maybe. I would frame it though as a pithy, potent and effective political message that puts important issues in play. Will it pass? I doubt it, but it doesn’t need to.
It has already surfaced a substantial reaction from the pure of heart ~20-25% of our community. This is healthy. Our wider community can see this reaction and engage. The chosen ones in their turn can rise to the emerging challenge, see this and think about how to pitch effectively to wider community values and worldview. A successful process will be messy and the outcome probably won’t look like today’s status quo.
Bryce Edwards put out an article today that starts “The Establishment in New Zealand is becoming deeply unpopular.” Unrepresentative conformity fosters a festering isolation and discontent. For the sake of social cohesion I commend the heavy lifting the bill has done and is doing.
Do you know of any english translation of the Waitangi Treaty I can read that is considered valid and accurate ? I noticed that the translation that was defaced in the museum was considered inaccurate.
Hi Martin, John, and Mark,
Martin, I hear you and agree—the Left has definitely dropped the ball in some areas, and this Bill feels like a consequence of that. Policies like the "No new mines in conservation land" really affected communities like those on the West Coast, just as an example. We’ve missed opportunities to bring everyone into the conversation, and that’s allowed Seymour to step in with his own framing. We need to focus on higher quality and more transparent engagement instead of shutting down debate with accusations.
John, I completely agree that we need to talk about our future as a community, especially with all our opposing views. But it’s important that we ground that conversation in a solid understanding of the Treaty’s historical and legal context so we don’t lose sight of why it matters. Building our own historical, cultural, and political competence is key for everyone.
Mark, there are definitely a lot of debated translations of the Treaty. A good starting point is Te Papa’s side-by-side comparison of the English and te reo Māori versions. It shows the key differences in wording, especially around sovereignty and governance, and helps explain why the Treaty’s meaning is still such a topic of debate.
Thanks to all of you for your insights, it means a lot that you read and engage.
Nat
“But it’s important that we ground that conversation in a solid understanding of the Treaty’s historical and legal context so we don’t lose sight of why it matters.” Having a discussion about whether Christianity should be the state-advocated religion of New Zealand will be difficult if the conversation has to be based on the bible and its apologetics. Same with the treaty.