Can these incompatible ideas coexist? Not just in society but in our laws, institutions, and, perhaps most importantly, within ourselves? I believe they do, they should, and they can.
As someone who’s studied Treaty of Waitangi History and Subsequent law/jurisprudence quite extensively, I’ll admit I’m a bit in two minds about this Bill.
Where the supporters of the bill do sort of have a point is that the treaty jurisprudence, including the principles are the result of extensive common law development and beaurcrartic decisions, rather than an official democratic process. For example of course, the treaty principles themselves are a creation of a court case in the late 1980s, and are not officially set in out legalisation anywhere. Ultimately in our constitutional arrangements parliament is sovereign, rule of law must prevail (not rule of lawyers!).
Ultimately I do think much of the current treaty jurisprudence does need to be defined more clearly in acts of parliament, otherwise it will be perceived (and I will stress the word perceived), as ‘special right for Maori’.
I’m not saying by the way the the act parties bill is the best way to achieve this, but it is asking a question that does need to be asked and ultimately answered (I don’t have a clear answer myself by the way).
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing your thoughts—I appreciate the balanced way you’ve laid this out, especially given your deep dive into Treaty history and law.
You make a great point about how the Treaty principles have developed through common law and bureaucracy instead of explicit democratic processes. I’m with you on the idea that clearer definitions in Acts of Parliament could help with transparency (a topic I feel pretty strongly about!) and maybe ease some of those perceptions around "special rights for Māori."
I also really liked your line about the "rule of law, not the rule of lawyers." Such an important distinction!
While I’m not personally behind the ACT Party's bill as the right way to get to these outcomes, I completely agree that we need to explore why people support ideas like this. That feels like a key step in having any meaningful dialogue about how we apply the Treaty principles in a way that works for everyone.
Thanks again for adding to the conversation—I really value your take on this. Nat
I wish more people, especially Maori, would come forth with a suggested rewriting of the Principles put forward in the bill. I would love to see that kind of detail - what the Principles really should be.
For example, I would suggest expanding Principle 2 of the bill to have some language about what we agree "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means, so we hold on to this valuable concept in a way that makes sense in 2024 and is open to future understandings.
But for that, the opposition would need to engage with the Bill, and I can understand why they will not.
Hi Ingrid, thanks so much for jumping in! I know that even the word "principles" is controversial among Māori. The real debate, I think, is about the Articles and what they mean for our current constitutional arrangements. Do you see a distinction between the words article and principles? Māori have explained this many times in many different ways; there are a lot of books and academic research done by Māori on this topic. Would you like me to recommend a few books? There are also some resources online—let me know if you want any suggestions.
Your idea about expanding Principle 2 to define what "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means today is interesting. I'd love to hear more about what they mean to you. I agree that keeping these concepts relevant for 2024 and leaving room for future understandings is key.
This is a complex and loaded debate, but I think that as long as we keep talking to each other across the political aisle, we can make some positive, humble, and constructive progress.
Thank you, Martin. I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment—it means a lot to me. It was a hard piece to write and even harder to decide to publish, but I'm glad I did.—Nat
I cant see how much benefit we would really get if we did adopt Seymours treaty principles bill. After much debate, I dont see enough merit in altering the status quo, as it wont really change anything.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I totally get where you're coming from. It's important to consider whether making changes will actually lead to meaningful progress. I think the proposed bill is redundant since we're already addressing those issues. I'm not sure this bill is going to be effective—in fact, I don't think it will be, which is why I don't support it. However, I do understand why people do. Do you think there are better ways to address the issues the bill is trying to tackle? - Nat
Hi Nat, Plenty of people think the treaty principles Bill is important because it lets everyone join the discussion around the Treaty. Why dont you think the bill will be effective if it allows the public to make submissions over the next 6 months, and why do you think the proposed bill is redundant, when John Baker states below that he is glad about the opportunity to be more involved. Till now non-Maori in NZ have been told about a treaty that makes them 2nd class citizens in NZ, and if they disagree it is because they are too ignorant to read it and understand it. That is the current status quo, and dont you think people like John deserve to have more say about his status in our inclusive democracy? Will you be making any submissions about the Treaty and the Bill ?
Hi Natalia, it looks to me like David Seymour was trying to take back control of policy and decision making from all the left wing Lawyers seeking to rule the country through the courts, simply by passing the treaty principles bill. The ghost of Jacinda Ardern lives on through those lawyers, and Peters and Luxon are going to have to beat them one at a time to do what the voters elected them to do. See how badly Liz Gunn was treated by a female Judge yesterday, simply for disagreeing with the Labour govt about vaccinations. That Judge acted like Arderns henchwoman toward Gunn, and who is she accountable to? So Seymours Bill may have allowed the Coalition to make changes without so much legal resistance.
Hi Natalia. I think there is a lot more conversation going on now. Lots of things in politics are messy. I’m just glad these additional conversations are happening, sparked by the bill. They involve many more people now, who do not agree that the current treaty orthodoxy is an amenable place to start. When everyone in a conversation thread is basically in agreement, that is an echo chamber not a conversation. You can detect when real conversations start to happen by the tetchiness that appears.
I think the value is in having the conversation that the bill has made possible. I don’t think there was a conduit for public energy before now. We are New Zealanders, all of us. How do we want to go forward as a community, and how do we do this in a way where there is a majority of us buying in to? Not just a minority of civil servants making decisions for us? By talking: In public. Load. And without violence.
Hi John, thanks for jumping in! I agree that this bill has sparked important discussions among all New Zealanders. I still don't think it's the right mechanism or form, but I wholeheartedly understand why people support it. I feel both those thoughts coexist within my own beliefs, so I can understand both sides of the aisle. Open, public dialogue is so crucial. How do you think we can keep these conversations going in a way that doesn't seem so hostile towards Māori? - Nat
Hi Natalia. I find I keep coming back to your question about hostility to Maori. I was dismissive to the spirit of your question. I admire your relentless positivity in the face of text that bites and will have another go.
I think you are asking your question from a perspective that sees us as Maori and non-Maori, in a te pati Maori sense. This is a legitimate perspective.
A different answer would be that as a community we need to be aware of the high cost of housing, the health of the most disadvantaged as well as their education and welfare, and be committed to improving the statistics. This will advantage all of us. It will disproportionately advantage the group that TPM frame as Maori.
At a spiritual level I think valuable that the different flavours of ‘us’ are seen as a treasure for our community. I mean that in the sense that if a Sami or Inuit just landed on the plane here at Auckland, and wants to join our community (and makes it through the points system), then they are New Zealanders. All of us who are here already will be enriched.
I would identify Maori culture as the culture of the Indigenous people of New Zealand. I wouldn’t fetishise it, but I would acknowledge it, with due dignity.
The culture most of us identify with, in the most relaxed way, is pakeha. One of my grandmothers was Argentinian (my father’s first language was Spanish). One grandfather was from Scotland. One of my forebears was at the signing of the treaty. I have Maori, Cook Island and Indian neighbours. Around a beer we share pakeha culture and talk politics. This is actually the primary culture of New Zealand.
Diwali, Chinese New Year, Matariki, New Year … I look forward to experiencing the Somali and Mexican celebrations.
I think a focus on segregating specialness is a mistake, I don’t think this is the way we will actually go as a country, and I look forward to positive political messaging that is joyful regarding diversity and inclusion.
Hi John, thanks for coming back to this—I know these conversations can be challenging. Your thoughtful and nuanced reflections are always welcome here, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider the question and share your perspective.
I think you’re absolutely right that addressing the systemic issues—housing, health, education, and welfare—will benefit everyone, with Māori disproportionately gaining because they’ve historically been disproportionately disadvantaged. That’s a point I think gets lost sometimes, especially in debates about equity versus equality. Focusing on improving outcomes for the most vulnerable doesn’t just lift individuals or groups—it strengthens the whole community.
The way you describe your neighborhood and the relaxed sense of belonging that emerges from shared conversations over a beer is a lovely vision of what inclusion can look like in practice. It’s a good reminder that we don’t need to choose between acknowledging Māori culture with dignity and embracing the broader cultural mix that makes up New Zealand life. Both can exist together, enriching one another. And it’s speaks to the collision of NZ bicultural AND multicultural fabric.
Where we might differ slightly is on the idea of “segregating specialness.” I think sometimes what feels like separation is actually a process of recognition—acknowledging histories, perspectives, and lived realities that haven’t always had space at the table. It’s not about fetishizing or elevating one group above another but about making sure the unique contributions of Māori culture, as the culture of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, aren’t lost or overshadowed. But this is easier said than done, I appreciate that at all levels individuals, institutional and nationally.
I agree that the way forward has to include positive, joyful messaging about all of us. That kind of tone—hopeful, optimistic, and practical—has the power to bring people together rather than divide them. And as you say, this is something all of us benefit from, no matter where we come from or how we identify.
Thanks for engaging with the question, John. I always look forward to your insights.
For myself, I don’t see the debate as hostile towards Maori, depending on how you mean ‘Maori’. I think there are multiple positions in it. There is a position, which I subscribe to, that we are all New Zealanders, no more no less. This position is not accepting of additional rights for Maori people qua being Maori. Part of my interest in this debate is to understand why there is a supported position that holds that there should be.
the treaty doesn't give māori more rights than everybody else, why are you repeating dishonest act party propaganda that serves only to further racism.
I don’t believe John, myself or anybody is repeating ACT Party propaganda, but I understand why it might come across that way, given how charged this topic is.
It’s true that Te Tiriti doesn’t explicitly give Māori “more rights” than others, but it does recognize Māori as tangata whenua and guarantees specific protections, such as tino rangatiratanga (chiefly authority) over their lands, resources, and taonga. Over time, these guarantees have been interpreted as ensuring Māori have the ability to exercise self-determination and preserve their culture within the framework of a colonized state.
At the same time, it’s worth acknowledging that this recognition has created a perception of unequal treatment towards Non-Māori, especially when it comes to policies or legal frameworks designed to address historical injustices. This isn’t new—it’s been noted by both Māori and Pākehā academics throughout New Zealand’s history, often as part of wider debates on how to balance equity and fairness in a Treaty-based, multicultural society in a liberal democratic capitalist framework.
Rather than fueling racism, I think it’s important to grapple with these perceptions openly. Dismissing them outright doesn’t help us build the understanding and dialogue we need to move forward.
Hi Nat. Nice to see you back! I hope you had a decent break from the slave driving quality of looking after Less Certain. Did you promise yourself to stay away from it for at least a couple of weeks?
That conflation of a treaty with a contract is common, as you know. I think when this is done, it is about saying ‘you shouldn’t break agreements’ - which I agree with.
The reason why I try to bring the word ‘deal’ into a ‘contract’ conversation is to move the focus to the place where the anger (I think) comes from, deal-breaking. Away from sterile ‘legal language’ squabbles.
At the end of the day the real conversation, I think, is about some resolution of power and persuasion. I reckon it might be possible to take a helicopter, de-focused view and group most of the arguments by where their energy comes from:
• you shouldn’t break agreements
• that was then and this is now
And so on.
Anyway, maybe you should turn off your computer for a bit longer and give your brain a rest from politics.
Thank you for responding and not just letting my words pass unchallenged. I certainly don’t want to repeat dishonest propaganda, and further racism. I think that we may well not see things the same way. The issue is, can we talk across this gap?
You are right, these are ACT party talking points. I voted ACT.
I have spent a lot of this year digging down to investigate and make up my mind about things Treaty. It’s a work in progress. Where I’ve got to is that I do think the Treaty can be a symbol shared by, and important to, all people in New Zealand.
So far though I would say that the current te tiriti trajectory does establish differences between Maori and non-Maori. I think differences of this nature run headlong into a pre-existing egalitarian conception of our ‘us’. I think this is an unnecessary mistake, an own goal.
What I think is good though is that this conversation has now been elevated to where all New Zealanders get to participate. The Treaty was a mechanism whereby disparate people set out to rub along together. I think our community would benefit from a renewal of this spirit.
the treaty is a CONTRACT, do act supporters not value contract law? I can only assume so as they want to renegotiate the terms of said contract without the permission of a signing party, which is a violation of contract law.
I am seeing the treaty principles bill in the same light as I saw the 3 Waters proposal. What is the problem you are trying to fix ? In both cases the solution proposed is not necessary or fit for purpose. I cant see how we would be better off with the treaty principles bill. It looks like an ideological solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
The bill itself then is much ado about nothing. I think you have a point. Of itself, the bill wouldn’t bring about constitutional clarity in New Zealand, and it is not the right way to do that anyway. A future government could reverse it by passing more legislation. This is also true for the changes NZ First are bringing about as they remove or get specific about references to the principles of the treaty scattered through legislation. The strong and correct thing this bill does do in my view is to bring about a conversation amongst New Zealanders. This conversation has the very real prospect of us participating in working out how we want to go forward as a community. This is the fundamental, legitimate, way to establish what our living constitution is, today.
I agree that while the bill itself will not bring about the constitutional clarity, especially given its unlikely to pass, it's definitely igniting important conversations. Engaging in these discussions can help us shape our collective future. How do you think we can have these conversations, so we can develop more inclusive outcomes? - Nat
Hi again Mark, I appreciate you sharing more of your perspective. It's definitely important to question whether the proposed solutions are addressing real issues or might create new ones, I hear you on the concerns about practicality. What do you think would be a better approach to any underlying issues? Interesting comparison to the three waters ... what are you thoughts on that? - Nat
Hi Ruaridh, thanks for the recommendation! I'll definitely check out 'A Halfling's' piece. It's always great to read different perspectives on this topic. What other things are you reading about this topic? I'm always keen for other recommendations. Nat
a brilliant read. Thank you Natalia. All kiwis could read this. I agree, I am a bit of both.
Bodies are held together by tension. Motives are a big thing here for me, as well as the health of on going reflection and debate. I don't trust ACTs and others intentions as far as purity and good goes......and that is my issue, as well as justice.
Heya, Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad the piece resonated with you. I agree that tension can be a source of strength, and motives really matter when we're navigating these complex issues. Ongoing reflection and debate are so important. I understand your concerns about trust and intentions—that's something I think a lot of us grapple with. Let's keep the conversation going.- Nat
Natalia. “Many of us come from different places without a sense of whakapapa or tūrangawaewae.” This sounds like a wish. I wonder if you wish for whakapapa and tūrangawaewae that is really yours. I don’t doubt that you will find it. For myself, the bit of dirt that I care about most is our garden. I have sweated blood in that garden. The family that matters most to me is my wife. Why she puts up with me is just one of those mysteries of the universe. We like the next door neighbours. I like my job. I know where most things are in the small supermarket here in Mangere Bridge. I used to think that what I really wanted to do was to go and see Teotihuacan, Machu Picchu and Ankor Wat. I am an engineer after all and these are serious and spectacular undertakings. Now what I want to do is see my nieces and nephews. It’s not a matter of collecting a few decades, it’s a matter of having revealed to me the things that are right in front of my eyes, where they have always been. You have a good heart. I don’t doubt that this will happen for you.
It looks like a nice day for the hikoi, without rain although a little on the chilly side. I look forward to reading Matthew Wright’s book. I’m reading Ewen McQueen at the moment. I don’t share the goosebump-sense of import of this event, but I do think that there is great value in learning, and considering together, what good paths we can have as a community going forward into our shared future.
"Grappling with the Treaty and policies like the Treaty Principles Bill demands that we embrace tension rather than undermine and punish each other. It asks us to hold space for competing truths, confront the discomfort of complexity, and resist oversimplification for everyone’s sake."
Beautifully said, and mirrors my own intense journey these past few weeks. I tried to figure it all out with my logical brain, but came to realize that what I really need to do is live in "the discomfort of complexity" - so thank you for representing that!
As someone who’s studied Treaty of Waitangi History and Subsequent law/jurisprudence quite extensively, I’ll admit I’m a bit in two minds about this Bill.
Where the supporters of the bill do sort of have a point is that the treaty jurisprudence, including the principles are the result of extensive common law development and beaurcrartic decisions, rather than an official democratic process. For example of course, the treaty principles themselves are a creation of a court case in the late 1980s, and are not officially set in out legalisation anywhere. Ultimately in our constitutional arrangements parliament is sovereign, rule of law must prevail (not rule of lawyers!).
Ultimately I do think much of the current treaty jurisprudence does need to be defined more clearly in acts of parliament, otherwise it will be perceived (and I will stress the word perceived), as ‘special right for Maori’.
I’m not saying by the way the the act parties bill is the best way to achieve this, but it is asking a question that does need to be asked and ultimately answered (I don’t have a clear answer myself by the way).
Hi Tom, thanks for sharing your thoughts—I appreciate the balanced way you’ve laid this out, especially given your deep dive into Treaty history and law.
You make a great point about how the Treaty principles have developed through common law and bureaucracy instead of explicit democratic processes. I’m with you on the idea that clearer definitions in Acts of Parliament could help with transparency (a topic I feel pretty strongly about!) and maybe ease some of those perceptions around "special rights for Māori."
I also really liked your line about the "rule of law, not the rule of lawyers." Such an important distinction!
While I’m not personally behind the ACT Party's bill as the right way to get to these outcomes, I completely agree that we need to explore why people support ideas like this. That feels like a key step in having any meaningful dialogue about how we apply the Treaty principles in a way that works for everyone.
Thanks again for adding to the conversation—I really value your take on this. Nat
I wish more people, especially Maori, would come forth with a suggested rewriting of the Principles put forward in the bill. I would love to see that kind of detail - what the Principles really should be.
For example, I would suggest expanding Principle 2 of the bill to have some language about what we agree "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means, so we hold on to this valuable concept in a way that makes sense in 2024 and is open to future understandings.
But for that, the opposition would need to engage with the Bill, and I can understand why they will not.
Hi Ingrid, thanks so much for jumping in! I know that even the word "principles" is controversial among Māori. The real debate, I think, is about the Articles and what they mean for our current constitutional arrangements. Do you see a distinction between the words article and principles? Māori have explained this many times in many different ways; there are a lot of books and academic research done by Māori on this topic. Would you like me to recommend a few books? There are also some resources online—let me know if you want any suggestions.
Your idea about expanding Principle 2 to define what "tino rangatiratanga" of "taonga katoa" means today is interesting. I'd love to hear more about what they mean to you. I agree that keeping these concepts relevant for 2024 and leaving room for future understandings is key.
This is a complex and loaded debate, but I think that as long as we keep talking to each other across the political aisle, we can make some positive, humble, and constructive progress.
Really appreciate you sharing your thoughts!- Nat
Well said, Natalia.
Thank you, Martin. I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment—it means a lot to me. It was a hard piece to write and even harder to decide to publish, but I'm glad I did.—Nat
I cant see how much benefit we would really get if we did adopt Seymours treaty principles bill. After much debate, I dont see enough merit in altering the status quo, as it wont really change anything.
Hi Mark, thanks for sharing your thoughts. I totally get where you're coming from. It's important to consider whether making changes will actually lead to meaningful progress. I think the proposed bill is redundant since we're already addressing those issues. I'm not sure this bill is going to be effective—in fact, I don't think it will be, which is why I don't support it. However, I do understand why people do. Do you think there are better ways to address the issues the bill is trying to tackle? - Nat
Hi Nat, Plenty of people think the treaty principles Bill is important because it lets everyone join the discussion around the Treaty. Why dont you think the bill will be effective if it allows the public to make submissions over the next 6 months, and why do you think the proposed bill is redundant, when John Baker states below that he is glad about the opportunity to be more involved. Till now non-Maori in NZ have been told about a treaty that makes them 2nd class citizens in NZ, and if they disagree it is because they are too ignorant to read it and understand it. That is the current status quo, and dont you think people like John deserve to have more say about his status in our inclusive democracy? Will you be making any submissions about the Treaty and the Bill ?
Hi Natalia, it looks to me like David Seymour was trying to take back control of policy and decision making from all the left wing Lawyers seeking to rule the country through the courts, simply by passing the treaty principles bill. The ghost of Jacinda Ardern lives on through those lawyers, and Peters and Luxon are going to have to beat them one at a time to do what the voters elected them to do. See how badly Liz Gunn was treated by a female Judge yesterday, simply for disagreeing with the Labour govt about vaccinations. That Judge acted like Arderns henchwoman toward Gunn, and who is she accountable to? So Seymours Bill may have allowed the Coalition to make changes without so much legal resistance.
Hi Natalia. I think there is a lot more conversation going on now. Lots of things in politics are messy. I’m just glad these additional conversations are happening, sparked by the bill. They involve many more people now, who do not agree that the current treaty orthodoxy is an amenable place to start. When everyone in a conversation thread is basically in agreement, that is an echo chamber not a conversation. You can detect when real conversations start to happen by the tetchiness that appears.
I think the value is in having the conversation that the bill has made possible. I don’t think there was a conduit for public energy before now. We are New Zealanders, all of us. How do we want to go forward as a community, and how do we do this in a way where there is a majority of us buying in to? Not just a minority of civil servants making decisions for us? By talking: In public. Load. And without violence.
Hi John, thanks for jumping in! I agree that this bill has sparked important discussions among all New Zealanders. I still don't think it's the right mechanism or form, but I wholeheartedly understand why people support it. I feel both those thoughts coexist within my own beliefs, so I can understand both sides of the aisle. Open, public dialogue is so crucial. How do you think we can keep these conversations going in a way that doesn't seem so hostile towards Māori? - Nat
Hi Natalia. I find I keep coming back to your question about hostility to Maori. I was dismissive to the spirit of your question. I admire your relentless positivity in the face of text that bites and will have another go.
I think you are asking your question from a perspective that sees us as Maori and non-Maori, in a te pati Maori sense. This is a legitimate perspective.
A different answer would be that as a community we need to be aware of the high cost of housing, the health of the most disadvantaged as well as their education and welfare, and be committed to improving the statistics. This will advantage all of us. It will disproportionately advantage the group that TPM frame as Maori.
At a spiritual level I think valuable that the different flavours of ‘us’ are seen as a treasure for our community. I mean that in the sense that if a Sami or Inuit just landed on the plane here at Auckland, and wants to join our community (and makes it through the points system), then they are New Zealanders. All of us who are here already will be enriched.
I would identify Maori culture as the culture of the Indigenous people of New Zealand. I wouldn’t fetishise it, but I would acknowledge it, with due dignity.
The culture most of us identify with, in the most relaxed way, is pakeha. One of my grandmothers was Argentinian (my father’s first language was Spanish). One grandfather was from Scotland. One of my forebears was at the signing of the treaty. I have Maori, Cook Island and Indian neighbours. Around a beer we share pakeha culture and talk politics. This is actually the primary culture of New Zealand.
Diwali, Chinese New Year, Matariki, New Year … I look forward to experiencing the Somali and Mexican celebrations.
I think a focus on segregating specialness is a mistake, I don’t think this is the way we will actually go as a country, and I look forward to positive political messaging that is joyful regarding diversity and inclusion.
Hi John, thanks for coming back to this—I know these conversations can be challenging. Your thoughtful and nuanced reflections are always welcome here, and I appreciate your willingness to reconsider the question and share your perspective.
I think you’re absolutely right that addressing the systemic issues—housing, health, education, and welfare—will benefit everyone, with Māori disproportionately gaining because they’ve historically been disproportionately disadvantaged. That’s a point I think gets lost sometimes, especially in debates about equity versus equality. Focusing on improving outcomes for the most vulnerable doesn’t just lift individuals or groups—it strengthens the whole community.
The way you describe your neighborhood and the relaxed sense of belonging that emerges from shared conversations over a beer is a lovely vision of what inclusion can look like in practice. It’s a good reminder that we don’t need to choose between acknowledging Māori culture with dignity and embracing the broader cultural mix that makes up New Zealand life. Both can exist together, enriching one another. And it’s speaks to the collision of NZ bicultural AND multicultural fabric.
Where we might differ slightly is on the idea of “segregating specialness.” I think sometimes what feels like separation is actually a process of recognition—acknowledging histories, perspectives, and lived realities that haven’t always had space at the table. It’s not about fetishizing or elevating one group above another but about making sure the unique contributions of Māori culture, as the culture of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, aren’t lost or overshadowed. But this is easier said than done, I appreciate that at all levels individuals, institutional and nationally.
I agree that the way forward has to include positive, joyful messaging about all of us. That kind of tone—hopeful, optimistic, and practical—has the power to bring people together rather than divide them. And as you say, this is something all of us benefit from, no matter where we come from or how we identify.
Thanks for engaging with the question, John. I always look forward to your insights.
For myself, I don’t see the debate as hostile towards Maori, depending on how you mean ‘Maori’. I think there are multiple positions in it. There is a position, which I subscribe to, that we are all New Zealanders, no more no less. This position is not accepting of additional rights for Maori people qua being Maori. Part of my interest in this debate is to understand why there is a supported position that holds that there should be.
the treaty doesn't give māori more rights than everybody else, why are you repeating dishonest act party propaganda that serves only to further racism.
I don’t believe John, myself or anybody is repeating ACT Party propaganda, but I understand why it might come across that way, given how charged this topic is.
It’s true that Te Tiriti doesn’t explicitly give Māori “more rights” than others, but it does recognize Māori as tangata whenua and guarantees specific protections, such as tino rangatiratanga (chiefly authority) over their lands, resources, and taonga. Over time, these guarantees have been interpreted as ensuring Māori have the ability to exercise self-determination and preserve their culture within the framework of a colonized state.
At the same time, it’s worth acknowledging that this recognition has created a perception of unequal treatment towards Non-Māori, especially when it comes to policies or legal frameworks designed to address historical injustices. This isn’t new—it’s been noted by both Māori and Pākehā academics throughout New Zealand’s history, often as part of wider debates on how to balance equity and fairness in a Treaty-based, multicultural society in a liberal democratic capitalist framework.
Rather than fueling racism, I think it’s important to grapple with these perceptions openly. Dismissing them outright doesn’t help us build the understanding and dialogue we need to move forward.
Hi Nat. Nice to see you back! I hope you had a decent break from the slave driving quality of looking after Less Certain. Did you promise yourself to stay away from it for at least a couple of weeks?
That conflation of a treaty with a contract is common, as you know. I think when this is done, it is about saying ‘you shouldn’t break agreements’ - which I agree with.
The reason why I try to bring the word ‘deal’ into a ‘contract’ conversation is to move the focus to the place where the anger (I think) comes from, deal-breaking. Away from sterile ‘legal language’ squabbles.
At the end of the day the real conversation, I think, is about some resolution of power and persuasion. I reckon it might be possible to take a helicopter, de-focused view and group most of the arguments by where their energy comes from:
• you shouldn’t break agreements
• that was then and this is now
And so on.
Anyway, maybe you should turn off your computer for a bit longer and give your brain a rest from politics.
Hi William
Thank you for responding and not just letting my words pass unchallenged. I certainly don’t want to repeat dishonest propaganda, and further racism. I think that we may well not see things the same way. The issue is, can we talk across this gap?
You are right, these are ACT party talking points. I voted ACT.
I have spent a lot of this year digging down to investigate and make up my mind about things Treaty. It’s a work in progress. Where I’ve got to is that I do think the Treaty can be a symbol shared by, and important to, all people in New Zealand.
So far though I would say that the current te tiriti trajectory does establish differences between Maori and non-Maori. I think differences of this nature run headlong into a pre-existing egalitarian conception of our ‘us’. I think this is an unnecessary mistake, an own goal.
What I think is good though is that this conversation has now been elevated to where all New Zealanders get to participate. The Treaty was a mechanism whereby disparate people set out to rub along together. I think our community would benefit from a renewal of this spirit.
John
the treaty is a CONTRACT, do act supporters not value contract law? I can only assume so as they want to renegotiate the terms of said contract without the permission of a signing party, which is a violation of contract law.
I am seeing the treaty principles bill in the same light as I saw the 3 Waters proposal. What is the problem you are trying to fix ? In both cases the solution proposed is not necessary or fit for purpose. I cant see how we would be better off with the treaty principles bill. It looks like an ideological solution to a problem that doesnt exist.
The bill itself then is much ado about nothing. I think you have a point. Of itself, the bill wouldn’t bring about constitutional clarity in New Zealand, and it is not the right way to do that anyway. A future government could reverse it by passing more legislation. This is also true for the changes NZ First are bringing about as they remove or get specific about references to the principles of the treaty scattered through legislation. The strong and correct thing this bill does do in my view is to bring about a conversation amongst New Zealanders. This conversation has the very real prospect of us participating in working out how we want to go forward as a community. This is the fundamental, legitimate, way to establish what our living constitution is, today.
I agree that while the bill itself will not bring about the constitutional clarity, especially given its unlikely to pass, it's definitely igniting important conversations. Engaging in these discussions can help us shape our collective future. How do you think we can have these conversations, so we can develop more inclusive outcomes? - Nat
Hi again Mark, I appreciate you sharing more of your perspective. It's definitely important to question whether the proposed solutions are addressing real issues or might create new ones, I hear you on the concerns about practicality. What do you think would be a better approach to any underlying issues? Interesting comparison to the three waters ... what are you thoughts on that? - Nat
For a thoughtful and emotion-free reconciliation of the bill and the treaty, read “A Halfling’s” piece on this, the Substack, platform
Hi Ruaridh, thanks for the recommendation! I'll definitely check out 'A Halfling's' piece. It's always great to read different perspectives on this topic. What other things are you reading about this topic? I'm always keen for other recommendations. Nat
a brilliant read. Thank you Natalia. All kiwis could read this. I agree, I am a bit of both.
Bodies are held together by tension. Motives are a big thing here for me, as well as the health of on going reflection and debate. I don't trust ACTs and others intentions as far as purity and good goes......and that is my issue, as well as justice.
Heya, Thank you so much for your kind words! I'm glad the piece resonated with you. I agree that tension can be a source of strength, and motives really matter when we're navigating these complex issues. Ongoing reflection and debate are so important. I understand your concerns about trust and intentions—that's something I think a lot of us grapple with. Let's keep the conversation going.- Nat
Natalia. “Many of us come from different places without a sense of whakapapa or tūrangawaewae.” This sounds like a wish. I wonder if you wish for whakapapa and tūrangawaewae that is really yours. I don’t doubt that you will find it. For myself, the bit of dirt that I care about most is our garden. I have sweated blood in that garden. The family that matters most to me is my wife. Why she puts up with me is just one of those mysteries of the universe. We like the next door neighbours. I like my job. I know where most things are in the small supermarket here in Mangere Bridge. I used to think that what I really wanted to do was to go and see Teotihuacan, Machu Picchu and Ankor Wat. I am an engineer after all and these are serious and spectacular undertakings. Now what I want to do is see my nieces and nephews. It’s not a matter of collecting a few decades, it’s a matter of having revealed to me the things that are right in front of my eyes, where they have always been. You have a good heart. I don’t doubt that this will happen for you.
It looks like a nice day for the hikoi, without rain although a little on the chilly side. I look forward to reading Matthew Wright’s book. I’m reading Ewen McQueen at the moment. I don’t share the goosebump-sense of import of this event, but I do think that there is great value in learning, and considering together, what good paths we can have as a community going forward into our shared future.
"Grappling with the Treaty and policies like the Treaty Principles Bill demands that we embrace tension rather than undermine and punish each other. It asks us to hold space for competing truths, confront the discomfort of complexity, and resist oversimplification for everyone’s sake."
Beautifully said, and mirrors my own intense journey these past few weeks. I tried to figure it all out with my logical brain, but came to realize that what I really need to do is live in "the discomfort of complexity" - so thank you for representing that!