data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/869ef/869ef0981adfc44b032304027746e1ab71d0263b" alt=""
Laura Walters
Wellington, January 30, 2025
In just a few months, David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill will be snuffed out, but the debate is likely to reignite.
Both supporters and opponents of the Treaty Principles Bill say – like it or not – a constitutional debate is happening, and the inevitable death of this high-profile Bill will not spell the end of the discussion.
David Seymour – the Bill’s architect – has long mooted the Treaty Principles Bill as the first step towards the inevitable end-point of defining the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.
Ahead of the first day of oral submissions, which were heard across almost nine hours by the Justice Select Committee on Monday (January 27), Seymour held firm to that belief.
A Great Day: David Seymour
“I think it is a great day for New Zealand, that we are having an open, democratic debate – open to all – about the meaning of our founding document,” Seymour told media in Parliament’s Select Committee corridor.
When asked whether the Bill was a waste of time, given it lacked the support of any other party in Parliament (including that of his coalition partners), Seymour’s response was: “Not at all.”
“A lot of Bills that have been voted down have gone on to pass later on. Sometimes it takes time for the idea of a free society to bed in.”
This is not the first time the country’s founding document came up for debate – think of NZ First MP Doug Woolerton’s 2006 Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill. And it is not the first time a broader constitutional debate has been raised – think of the 2016 Matike Mai Aotearoa report on constitutional reform.
But across the first oral hearings on Seymour’s Bill, many acknowledged the inevitable end of this Bill would not mark the end of this debate.
The hearings will eventually amount to more than 80 hours; 20 hours as a full Committee and 60 hours split into two Sub-Committees.
These hearings represented just a fraction of the 300,000 written submissions and the 15,000 people who asked to be heard by the Committee.
During the day, the Committee heard from a cross-section of high profile Māori leaders, academics, legal experts, former MPs and special interest groups.
Legislative Definition
Of the 48 submitters, 12 spoke in support of the Bill, including:
Special interest group Hobson’s Pledge: “Laws must be made by the sovereign entity. Sovereignty must be unified, and laws applied equally to every person within a jurisdiction, otherwise, they are not laws. The fact is, this Parliament is the sole sovereign of these lands. There is no other serious contender for sovereignty in New Zealand.”
National Party and Taxpayers’ Union-affiliated pollster David Farrar: “I would much rather have a legislative definition of the Principles that 1.75% agree with, than no legislative definition at all.”
Gary Judd KC: “We have a situation where the sovereignty of Parliament is under challenge in the courts … one of the weapons is the undefined principles of the Treaty … the behaviour of some of the senior judges suggest they think they are entitled to make the law, ignore Parliament’s laws, or twist them.”
And education academic and former ministerial adviser Elizabeth Rata: “New Zealand’s future may be that of a prosperous first world liberal democracy or a third world re-tribalised state. A first-world tribal nation is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible. There can be no prosperity without individual equality and freedom. There can be no social equality without prosperity.”
Those Opposing the Bill
Meanwhile, 36 of the submitters opposed the Bill, including:
Former Treaty of Waitangi negotiations minister and member of the Bar Association Chris Finlayson: “The Parliament can legislate to provide that the earth is flat, it does not make it flat. But this is an issue where it is arguably beyond the competence of Parliament’s interfering with the Treaty which was signed between the Crown and Māori in 1840.”
Te Hunga Rōia Māori o Aotearoa (Māori Law Society) Co-President Natalie Coates: “This Bill violently strikes at the heart and soul of Te Tiriti, our foundational constitutional document. It’s one party to the Treaty – the Crown – reimagining Te Tiriti in a completely novel way that strips out the primary guarantees and the promises to Māori. You cannot get any more bad faith than that.”
National Urban Maori Authority’s Lady Tureiti Moxon: “It is not one country, one size fits all for everyone. We all were an independent nation before the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, and yet we sit and have to listen to a whole lot of people telling us we don’t belong here. Replacing the Treaty principles with notions of civil government, equality and historic rights is an attempt by this coalition government to rewrite Te Tiriti in favour of itself, to retain power and control. Further, it is designed to subjugate, humiliate, assimilate and oppress te iwi Māori.”
And former MP Marilyn Waring: “Concepts are hugely varied in their meaning and interpretation, and they’re subject to paradigm shift. I had my breath taken away … listening to people, as if codifying something into law means that time stands still. One of the reasons we have the judiciary is to take account of the fact that Parliament never keeps up, and Parliament especially never keeps up when it’s about people’s rights.”
Revisiting Key Themes
Three key themes were revisited by submitters throughout the day: whether Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown, whether Parliament has the power to make the changes laid out in the Treaty Principles Bill, and the concept of equality versus equity.
They are themes that have been circulating since the Treaty Principles Bill was first put forward by Act before last year’s election. Discussion on these topics has ramped up since the public was given its first glimpse of the three principles proposed by Seymour in his Bill last year.
Those opposing the Bill said Māori never ceded sovereignty, there would be no reason for them to have done so, and there was no record (according to the internationally recognised Māori text) that this happened. Those supporting the Bill said sovereignty had been ceded to the Crown, and Parliament was now sovereign, giving it the ultimate power to legislate the principles, rather than allow the courts to continue to interpret the meaning of the Treaty, and thus the Crown’s ongoing obligations.
Meanwhile, there continued to be a fundamental disconnect between submitters on the difference between equality and equity – particularly when it came to whether the focus should be on rights afforded, or outcomes achieved. And whether the ongoing protection and recognition of the rights Māori had ahead of the signing of the Treaty meant different people were treated differently in the eyes of the law today, and if so whether that was a good or bad thing.
Among the submissions was also an acknowledgement that the debate pushed to the fore by the Bill was not going to go away. While those who spoke to the Committee did not predict exactly how or where this would end, they did say New Zealand needed to be prepared to continue the discussion about the founding documents and take a broader look at the country’s constitution.
Both barrister Graeme Edgeler and University of Auckland law professor Jane Kelsey raised the possibility of a citizens-initiated referendum.
Edgeler said while the Bill might be voted down at a second reading – as National and NZ First had promised – there was the possibility for this to be reborn through a citizens-initiated referendum.
The Citizens Initiated Referenda Act allows people or organisations to initiate a non-binding National Referendum if 10% of registered voters sign a petition in support of the question. This could raise the possibility of a referendum on the Treaty Principles Bill in 2026.
Material Changes
Given that possibility, Edgeler called on the Committee to carefully consider material changes to improve the Bill.
Like others who opposed the Bill, he suggested that while there was the opportunity to make changes to legislation to afford all New Zealanders equal protection under the law, this was not the right way (or place) to do that.
In the spirit of putting forward practical changes for the Committee to consider, he suggested that a clause explicitly saying everyone is afforded equal protection would be better placed in the Bill of Rights Act – not the Treaty Principles Bill.
Kelsey said that just because politicians said the Bill was not going to proceed did not stop it from being put to a vote through a non-binding, citizens-initiated referendum next election.
Kelsey also raised Seymour’s Regulatory Standards Bill, which appeared to her to have a related purpose. She noted that when the proposed law passed it would remove Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a priority in the lawmaking process. Like others, she believes this Bill was not the right place for a constitutional conversation to be taking place.
“We need to put aside these principles as a vehicle through which we have been avoiding having the constitutional conversation around Te Tiriti o Waitangi,” she said and called on the Committee to endorse the current kaupapa inquiry underway at the Waitangi Tribunal as the proper place to have this debate.
Iwi Leaders’ Call
While the Waitangi Tribunal was in the thick of its kaupapa inquiry, iwi leaders have been calling for a parallel process of engagement on constitutional reform.
This month, leaders met in Hawke’s Bay to discuss the next steps in Kōtahitanga and mana Motuhake, off the back of nationwide hui instigated by the late Kiingi Tuheitia in 2024.
They agreed that in 2025, hapū, iwi and lead Māori organisations would initiate dialogue with the Crown to organise a Tiriti Convention to further discussions about the need for and possibilities of constitutional transformation, based on the recommendations in Matike Mai.
One of the leaders calling for this constitutional transformation – including a new deliberative body for Māori which could resist Government policies – was Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira chief executive Helmut Modlik.
Speaking to the Committee on Monday (January 27), Modlik did not temper his language in accusing those behind the Bill of ‘political theatre,’ before going on to say: “The conflation in this Bill with equality before the law and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is just a shameful race-based dog whistle to the uninformed and bigoted in this land to create populist political support. That’s it. That is all that is going on here.”
Modlik also said the principles, as written in the Bill, undermined the relationships and healing achieved between the Crown and Māori in settlements, calling them “the antithesis of mutual trust and cooperation and respect for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
In less colourful language, Sir Edward Taihakurei Durie from the NZ Māori Council also opposed the Bill, but unlike many others opposing the Bill, he said he welcomed the debate on Te Tiriti and what it meant for Aotearoa.
Last week, politicians travelled to Rātana Pā just south of Whanganui for what is widely acknowledged as the official start to the political year.
Response from PM, Deputy PM
While there, NZ First’s Winston Peters and Shane Jones – with the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon – made light of the significant response to the Treaty Principles Bill.
All three reiterated the Bill would not pass, and therefore the high-profile debate – and Hīkoi of tens of thousands of people at the end of last year – was essentially an over-reaction.
“The Bill that has created all the angst, and gallons of ink that have spilt, or indeed hours by keyboard warriors – known as the Treaty Principles Bill – will not be supported by the party that Winston and I belong to,” Jones said from the paepae on Friday.
“So please do not exhaust angst for a Bill that will never see the light of day.”
But former Treaty of Waitangi negotiations minister Andrew Little told the Committee that strength of feeling should not be brushed aside.
“This is an important debate. What people say, and the collective understanding amongst the nation about the Treaty is going to be very important. I think this time will end up being an important touchstone in our nation-building journey,” he said.
When asked by Newsroom whether there was a need for a broader constitutional discussion, Little said these conversations were ongoing, with some believing the country needed a written constitution. “We will find our way. We will organise ourselves and find our way and make sure that, as long as we hold onto the liberal, democratic traditions that we are also built on, we will find a way to make sure people are protected,” he said.
Laura Walters is the Political Editor Laura at Newsroom in Wellington, leading its Parliamentary Team. She specialises in Education, Justice and Crown-Māori Relations. The above Report and picture have been published under a special agreement.