Captions by James Brown and Lena Erakovich. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2024 - We will advance ACT's Treaty Principles Act. It will be drafted, voted on, sent to select committee and consulted on. - I ahaha! (PROTESTERS CHANT) - We will not be led down a path of erasure. - ALL: Aue! - The reason why I'm here is for that ` for her. - The Government announces 15 policies that are gonna put Maori back to the Dark Ages. - # Tenei te tangata puhuruhuru... - The best protest we can do right now is being Maori. - We're here on behalf of a government with more Maori ministers than ever before, with more Maori in the joint caucuses than ever before, all who got there on their own merits. - If there is any measure of meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Maori will not sit idly by. - The Government has no plans, and never has had plans to amend or to revise the Treaty. Tena koutou. Nau mai, haere mai. Welcome to The Principles, a Q+A Waitangi Day special. 184 years since the Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti, was signed, 2024 will see a nationwide debate over what it means for modern New Zealand. As part of the coalition deal between National and ACT, a bill will be introduced by the government to define the principles of the Treaty. And this Waitangi Day we wanted to consider some of the issues which are central to that debate. Of course, the actual text of the Treaty is in two forms, an English-language version and a Maori-language version. Understandings of those versions ` what was agreed, and what honouring the Treaty actually means in practice ` is all subject for debate. But what for the so-called Treaty principles? To begin this morning, here's 1 News Maori affairs correspondent Te Aniwa Hurihanganui. - In the 1980s, the courts needed to start interpreting the Treaty in order to make judgements. So the former president of the Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, created a set of principles. David Lange's government then adopted a set of five principles to help them make decisions about Treaty-related matters. They were kawanatanga ` that the Crown has the right to govern; rangatiratanga ` that Maori have the right to use and control their resources; equality ` that all citizens are equal before the law; cooperation ` that the Treaty establishes a fair basis for two peoples in one country; and redress ` that the grievances of iwi will be heard and resolved. Over the years, the Treaty principles have been interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts. In the 1987 Lands case, for example, the Court of Appeal identified partnership as a key principle, which obligated the Crown and Maori to work together in good faith. And in 1991 the Waitangi Tribunal referred to a new principle, that of reciprocity. It said the Treaty was essentially an exchange ` the exchange of the right to govern for the right of Maori to retain tino rangatiratanga. - In the lead-up to last year's election, ACT campaigned on holding a referendum on the Treaty principles. And when the new government was formed, here's what was agreed ` to introduce a Treaty Principles Bill based on existing ACT policy and support it to a select committee as soon as practicable. So here are those principles ` So far, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has only committed to supporting ACT's Principles Bill to the select committee stage. But he's appointed ACT leader David Seymour as the Associate Justice Minister, responsible for the bill's drafting and progress. It's about allowing mana for all. I think at the moment there is a conception of the Treaty of Waitangi that some New Zealanders are in partnership with the Crown, but everyone who's not Maori is sort of off somewhere else. And in a practical sense, it means that who gets consulted on resource consents, it sometimes means who gets jobs ` and you'll see people who will say, 'In my workplace, I feel that people are being promoted 'because there's an objective of having this many Maori or this relationship with the Crown, 'in order to honour the principles of the Treaty.' These are real problems that people are seeing in their everyday life. And I think we have to decide, do we want to be a country that has equal mana for all citizens, or do we want to become a bit of a constitutional oddity where there's a two-track citizenship arrangement? - There is going to be a lot of discussion this year as to your proposals. But I wanted to start with some really basic questions. So in your interpretation as it stands, does the Treaty of Waitangi afford iwi a special or unique status? - Uh, no. It allows people who have property rights a status that is equal to everyone else. Now, where iwi are different is that, having been around a bit longer, they may have parts of the country where they have a claim that is being worked out through the courts and has been worked out through the Treaty settlement process. That is different, but it doesn't make you different in right, only different in very specific instances. - They don't have a unique status as indigenous people? - No, I don't think that you should be treated differently because you are a Treaty partner. You might be treated differently because, for example, your ancestors owned a particular piece of land. And you've seen that manifested in the Waikato River Authority, the Auckland volcanic cones, and so on. - Will your proposed principles explicitly reference Maori or iwi? - Um, it would say that all New Zealanders have the same rights and duties, but referencing Maori concepts, that we have 'tiro rangatiratanga', self-determination. And I guess that's the critical issue here, is that we are in favour of a New Zealand that has Maori as a very important and foundational part of it. But it's also a New Zealand that has the same mana for all ` it doesn't say that some people have 'tiro rangatiratanga', and other people have, well, who knows? - To be totally clear, though, your proposed principles will not explicitly reference Maori. - No, because it will give a set of rights to human beings ` all people. - The Treaty was signed by two explicitly defined parties at the time, the Crown and Maori rangatira. So how would it be just for one of those parties to reinterpret the principles as it wishes, without the consent of the other party? - Well, it depends exactly how you think of it today, and what is the relevance of that to a child born in New Zealand today? So if you turn it around, a kid born in New Zealand today, should they be treated differently ` whether they get consulted, whether they get on a board, whether they get a position as a` one of the co-CEOs of the Human Rights Commission, for example, because of an agreement that some people signed and others didn't? This is ultimately about equal rights for all. And I turn it around to say the other way ` what you're really saying is that some people should have, effectively, a veto on how our collective understanding of the Treaty evolves. Well, if that's the case, then you're not really up for any change. - So, that doesn't reference the question, though, that I asked. The question is, how would it be just for one party to an agreement to reinterpret the principles behind that agreement without the other party agreeing to those interpretations? - Because there's something higher, which is the universal humanity and human rights of each person to have the same rights and duties, as the Treaty itself says. There's something higher, which is the right of all people to be treated with the same mana for all. That's a critical concept right throughout humanity. I think the other way you can look at it is how would it be just for some people to claim that others don't have that right, on the basis of an agreement they signed? - So you would agree, then, that the principles, as you see them, would not necessarily be agreed upon by one party to the Treaty. - Well, that's been the case already. You have to remember that Parliament, in the '80s, said that there are principles. It established a Waitangi Tribunal to interpret them, and it established courts. The courts, of course, have been doing the interpretation that led to our current understanding of the principles. I think they got it wrong. That's why I think Parliament should act. So, you know, if your concern is that we're somehow doing something that hasn't been done before, well, actually, the Waitangi Tribunal, the courts, the public service ` all agents of the Crown ` have been doing this for 40 years. I just think Parliament should have a say. - Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has previously supported an interpretation of the Treaty as a contract. Can one party in a contract decide to reinterpret it without the consent of another signatory? - Well, sometimes you've got to go to someone else and ask, what does this contract mean for us today? In fact, all contractual interpretations are usually arbitrated by a third party. In that case, I think it should be the highest court in the land ` the Parliament elected by the New Zealand people. - But in terms of population, non-Maori, represented, in effect, by the Crown, vastly outnumber Maori. In order for a truly democratic interpretation of the principles to pass into law, wouldn't any referendum require the support of the Crown and separately the consensus of iwi, representing the signatories to the Treaty? - Well, that's your view. But of course, you assume, in saying that, that the Treaty is a partnership that gave people different rights and different mana based on their ancestry. I just reject that premise. - But it was an agreement signed by two distinct signatories, or two distinct parties. - And if you're saying that one party gets to effectively veto what it means forever and a day, then you've already bought into the premise that there should be different sets of political rights for different New Zealanders. - But isn't that what you're saying? You're saying that one party can do that. - No, I reject it. I reject the notion you have that in order to have a discussion about the Treaty, one side always has a veto. What I'm saying is that sometimes you've got to get an agreement arbitrated. And in my view, it is the role of New Zealand Parliament in a democratic society to uphold the universal rights of all New Zealanders. - Can you name a single iwi that would agree to your principles as they stand? - We may well see. I mean, no iwi has engaged on what those principles are. We haven't` I've only been responsible for this, in a government sense, for a couple of days. - But they've seen your proposed principles. - Yeah, sure. But ultimately, that's the leadership of a particular group of people. What I do know is that there are a huge number of people who are Maori and agree with us, Maori and disagree with us, non-Maori and disagree with us, Maori and agree with us. And I guess, Jack, through this whole interview, you are already committed to the premise that Maori have a special constitutional status and a different sort of political trump card in New Zealand's political settings. If you agree with that, then we're never going to see eye-to-eye here. If you believe in universal human rights and equal mana for all, then you'll be starting to ask the question, 'What do human beings, what do people think about this?' Overwhelmingly, they flourish when they have the same mana for all, the same rights and duties, as the Treaty itself says. - No, I'm just trying to understand your position on this, because there is a fundamental tension, in the eyes of some, in that you have a foundational document that was signed by two distinct parties, and you have a proposal that may have the support of one of those parties, but not necessarily the other. And it's the question of the tyranny of the majority in this case, that some people will be concerned. - Well, if that's the case, then of course, you are basically saying that we will forever be a republic with a set of citizens who have a different set of rights from everybody else. I believe that there's no future in that, and I also don't believe it's the correct interpretation of the Treaty. I think the question back to people that are making arguments like you just have ` whether or not you may personally believe it, Jack ` is where are the successful examples of societies around the world that have had two different categories of citizenship and political rights, where one has a veto over the others, or one gets consulted or one gets positions and other people don't because of how they were born? Where are the successful examples of societies in the world like that? Cos I can give you a whole lot of disastrous ones. - You talked at the start of the interview about property rights. And your draft principles, as they stand, include no mention of redress for past wrongs committed against iwi or Maori as a whole, in contrast to the currently defined principles. Why is that? - Well, in part because if you look at where New Zealand's got to ` I mean, since 2008, there's been no new Treaty claims. There are still some outstanding claims to be resolved. And, you know, being from the north and Ngapuhi lineage, I'm pretty keen to see that happen as quickly as possible. However, I think, in terms of redress, we actually decided in 2008 that we were there. Now we are basically implementing that agreement. - Relative to the scale of the land confiscation and Treaty breaches, many of those completed Treaty settlements have returned to iwi and hapu mere cents on the dollar. So in the spirit of the Treaty principles as you define them, should the Crown not be responsible for full dollar-for-dollar settlements for historical Treaty breaches? - Well, we could do that, but again, I just ask you, how is that going to work? There are many people in this country who have come here landless, penniless, born with nothing, born into terrible circumstances. I mean, I myself am part Scottish. A lot of people came from Scotland, from terrible circumstances. If we're serious about compensating everybody for everything that's ever happened to their ancestors, then we can do that. But actually, you know what? When I talk about... - But under the principles as you've defined them, and under the property rights and laws around property rights that you have specified, would that not be a just outcome? - Well, I think we can see from just thinking about what it actually means, it would be a nice outcome, but it's not practical, and no one is taking that seriously, or ever has, because it would apply to everyone in human history who's been wronged. And, tragically, human history has had far too many problems for us to do that. On the other hand` - Except that not everyone in human history has been a signatory to the Treaty of Waitangi, a unique document between the Crown and iwi in New Zealand. - Doesn't make it any more practical, to change things that happened 180 years ago. If you do want to put right that wrong, here's what we need to do, and this is why I say mana for all. There's no mana in not having an education. There's no mana in being in prison at three times the rate of non-Maori. There's no mana in not having a roof over your head. So the things that I'm committed to doing, in education, in health, in housing, in the economy, in getting infrastructure built, those are the things that are actually going to do far more to redress those past wrongs and the disadvantage that's come from those times than the serious prospect that somehow Maori are going to be compensated for, effectively, the entire value of New Zealand. I mean, once you get into that, you ask, when would you do it? Who would get the money? How would it be distributed? How would we afford to pay for the whole country, over what timeframe? That's not going to happen. But actually, when I say mana for all, I mean, let's work on the fact that there's no mana in these social statistics. That's the practicality, and that's what we need to do. But here's the thing, Jack. Having somebody who happens to be vaguely from the same lineage as you put on to a representation board for, say, Three Waters, as the previous government proposed, that doesn't help if you're suffering in poverty and don't have a house. - If your principles pass into law, would you expect there to be some legal challenges to existing Treaty settlements? - No. And that's one of the things that we're going to have to work through. ACT has always ` I think ACT has voted for every single Treaty settlement, certainly in the time I've been an ACT MP. We're committed to putting wrong the rights` right the wrongs of the past. However, we also recognise that, for a society to function, everyone has to have the same rights and duties. - That's Associate Justice Minister David Seymour. I asked him a couple of other questions, which you can see on our YouTube page by searching NZQandA. After the break, we will ask other politicians for their thoughts on the proposed Treaty principles. - I think the Treaty is for everyone. There's a place for everyone in what it means. - It's something which is well established in our legal framework. We don't need to depart from that. What we need is a broader societal conversation around how we live the values of the Treaty in our everyday lives. - Those were Labour MPs Adrian Rurawhe and Arena Williams discussing the principles of the Treaty. We'll bring you more views from MPs over the course of the show this morning. Since the new government was formed at the end of last year, many Maori have expressed concerns over the proposed Treaty Principles Bill. Thousands turned out for a Kingitanga hui in Waikato last month. And among the kaikorero there to speak against the Treaty Principles Bill was Rahui Papa. I asked him about his concerns. - Really, it's the uncertainty, because there has been no consultation with the Tiriti partners, around the contents of this bill. And so it's really balls in the air and trying to juggle them, as we are working through that. There are a number of concerns, though, and top of mind from the Ngaruawahia hui, from the Ratana hui, and again at the Iwi Chairs Forum and Waitangi here, is the protection of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the protection of those mechanisms that has promised Maori things since 1840 that actually hasn't been fulfilled yet. And so instead of tinkering around with principles or redefining the text of Te Tiriti, it would be far better to expand the resources, the time and the energy on honouring the Treaty. - So is it a useful exercise, just for pragmatic purposes in the modern age, to use Treaty principles, both for the Waitangi Tribunal and for other court jurisdictions? - Yeah, well, you know, the principles have been set and confirmed by the Supreme Court, in the tribunal findings that are being hugely well researched. And to just brush those aside, in a 2024 context, is not going to be tolerable, and it's not going to be very palatable. And we retain the right to fight, Jack. Because we think that it's a die-in-the-ditch kaupapa for te ao Maori ` the kaupapa, the actual texts of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti are sacrosanct, in our view. - So if the principles do have some use, at least in a judicial setting, what do ACT's proposed principles miss? What do they leave out? - Well, it's not fair to just cherry-pick certain sentences out of the articles ` like 'he tangata rite tahi'. And that's exactly right in Article 3, but actually it was a promise to the native people of Aotearoa, to the tangata whenua of Aotearoa, that we would have the same rights as those of British citizenships. But we've found that time and time and time again, we're at the bottom of the heap when it comes to social circumstances in this country. And so that hasn't actually been fulfilled. If we try and fulfil those sorts of things, then to sit down and have a` have a constitutional conversation with the foundation of He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti will be very welcome. We're not shying away from the discussion or the korero. We just want to be involved in the discussion and the korero at the get-go, and not be classed as a second-class citizen from parties in this Parliament. - Let's talk about classes of citizenship, because central to ACT's criticism of the status quo is that interpretations of the Treaty at the moment mean different standards of citizenship for different New Zealanders, depending on their race. What do you say to that? - I say that's a load of hogswallop. Look, there were some promises made in 1840, and consistently over 184 years those have been pushed aside by policies of assimilation ` totalitarianism, in our view, like the smacking of our ancestors for speaking te reo Maori, which was guaranteed as a taonga, in our view, under Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Those sorts of policies have made a mindset in Aotearoa, that, actually, things Maori, they're OK to be pushed aside and subdued. And so once we get to that equilibrium, once we get to that sense of equality, then there will be a huge discussion about the constitutional arrangements going forward. But I don't think that Maori are the privileged ones here, when the incarceration rates say something different, when the poor education rates say something different, when the mortality rates say something different. How can we say that actually we're sitting on the same level, and we should have the same dedication of resources, time and energy? - But is that what the Treaty promises? Does the Treaty afford iwi or hapu a special, unique status as tangata whenua, indigenous New Zealanders? - Very much so. So Article 2 of the Treaty promised the continuation and the maintenance of tino rangatiratanga. Kawanatanga is one thing, but tino rangatiratanga over their lands, their fisheries, their taonga is something totally different. And that hasn't been abided to ` abided by, sorry. That has been constantly waylaid and pushed aside and subdued and actually wiped out in some instances. So if that tino rangatiratanga had been able to carry on since 1840, through the times of the colonial government and right through the policies and procedures of assimilation of various governments, then we would be in a totally different setting today. - So if the Treaty of Waitangi is upheld in the way that you interpret Te Tiriti, would a non-Maori New Zealander have the same level of say over New Zealand governance and resources as a Maori New Zealander? - Yeah, very much so. So we've seen that even in the New Zealand Parliament, or in the in the establishment of the Maori seats in the New Zealand Parliament, it was a very minority-type arrangement. And so people get their say, through the population base of councils and government and things like that. And so actually you have to claw back some of those tino rangatiratanga perspectives to be able to get to the table in the first instance. And so, you know, people have rubbished co-governance and things like that. Well, that's OK, but it should be an active partnership, and that's what we're seeking. - But to take that example ` the Maori seats, for example ` Maori seats are just a minority, in a 120-seat parliament, seven seats. Wouldn't true partnership, or upholding the Treaty as you see it, mean a separate Maori Parliament, or the same number of seats for Maori as for non-Maori? - Well, that's some perspectives that need to be worked through. So, the call for tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake may see something like a quasi-Maori Parliament that is able to engage with the New Zealand Parliament, like in the early days, when there was an upper house and a lower house, for example. But this could be houses sitting together, making sure that Te Tiriti o Waitangi and He Whakaputanga is adhered to. And so I don't see the necessity for Pakeha institutions to be the way that Maori do things. It should be based on tikanga and kawa of te iwi Maori. And how we practise those will be probably a fulsome discussion coming up over the next wee while. - Yeah, how do you see this debate playing out in the coming months? - Look, we've heard from the Prime Minister, 'How many times do I need to tell people that this is the intention?' And that's cool. But the intention is one thing. What we're looking for is a pou whenua. We're looking for a stake in the ground to say, yes, this is going to carry on, or not, so that we can organise ourselves in a kotahitanga way. How this will play out is that there will be numerous hui up and down Aotearoa to garnish and to gain the perspectives of all of te iwi Maori before setting a pathway that we can practise based on our tikanga and kawa that lead us to tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake in our way, and then to figure out what then will the role of the New Zealand government or the emissaries of the British Crown will be in that solution focus. Because there will be some solutions that will be framed in a tino rangatiratanga and mana motuhake way that will be for Maori to lead and set their own destiny. But there will be opportunities for collaborative working relationships and robust discussions, going forward into the future. - That was Rahui Papa. For more in-depth coverage about the Treaty, Te Tiriti, and to keep up with developments at Waitangi, head to onenews.co.nz/waitangi. Stay with us. This Q+A special continues in a moment. Right now, this woman is currently keeping a teenage boy alive, whose disorder ` if not treated weekly ` will be life-threatening. Everyday people can save lives every day. - This government was founded on the dispossession of land, and Te Tiriti, specifically the articles, to me, mean that Maori never ceded sovereignty, and as a parliamentarian, it means I have to work every day to uphold that issue, that sovereignty was never ceded. - Well, the principles are a sort of judicial way of not upholding the actual text of the Treaty. So it was a compromise that was made to ensure that we have some sort of judicial understanding. - Those were Green MPs Ricardo Menendez March and Steve Abel with their thoughts on the Treaty principles. We want to pick up on what Steve Abel was discussing there. Human rights lawyer Natalie Coates has spent much of her career considering Maori issues and the Treaty of Waitangi. I asked her if defining a set of principles is a good way of giving effect to the treaty text. - The short answer to that is no. And that's because in terms of the way that the Treaty principles are used throughout legislation, they are pepper-potted all throughout and are given various weight or legislative effect. So the use of the principles in those places, or the defining of them, is really linked to how they're used in that legislation. - Like, to the application. - Exactly. And so it's not about giving effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi broadly ` that's not what the interpretive dimension is designed to do. - Isn't it a pragmatic solution, though, in the modern age, to try and apply the spirit of the Treaty to a modern context? - (BLOWS AIR) I mean, there's a long history, and the critique of the use of that mechanism of the principles of the Treaty, it's long been critiqued by a number of prominent Maori, because they have argued that, in effect, it waters it down, instead of looking at the actual text, which, on its face, isn't that complicated and hard. It may be politically inconvenient to implement, but it is clear. What the principles are trying to do, arguably, is to sort of extract the` extract meaning from the two different texts` - Yeah. - ...as we understand them now, compared to how we understood them at the time, and try and come up with a compromise. But the critique of that is that it doesn't actually usually give justice to Article 2 of the Maori version, which promises rangatiratanga. - Right. OK. So, if Maori were to achieve rangatiratanga, how then would the Treaty define governance and rights in modern New Zealand? - I think that's something we need to have a bigger conversation about. Because, I mean, it was very clear in 1840 what was intended by the Treaty of Waitangi ` Maori were to retain rangatiratanga, authority, full political authority over their own affairs. The Government were charged with coming in and looking after their own people, who were causing havoc at the time. In terms of how that can manifest itself today and what that means today, I mean, there's been some amazing people do some incredible work and have kind of envisaged that dream in places like Matike Mai, and they've kind of plotted out what that might look like. But that does take ` or would take ` some fundamental constitutional change in terms of how we're currently structured. So there needs to be a process for how we might get there. And part of that process is bringing the public along, informing them, educating them, and working that through in a productive, healthy way. - In your view, does the Treaty afford iwi a special or unique status as indigenous tangata whenua? - That's what it says. (LAUGHS) So, Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi guarantees hapu ` not iwi, hapu ` rangatiratanga over their whenua. And so... Arguably, though, those rights aren't created by the Treaty, right? They're pre-existing rights that the Treaty just recognised. And so those were the fundamental constitutional guarantees that were given, when, sort of, two nations, really, came together. And so that's the foundation upon which our modern nation state is formed. And I think there is a... The question is how we honour that. And traditionally we haven't done a great job of that. That's why Treaty settlements exist. - What do you think of the Government's proposal? - In terms of the Treaty Principles Bill? Um, I think it's highly problematic ` for a number of different reasons, but you effectively have one party to the Treaty unilaterally seeking to change not just the principles, but it's to change the actual text. And again, this is just based ` again, there's no bill currently, so that's just based on the leaked document. - On... Yeah, yeah. - But it's just one party, you know, saying this is what it means. And currently, the way that it's framed bears little resemblance, actually, to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It takes the Maori rights, effectively, out of there. And that's hugely problematic in terms of, um... the relationship between the Crown and Maori. And I think it's hugely problematic for Aotearoa more generally. - What do you think about the process? Is there merit ` if we are going to have principles of the Treaty defining things in our governance and law ` is there merit in having those principles defined by the people through a parliamentary process and ultimately a referendum? - I think... I just don't think we're ready as a country to have a mature discussion on that. I was reading recently ` and this is not to, you know... I mean, we're all intelligent people in Aotearoa, but when I was reading recently ` it was a survey by the New Zealand Human Rights Commission, and they had some really sobering statistics around only 36% of people in Aotearoa having read the English version of the Treaty; only 16% had read the Maori version, or something like that; and only 10% felt well-informed about the Treaty debate and what honouring it might look like. So I think there are some things that we need to do, including, you know, getting in the schools and those sorts of places before we're ready to have a really mature kind of decision and conversation around that. And the other thing as well, I think, is that, I mean, minority sort of rights have never fared well, traditionally, in that kind of referendum environment. I mean, you look at the Voice over in Australia recently. - David Seymour's argument would be that some interpretations of Te Tiriti effectively afford a different standard of citizenship for different New Zealanders, depending on their race. What would be your response to that? - I think our democracy, the democracy that we have in Aotearoa, is founded upon Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its whole introduction, our legitimacy of our state, was premised upon the honouring of that. And it was fettered ` it did fetter that power and authority, and it did fetter it by guaranteeing rangatiratanga to hapu. So to an extent, I think, um... I think framing it in terms of race is unhelpful, but it did guarantee hapu particular power and authority. But I don't think that's a scary thing. I think it's a thing that, as Aotearoa, we need to navigate and embrace our constitutional bones and the constitutional foundation that we built our nation upon. - From a legal standpoint, what are the potential consequences if the Treaty's principles are redefined? - (BLOWS AIR) Um... It will be interesting to see if there are any legal challenges to that. But, I mean, the current status quo is when Parliament passes laws, then the court is bound to impact those laws. And so what it would do is represent a fundamental dishonouring of our constitution. And that is problematic for a number of different reasons. It also, I think... We've just come off the back of a Treaty settlement process where you've had governments of all sides of the political aisle say we're sorry for dishonouring the Treaty` - Mm. - ...we're going to pave a new, more Treaty-consistent path going forward. And so to sort of unilaterally redefine Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law in a way that reads down Maori rights, you know, kind of flies in the face of all of, I think, the progress that we've made over the last 40 years. - That's Natalie Coates. After the break ` where to from here? In a three-party coalition government, how will political dynamics affect the progress of the Principles bill? - It's about kawanatanga. It's about rangatiratanga. It's about equality. That's what the principles mean to me. - They are the founding document of our country, and I want to uphold the Treaty` the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. - They mean exactly what our leader has outlined. - Which is? - (CHUCKLES) You'll have to go back and see what he said, because I absolutely agree with the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party. - It lays up a relationship between Crown and iwi that I think is akin to partnership, and that's` that's a big` one of the core principles, partnership, and then we've got to make sure that we continue to deepen that up. - That, of course, is Prime Minister Christopher Luxon. So far, National has only committed in its coalition agreement to supporting the bill to the select committee stage. So unless ACT can get a majority in the House, the bill won't go further. 1 News deputy political editor Maiki Sherman is in Waitangi for us, and I asked her how much the Principles Bill has featured in conversations and debate at Waitangi this year. - Look, the Treaty Principles Bill has really dominated the agenda here at Waitangi ` make no doubt about that. I mean, more than 10,000 extra people were expected here, on top of the 30,000 that they usually get here at the Treaty Grounds, and that is driven by the Treaty Principles Bill. That is what spurred on that 10,000-strong crowd at Turangawaewae Marae. That's what continued the conversation at Ratana Pa and right up here to Waitangi. The government powhiri in particular was nothing short of amazing ` people who witnessed that powhiri will be talking about it for a long time to come. The korero was very robust. It was staunch from every single speaker, including the politicians. No one really was giving an inch, but at least they've had the korero. - So, Maiki, what is the actual political process from this point? - Well, look, the bill will be put on to the government agenda, so that's when it will come into the House for the first time. It will have the first reading, and that will be passed, and then it will go to the select committee stage. And that's where we will hear a lot of the robust discussions through public submissions ` so, any member of the public able to either write their submission in support or against the Treaty Principles Bill, or they can give it orally in front of that select committee. So that's where we will see this issue kick up yet again. - Yeah, it's going to be really interesting, isn't it? Because all we know about the bill at this stage is that it's being based off the policy that ACT brought to last year's election. So those principles, as defined by ACT's policy, are yet to be put forward in a bill form. We have to wait for that process to pass through in the coming month. So talk to us about National's position. How are they navigating this issue at the moment? - Look, the National Party has really been in a quite tricky position on this. Of course, on the one hand, they really did need to give this, you could argue, to the ACT Party in order to form a coalition. Remember, this issue, the Treaty Principles referendum, as it was originally promoted during the election ` that was a key issue for David Seymour and the ACT Party at the election, so there was no way that they could not get that on their coalition deal agenda. The thing for Christopher Luxon is that he managed to water it down, essentially ` so, not a referendum, but actually a bill. And remember, the National Party has said that it will only support this bill to select committee and not beyond that. So the bill won't come into legislation, but many say the damage will be done. Look, here's Tama Potaka, the Maori Development minister ` he's been fronting on this issue quite a bit, and here's his korero on that. - The Prime Minister has said very clearly that if there is an intention to have a referendum on the Treaty principles, the National Party will not support that. - And the Prime Minister, Christopher Luxon, he was also having to defend National's position several times in recent weeks, including at Ratana Pa. Here's the Prime Minister. - We have said, and I don't know how to be any clearer about it, there is no commitment to support it beyond a first reading. - So, as you can see there, the National Party really on the defensive on this one. I don't know that they knew that it would blow up so much when they signed up to this in the coalition deal with the ACT Party. - Yeah, it's interesting, isn't it, Maiki, because there is an inherent tension there, that the National Party, in terms of their coalition dynamics, need to be seen to be entering this debate ` at least, the debate that is likely to come once we get into select committee, in good faith ` they need to be seen to at least be open to progressing this bill further, as per ACT'S wishes. But at the same time, they're obviously cautious about the level of opposition that they've received already regarding these plans. So that's going to be really interesting to watch as it plays out once this bill is introduced and we head to select committee. Talk to us about the third head in the so-called three-headed taniwha that is the coalition government at the moment. Where does New Zealand First stand on all of this? - Well, New Zealand First largely occupies the same territory, the same position on this issue, as the National Party. They, too have said that they would support it to select committee, but not beyond that. And they do not want to be responsible for the scrap that David Seymour and the ACT Party has kicked off. In saying that, New Zealand First, they will have their own Treaty debate to face with Maori, because, of course, they want to more clearly define the principles of the Treaty as they are already` as they already stand in current legislation. So they want to go through all of the legislation that mentions the Treaty principles and really define what exactly that means. So that will be an issue that iwi and that Maori will challenge New Zealand First on as well. - And how do you see this playing out once that bill is actually introduced, Maiki? - Look, I think we're going to see more robust debate and discussion from both sides of this argument. I do expect, though, that at that submission stage, we will hear a lot more from the supporters of David Seymour. He says that a lot of people around the country actually support this debate, and they want to have this korero, and so I expect that we will hear more from them. In the last few months, we have heard predominantly from Maori on this issue. I think at that select committee stage, when public submissions are able to be heard, we will hear more of the other side of the argument. - That's deputy political editor Maiki Sherman. Hei akuanei ` this Q+A special continues after the break. Kua mutu ` that is Q+A for today. So you know, there is extensive Waitangi Day coverage at 1news.co.nz. For now, though, kia pai te rangi nei ` have a good day. We will see you for our first regular show of 2024 this Sunday at 9am. Captions by James Brown and Lena Erakovich. Captions were made with the support of NZ On Air. www.able.co.nz Copyright Able 2024 (SINGS KARANGA) (THUNDEROUS HAKA)