Following the recent rejection of the bill, I unpack the hidden motives, unsaid terms, the overlooked consequences behind its promotion of ‘equality’ over equity, its flawed approach to Māori rights, and the dangerous literalist interpretation of tino rangatiratanga.
By Rochelle O’Connor
Guest Writer
After seeing the outpour of disgust against the Treaty Principles Bill and feeling Aotearoa’s unity and aroha around supporting te Tiriti o Waitangi, the final result of the Justice Committee and the rejection of the bill in its second reading should be the final nail in its coffin. Approximately 270,000 written submissions and 38,088 hours of oral submissions overwhelmingly rejected this bill (RNZ, 2025), and the overwhelming majority of the House, 112 MPs, voted against it. Aotearoa’s message is clear: we will not support division, and we will not support setting back decades of progress towards greater Māori rights.
The Justice Committee’s 45-page report highlighted the fundamental flaws of David Seymour and ACT’s bill drawing on insights from relevant experts, as well as the concerns of the general public (Maxwell, 2025). The bill’s problems can be boiled down to its major inconsistencies with the meaning of te Tiriti, uncertainty of legal and constitutional implications, deterioration of Crown-Māori partnership, Aotearoa’s support for the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and the devastating effect on the status of Māori in Aotearoa (Dexter, 2025).
As someone closely following the bill’s introduction and development since late September, I found myself caught by the extreme but shallow rhetoric from both sides of the House. The political parties’ narratives around the bill, with attention-grabbing claims that the bill was starting a ‘divisive culture war’ (Miller, 2025) or being ‘racist toward Māori’ (Ward, 2024), while true, are dangerously oversimplified and allowed the bill’s deeper implications to fly under the radar. The major problems with the bill were not clearly outlined in mainstream media, nor thoroughly discussed for the average Kiwi to understand, despite its constitutional implications. This allowed many to be caught in the black and white and discouraged a proper nationwide conversation, contrary to Seymour’s objective. At the heart of the debate are several key misconceptions that have shaped the discourse around the bill. These misunderstandings have fueled political rhetoric and shaped public perception, particularly around equality, Māori rights, and te Tiriti o Waitangi’s role in governance.
The promotion of ‘equality’ over equity
The premise of the Treaty Principles Bill is “equal rights for all”, found in the bill’s ‘Principle 3: Right to Equality.’ (The ACT Party, 2024). Seymour poses the question on te Tiriti o Waitangi, “is it a contract between two collectives defined by ancestry, or something that gives equal rights for all to flourish?” (Walters, 2024). His framing suggests that recognising Māori rights under the Treaty is incompatible with equal prosperity for all New Zealanders. This perpetuates the zero-sum mentality that positions Māori co-governance as a threat, rather than a path to justice and equity for all. Removing ‘race’ from the question does not address the systemic oppression, discrimination and racism that exists in state institutions which perpetuate the cycle of worse outcomes for Māori. This is why we need ‘by Māori for Māori’ solutions – one size does not fit all.
Further, te Tiriti o Waitangi’s contractual obligations are not defined by ancestry or whether one is Māori or Pākeha. Māori rights under te Tiriti are not solely “ancestral” but are grounded in their status as Crown and tangata whenua, sovereign partners in the agreement. te Tiriti recognises the governance and authority of hapū and iwi, not just individuals. It guarantees the protection of Māori tino rangatiratanga and equitable access to resources and opportunities. Centuries of oppression have weakened Māori hapū and te ao Māori as collective political entities, reinforcing this misconception. Thus, the idea that anyone can be anything in an ‘equal’ society, despite their ancestry, is like saying every individual should conform to a ‘work hard to get ahead’ mentality to thrive in this civilised capitalist society, which blissfully ignores systemic injustice.
The system of recognising Māori rights needs reform
Principle 2 of the bill, concerning the Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori, asserts that “any specific customary Māori rights that differ from those of others should only be recognised through agreement in Waitangi Tribunal settlements” (The ACT Party, 2024). ACT claims this principle will uphold recognition of Māori rights, as well as redress for generational harm. The fundamental issue is that the Waitangi Tribunal, as a Crown entity, decides and dedicates the outcome of its own government-related grievances. Oftentimes it does not adequately provide redress at all. It is known that it is a tedious, decades long process that many iwi go through to no avail (Mutu, 2019, 4-18). This principle could therefore continue to erode Māori rights. Tina Ngata argues that “when the Crown acts as the self-appointed ultimate authority over a process meant to address its own misconduct, significant issues arise” (Ngata, 2024). She critiques the Crown’s decision to bypass negotiations at the hapū level – where te Tiriti was originally signed – due to perceived inconvenience, time constraints, and costs. Instead, the Crown chose to negotiate only with those who fit its criteria for a “large natural grouping,” thereby sidelining its true Treaty partner in favour of a more convenient construct.
Tino rangatiratanga, the literalist interpretation
Within Principle 2, ACT interprets Article 2 of te Tiriti o Waitangi as granting all New Zealanders tino rangatiratanga over their assets and property. However, this literalist interpretation is flawed—historical context reveals the correct understanding. To put it simply, the original Māori text of Article 2 guarantees tino rangatiratanga to “nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani,” meaning “the chiefs, the subtribes, and all the people of New Zealand.”. Early English drafts preceding the signing of te Tiriti further clarify British intentions, specifying that property rights outlined in Article 2 were meant to benefit “the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and the respective families and individuals thereof,” referring specifically to Māori. ACT’s argument, which extends this to all New Zealanders, relies on a literal interpretation of 1840 language that does not align with historical context. At that time, ‘New Zealander’ referred exclusively to Māori. The Oxford Dictionary of New Zealand English notes that ‘New Zealander’ originally applied only to Māori and was only later extended to include non-Māori after European settlement grew post-1840. British settlers were considered ‘British subjects’ both before and after te Tiriti was signed, and it wasn’t until 1948 that people born in New Zealand were granted citizenship (Heard, 2024). Therefore, the promises made in Article 2 were directed solely at Māori, and ACT’s literalist interpretation clearly overlooks the original intent to protect Māori rights.
The ACT privatisation agenda
The ACT Party’s framing of the existing Treaty principles as anti-democratic and a power grab by elites masks their true aim of clearing the way for their privatisation and deregulation agenda. The Treaty principles have historically acted as a significant barrier to corporatisation and privatisation, blocking attempts to privatise public assets. Writer Rubert O’Brien believes this effect is likely “one of the key, although unstated, reasons for the push to return Te Tiriti to its erstwhile status as a simple nullity.” (Ward, 2024). Historically, Treaty principles have prevented the sale of Crown land and assets to private interests, as seen in the 1987 Lands case, where the Māori Council challenged the government’s move to corporatise public assets. The Court ruled in favor of upholding Māori rights, forcing a delay and consultation (Whare, 2024). ACT’s agenda seeks to dismantle these protections, removing Crown obligations and making it easier to sell off public assets without considering Māori interests. This is part of a broader effort to weaken the Treaty’s role in safeguarding Māori land and resources, ultimately prioritising corporate profit over Māori sovereignty.
Dangers of a referendum
In theory, a referendum is supposed to facilitate a national conversation around te Tiriti. However, similarities can be drawn with the 2024 Indigenous Voice referendum in Australia despite the different colonial histories and varying levels of recognition for Māori and Aboriginal peoples. Each oversimplifies complex Indigenous issues and ignores the deep historical injustices faced by both groups. It assumes voters fully understand Aotearoa’s colonial history and the Treaty’s significance, when over half of the population lacks confidence in understanding the Treaty’s principles (Desmarais, 2024). Furthermore, similar political rhetoric used by anti-The Voice groups, such as the “if you don’t know, vote no” message, could easily be replicated in a referendum here (E-Tangata, 2024). Supporters of the bill could manipulate such messaging to sway uncertain voters toward a ‘yes’ vote for the bill, potentially leading to decisions made based on misinformation or prejudice, not informed consensus. The idea of majority rule undermines Māori rights, turning them into a popularity contest rather than upholding the inherent Treaty partnership. A referendum would only weaken protections and set us back in the fight for justice.
Future of treaty rights
With the Select Committee’s feedback from the people of Aotearoa, and no majority support in the House, this bill has been successfully buried. Yet Seymour envisions a longer term path, and contends that uncomfortable conversations sparked by the bill are the opening to normalising a free conversation around the place of te Tiriti (Meyer, 2024). Seymour says “Watch this space” (Palmer & Moir, 2025), but Aotearoa needs to remain vigilant in safeguarding it. We reject the rewriting of history to suit political agendas. The Treaty Principles bill belongs in the past, not our future.
Glossary of te reo Māori words (Te Aka Māori Dictionary):
Aroha – to love, feel pity, feel concern for, feel compassion, empathise.
Tangata Whenua – local people, hosts, indigenous people – people born of the whenua, i.e. of the placenta and of the land where the people’s ancestors have lived and where their placenta are buried.
Tino Rangatiratanga – self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, self-government, domination, rule, control, power.
Hapū – kinship group, clan, tribe, subtribe – section of a large kinship group and the primary political unit in traditional Māori society. It consisted of a number of whānau sharing descent from a common ancestor, usually being named after the ancestor, but sometimes from an important event in the group’s history. A number of related hapū usually shared adjacent territories forming a looser tribal federation (iwi).
Iwi – extended kinship group, tribe, nation, people, nationality, race – often refers to a large group of people descended from a common ancestor and associated with a distinct territory.
References
The ACT Party. (2024). The Treaty Principles Bill. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://www.treaty.nz/
Desmarais, F. (2024, February 26). Poll: Half of NZers say they don’t understand Treaty principles. 1News. Retrieved April 13, 2025, from https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/26/poll-half-of-nzers-say-they-dont-understand-treaty-principles/
Dexter, G. (2025, April 4). Justice Select committee calls for Treaty Principles Bill to be scrapped. Justice Select committee calls for Treaty Principles Bill to be scrapped. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/557166/justice-select-committee-calls-for-treaty-principles-bill-to-be-scrapped
E-Tangata. (2024, September 15). Treaty bill plays on ignorance. Treaty bill plays on ignorance. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://e-tangata.co.nz/comment-and-analysis/treaty-bill-plays-on-ignorance/
Heard, M. (2024, February 20). Unravelling the Treaty of Waitangi debate: words matter, but so does history. Greenpeace. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://www.greenpeace.org/aotearoa/story/unravelling-treaty-waitangi-debate-words-matter-but-so-does-history/
Maxwell, J. (2025, March 8). The fight for the fabric of our nation: Who won the Treaty Principles Bill hearings? Stuff. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://www.stuff.co.nz/nz-news/360605786/fight-fabric-our-nation-who-won-treaty-principles-bill-hearings
Meyer, F. (2024, November 8). Treaty Principles Bill: Seymour’s first step in normalising idea. Treaty Principles Bill: Seymour’s first step in normalising idea. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/08/treaty-principles-bill-seymours-first-step-in-normalising-idea/
Miller, M. E. (2025, March 6). Washington Post: New Zealand reckons with ‘divisive culture war’. NZ Herald. Retrieved April 5, 2025, from https://www.nzherald.co.nz/kahu/mp-hana-rawhiti-maipi-clarke-leads-fight-against-treaty-principles-bill/HNVW4BB47BGKRC2VDCYEYMBHZY/
Mutu, M. (2019). To honour the treaty, we must first settle colonisation’ (Moana Jackson 2015): the long road from colonial devastation to balance, peace and harmony. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 49(1), 4-18. https://doi.org/10.1080/03036758.2019.1669670
Ngata, T. (2024, April 18). We’re asking the wrong questions about treaty settlements. We’re asking the wrong questions about treaty settlements. Retrieved November 24, 2024, from https://thespinoff.co.nz/atea/18-04-2024/were-asking-the-wrong-questions-about-treaty-settlements
Palmer, R., & Moir, J. (2025, April 10). ‘Watch this space’: Seymour on if voted down Treaty Principles Bill will return. RNZ. Retrieved April 13, 2025, from https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/557766/watch-this-space-seymour-on-if-voted-down-treaty-principles-bill-will-return
Walters, L. (2024, November 20). The people were speaking, Seymour couldn’t hear them. The people were speaking, Seymour couldn’t hear them. Retrieved November 24, 2024, from https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/20/the-people-were-speaking-seymour-couldnt-hear-them/
Ward, R. (2024, November 20). Let’s not play into Seymour’s hands. Let’s not play into Seymour’s hands. Retrieved November 24, 2024, from https://newsroom.co.nz/2024/11/20/lets-not-play-into-seymours-hands-by-talk-of-racist-treaty-bill/ Whare, T. (2024, April 15). Lecture 15 on Contemporary recognition of He Whakaputanga o Niu Tireni, te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi. The University of Auckland, Auckland.
