��һ�ǿ�����

In the end it was kind of an anticlimax.   

After almost 18 months of anger, obfuscation, hīkoi and haka, and hundreds of thousands of submissions, the Treaty Principles Bill was voted down in fairly emphatic style. I suspect the majority of New Zealanders are so over it.   

Looking back, I’d say David Seymour and ACT largely got what they wanted. Te Pāti Māori were perhaps even greater political beneficiaries. And the whole saga will endure as a bit of a stain on Christopher Luxon’s tenure as Prime Minister. It was telling that once again, just as for the first reading, this week’s vote was scheduled for a time when the PM wasn’t in the house. I think being there and suffering through it would have shown greater leadership.  

I watched the speeches in Parliament and thought David Seymour was right in his observation. Almost none actually considered the substance of the government’s defined Treaty principles. Like most of the debate outside of Parliament, they were all emotion. At times, I think what was supposed to be a constitutional debate was boiled down to pretty a basic and unedifying level: pro-Māori vs anti-Māori!    

Personally, I tried to engage with the detail of the bill in good faith. I think one of the most underrated qualities in people is a genuine capacity to think critically or even change your mind. It’s a curiously strange thing these days to come across someone who doesn’t instantly default to their team or side.   

It seemed to me though that there was a fundamental problem with proposed principles. They didn’t accurately reflect what the Treaty actually says. Te Tiriti specifically guarantees Māori tino rangatiratanga. It has, if you like, a Māori-specific carve-out that did not appear in ACT’s interpretation. In my view, that absence was absolutely critical. 

Many of the bill’s opponents accused ACT of a cynical approach to the debate. I can’t speak for the party’s motivations, but I do think the most honest approach would have been to define the principles by what is clearly said in the Treaty, rather than what anyone thinks should be said in the Treaty. 

And that leads me to my final point: the Treaty is clearly an imperfect document. The English and Māori versions say different things. There is no returning New Zealand to 1840, and in the context of the modern day, it’s clunky.

I do think David Seymour’s broader desire about more purposefully defining the Treaty’s application and meaning in modern New Zealand, is a good one (or at least worthy of more consideration). For example, I wonder if 200 years from its signing, New Zealand should aspire towards developing some sort of a written constitution underpinned by the Treaty, that gives it better and clearer effect in the modern World.   

I think the Te Tiriti o Waitangi / Treaty of Waitangi was meant to unify New Zealand. If we’re honest, this debate probably had the opposite effect. But I still have faith that once the dust settles, we can collectively find a way to constructively have these conversations and move Aotearoa forward.