IN THE MATTER OF:

Introduction

I oppose the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on the grounds that it is unnecessary, lacks legitimacy, risks undermining decades of progress, and threatens to divide rather than unite New Zealanders. Below, I outline the key reasons for my opposition and offer constructive recommendations for a better path forward.

Reasons for Opposition

• Unnecessary and Redundant: The Treaty principles have naturally evolved over decades through the Waitangi Tribunal, courts, and public discourse. Introducing a rigid statutory framework now is redundant and risks destabilising this organic progress.
• Illegitimacy in Process: Defining the Treaty principles is not Parliament’s role alone. The Treaty is a sacred partnership between Māori and the Crown, and any such definitions must be co-designed with Māori. This bill disregards that foundational principle.
• Reinterpretation, Not Clarity: This bill seeks to reinterpret the Treaty principles under the guise of clarity. Codifying them risks narrowing their scope and reducing their ability to adapt to contemporary challenges.
• Timing Raises Concerns: After decades without statutory definitions, the sudden urgency to legislate raises questions. Why now? What problem is this bill solving that has not already been addressed by existing mechanisms?
• Erodes Trust in Government: The government’s track record of disrespecting Māori values undermines its credibility to legislate on Treaty principles. Without a sincere commitment to partnership, this bill appears disingenuous.
• Potential for Social Division: Far from fostering unity, this bill risks exacerbating tensions by creating rigid frameworks that could inflame rather than resolve perceived inequalities.
• Judicial Overreach and Uncertainty: Mandating legislation to align with codified Treaty principles invites judicial activism and legal uncertainty, further complicating governance.

Recommendations

• Engage in Genuine Partnership with Māori: Co-design any framework for defining or interpreting the Treaty principles with iwi, hapū, and Māori organisations to honour the Treaty’s intent.
• Enhance Existing Mechanisms: Strengthen the Waitangi Tribunal and other frameworks to guide Treaty matters without codifying restrictive definitions.
• Focus on Practical Solutions: Prioritise tangible improvements in Māori well-being through targeted policies in health, education, and housing over symbolic legislative measures.
• Encourage Public Education: Invest in educating New Zealanders about the Treaty to foster a shared understanding and respect, rather than forcing a narrow statutory definition.
• Retain Flexibility in Treaty Interpretation: Allow the principles to continue evolving through judicial, tribunal, and public processes to ensure they remain relevant to contemporary issues.
• Undertake a Nationwide Dialogue: Initiate a collaborative conversation about New Zealand’s constitutional future, exploring the Treaty’s role in modern governance.
• Reassess Timing and Process: Defer any legislative action until a genuine consensus is reached through inclusive consultation with all stakeholders.

Conclusion

This bill is not an act of progress but a regressive step that undermines the Treaty’s spirit, disregards Māori partnership, and threatens social cohesion. I urge the Justice Committee to reject this proposal and instead focus on measures that genuinely honour the Treaty’s intent and improve outcomes for all New Zealanders.