Jack Tame: An anticlimactic end to the Treaty Principles Bill

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.   

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
You're listening to the Saturday Morning with Jack Team podcast
from News Talks at b.

Speaker 2 (00:12):
In the end, it was kind of an anti climax.
After almost eighteen months of debate, anger, obfuscation, Hekoi and
Hukker and hundreds of thousands of submissions, the Treaty Principal's
Bill was voted down in fairly emphatic style. I suspect

(00:34):
the majority of New Zealanders are just so over it.
Looking back, I would say that David Seymour in act
largely got what they wanted to. Party Maudi 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

(00:55):
as for the first reading, this week's vote was scheduled
for a time when the PM wasn't in the House.
I just think being there and suffering through it would
have perhaps shown greater leadership. I watched the speeches in
Parliament and I thought David Seymour was right in his observation.
Almost none actually considered the substance of the government's defined

(01:17):
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
a pretty basic and unedifying level pro Mardi versus anti Maudi. Personally,

(01:38):
I look, I tried to engage with the detail of
the bill and good faith I always do. I actually
think that one of the most underrated qualities in people
in this day and age is a genuine capacity to
think critically or even to change your mind. It's weird.
It seems so simple and yet so hard for so

(02:00):
many people. It's a curiously strange thing these days, a
rare thing to come across someone who doesn't instantly default
to their team or their side. It seemed to me, though,
that there was a fundamental problem with the proposed treaty principles,
and that was that they didn't accurately reflect what the
treaty actually says. The treat specifically guarantees Maldi ten or

(02:24):
dung teta tongue. It has, if you like, like a
Maldi specific carve out that did not appear in Acts interpretation,
and in my view that absence was like just absolutely critical.
Many of the bill's opponents accused Act of a cynical
approach to the debate, like I can't speak for the
party's motivations, but I do think the most honest approach

(02:47):
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 I suppose that
leads me to my to my final point. The Treaty
is clearly an imperfect document. The English and Mardi versions

(03:08):
say different things, are open to different interpretations. There is
no returning New Zealand to the country it was, or
the land it was, or the place it was in
eighteen forty. And in the context of the modern day,
the treaty is kind of clunky. So I reckon David
Smore's broader desire about more purposefully defining the treaty's application

(03:32):
in the treaty's meaning in modern New Zealand is a
good one, or at least worthy of more consideration, Like,
for example, I just wonder if two hundred 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

(03:55):
think to treat to your White Ungy, the Treaty of
White Tungy was meant to unify in New Zealand. I
think that was its purpose, and if we're honest, this
debate has probably had the opposite effect. But I still
have faith I do that once the dust settles, we
can collectively find a way to constructively have these conversations

(04:18):
and move New Zealand forward.

Speaker 1 (04:21):
For more from Saturday Morning with Jack Tame, listen live
to News Talks a B from nine am Saturday, or
follow the podcast on iHeartRadio.