New Zealand is far from a tyranny. But there are signs its democratic institutions are not as robust as they might be – with the proposed ‘fast-track’ legislation bringing concerns to a head.
Modern interpretations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi cause sometimes bitter political debate. But new research shows New Zealanders – especially younger ones – see the Treaty largely as a positive symbol.
Jane Kelsey, University of Auckland, Waipapa Taumata Rau
If a future government wanted to block fast-tracked projects, it could trigger investor-state dispute settlement clauses built into existing trade agreements, with billions potentially at stake.
While the New Zealand government removes reference to the Treaty in the Oranga Tamariki Act, Canada and even Australia are taking steps in the opposite direction on Indigenous children’s rights.
Rather than leave the Treaty principles to parliament and the courts to define, why not embed the essence of the Treaty articles themselves in all laws?
Maria Bargh, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington and Annie Te One, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
Just 1% of politics education in New Zealand is focused on the Māori dimension, new research has found. How can the country discuss Te Tiriti o Waitangi when very few understand it?
Decades of Treaty scholarship have failed to arrive at a consensus about its meaning and purpose. Dispensing with various mistaken interpretations would improve the chances of productive discussion.
Jack Vowles, Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington
If Māori did not explicitly cede sovereignty in 1840, neither did they fully retain it. If sovereignty is already being shared, where does Te Tiriti o Waitangi sit within our unwritten constitution?
ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill assumes Māori have been granted special privileges. But it can equally be argued the Treaty prevents the undemocratic concentration of power in the hands of a few.
The ACT Party claims revisiting the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi is about political equality. But removing a Māori cultural dimension to New Zealand’s democracy would have an opposite effect.
Arguments against including Indigenous cultural perspectives and experiences in public policy have spilled over into prejudice and racism on both sides of the Tasman. That harms democracy.
Outgoing New Zealand MP Jamie Strange used his valedictory speech to propose a trans-Tasman political union. Wondering how that might work reveals just how different the two countries really are.
The story some histories tell about the 1840 agreement between Māori and the British Crown may be popular and even comforting. But they are also incomplete – and even unhelpful.
Far from expanding its jurisdiction or having a veto over parliament, the powers of New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal have been steadily reduced in recent decades.
Otago University has followed Massey in aspiring to be a “Tiriti-led” institution. But this implies being on the Crown side of the partnership – which is not where a university should be.
Article 3 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi gave Māori the fundamental rights and freedoms guaranteed under British law. Understanding it is critical to modern debates over ‘co-governance’ and partnership.
Plant breeders must now engage with kaitiaki if special relationships with a plant have been asserted. But Māori have no say on the introduction of exotic plants that could become invasive.
Over the 70 years of her reign, Queen Elizabeth II has been part of Aotearoa New Zealand’s living history, touching everything from the role of women to the Treaty of Waitangi.
When public services don’t work for Indigenous peoples, it’s more than just a case of policy failure. As long as colonial assumptions are embedded in the system, there can never be real progress.
Adjunct Professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and Professor of Political Science, Charles Sturt University