Te Tiriti and democracy

Are they compatible?

The kōrero on Wednesday at Rātana Pā was robust and democratic. Prime minister Luxon, as manuhiri, was given a hard time – to his face – about his government’s agenda. He took it on the chin and replied in good spirit, saying his government will honour the Treaty. But a lot of people don’t believe that, since he allowed the ACT Party’s Treaty Principles Bill to go to select committee as part of the deal to secure power.

From time to time, the Treaty polarises public debate. People focus on their differences of opinion, refuse to consider views they don’t like, and shut opponents out of forums if they can. Some comments on X have been abusive.

This present polarisation feels more profound than that which followed Don Brash’s 2004 Orewa Speech as former leader of the National Party, in which he decried ‘race-based policies’. The boost that National got from that event would have won them the 2005 election, if they hadn’t screwed up over other matters, and if Labour hadn’t bribed students with interest-free loans.

Such controversies have a unifying effect for Māoridom, however, as collective action is stimulated by adversity. The Kiingitanga has been at the centre of this.

I’ve already asked if Mr Luxon is able or even willing to bring the country together, in spite of the controversies erupting over almost everything. Well, at least he fronted up to the iwi gathered at Rātana. It was Winston Peters and Shane Jones who took most of the heat, but their speeches were, to put it mildly, laddishly unrepentant. Luxon repeated his managerial patter about delivering better outcomes for Māori etc. (I wish his speech writer would use the words ‘deliver’, ‘outcome’ and ‘actually’ less frequently. He’s sounding repetitive and robotic.)

So Luxon hardly distinguished himself as a nation-builder on that occasion – and he has yet to undergo Waitangi – but he did at least show up.

For the National Party, there’s no easy way through this present crisis. If they break the agreement with ACT and block the Treaty Principles Bill immediately (as Matthew Hooton suggests) then they lose right-wing supporters to ACT. Still, it’s not a bad suggestion, as it would cauterise the wound, prevent a shit-fight in the select committee hearings, and leave National time to recover before the next election. But would ACT then exit the coalition?

Or, as suggested by Chris Trotter, National could do the opposite: allow the parliamentary process on the bill to run its course and pass an act that defines Treaty principles, but have it come into force only after the 2026 election. Then they could keep their promise not to have a referendum as such, but make the election campaign ‘all about the Treaty’. Labour would be split, as not all of their traditional voters are enthusiastic about co-governance. But Luxon would cop the blame for dividing the country for the whole of his first (and maybe last) term.

Either way, ACT benefits electorally. It is noticeable, however, that New Zealanders have great difficulty having a respectful high-level conversation about the Treaty. (We could each ask ourselves why.) It’s generally been more expedient to sweep it under carpet. Isn’t it time we had it out?

---

The Rātana movement contested and won Māori seats and allied with the Labour Party back in the 1930s. It’s played an important role in politics ever since. Its annual gathering to honour Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana (1873–1939) in late January is now attended by all political parties (save ACT!) Although Rātana didn’t form their own party, I’d argue that it’s Aotearoa’s most successful and long-lasting faith-based political movement. In 1924, T.W. Rātana, accompanied by a large group, travelled to Britain with a petition to King George V concerning the Treaty and land confiscations. They were denied a meeting with the monarch, and their petition wasn’t formally received.

---

One contribution to the Treaty debate that deserves attention is by Prof Dominic O’Sullivan, an academic authority on indigenous government. He tackles ACT’s proposed principles bill on the grounds that the Treaty strengthens liberal democracy and provides a check on unbridled power – rather than leading to undemocratic policy-making, as ACT has alleged. O’Sullivan argues that:

“the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga [the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority] requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.”

He makes other insightful remarks about liberal democracy, for instance:

“Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference.”

“One of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom – the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha.”

Ideally, our governments distribute and devolve powers to communities and to individuals, as much as practically possible, so people can live their lives in the way they want. Elections hold our law-makers and cabinet ministers accountable to the people, as it’s the people who pay the taxes and have to live with the decisions.

O’Sullivan is against some of the policies of the new government. He and many others think they’ll make Māori worse off. But Luxon & Co claim they can do a better job for Māori than the previous lot, and they’ll be accountable for results at the next election – a test that Prof O’Sullivan and I don’t undergo.

Regarding Treaty principles and the ACT Party’s policy, O’Sullivan writes that:

“In effect, the proposed [Treaty principles] bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture.”

A lot depends there on the phrase “in effect”, as ACT’s policy document doesn’t explicitly say that Māori can’t contribute to public deliberation as Māori. They customarily do so in parliament and at Rātana Pā, Waitangi and elsewhere, and undoubtedly will continue to do so, with even greater strength.

If anything, the ACT party’s policy and proposed bill have strengthened Māori voice and kotahitanga (unity).

Aside from that, most of what O’Sullivan says about liberal democracy closely resembles the ACT Party’s general values. They both speak up for liberal democracy and they both see the Treaty’s place within that general framework. We’re not all the same. We can’t have the state controlling our lives. We share some basic democratic values. We don’t like being told what to think.

The Treaty is a founding constitutional document. And parliament is a place to debate and to reconcile our differences. Good government isn’t about eliminating disagreement; it’s about working through our differences.