What's wrong with having the Treaty Principles discussion?

While I don’t often find myself agreeing with David Seymour on much, I can’t help but wonder: What’s so wrong with having a conversation about the Principles of the Treaty? Is it really such a toxic topic that we can’t even discuss it without completely shutting it down?

As I understand it, the final text of the Treaty Principles wasn’t finalised until the mid 1980s, over 140 years after the Treaty itself was signed.
The principles emerged in response to the neoliberal agenda of the time, latterly pushed through by Roger Douglas and the Lange Labour government of 1984-90. 
The Waitangi Tribunal, rightfully concerned about the growing disenfranchisement of Māori under this new system, recognised that wealth wasn’t likely to "trickle down" as promised but would rather deepen inequality.

The resulting three ‘Ps’ – Partnership, Participation, and Protection – were a tool for the Tribunal to evaluate claims under the Treaty. They were a well fought and won victory for Maori, but were never meant to be a blueprint for how Aotearoa New Zealand should be governed.

In my view, trying to directly tie these Principles to the original Treaty is a bit of revisionist history. Don’t get me wrong—I support the ‘Ps’ in their original context, but the idea that Queen Victoria and the British military in 1840 thought they were entering into a “partnership” with Māori is, frankly, a deliberate misread on history. The British were focused on taking Aotearoa. Māori were seen as an obstacle to be overcome, not partners in any kind of negotiation. This wasn’t partnership; it was colonisation.

The Treaty of Waitangi is our founding document. Regardless of how we interpret it, its words are the cornerstone of Aotearoa’s history and the birth of the nation we know today. We can—and should—debate its interpretation, but the real question is: will that get us anywhere productive?

Here’s the thing: I don’t believe documents define our world—people do. It’s communities—working together, deciding what’s best for the collective good—that shape society.

Our focus should be on learning from our past, especially the appalling treatment of Māori in the 19th and 20th centuries. I’m not advocating for rewriting history, but I do think it’s crucial we fully understand the mistakes we’ve made. If we don’t, we’re bound to repeat them. History is a teacher, but only if we’re willing to learn from it. Racism, in any form, is unacceptable and has no place in our society.

Now, I know some might argue that my own privilege blinds me to the impact of unconscious bias or the disproportionate suffering Māori face in poverty, homelessness, addiction, and incarceration. I get it. Those statistics are heartbreaking, and they highlight the deep injustices Māori have faced. But I would argue that tying these issues directly to the Treaty debate risks missing the point and deflecting blame from the real causes: historic racism and neoliberal economics.

Barack Obama once said, “How can we move to a progressive future if we continue to be prisoners of the past?” If we simply close the book on our history without reflecting on it, we lose the chance to learn from it. We must honor our history, especially the stories of Aotearoa’s first peoples, but to move forward, we must also recognise that in 2024, our nation is far more than just two peoples.
We are one of the most vibrant, diverse countries on earth, made up of over 240 ethnicities, countless cultures, and intersectional identities. Isn’t now the time to have a conversation about our history in a way that reflects the Aotearoa of today, not the Aotearoa of 1840? We’ve come so far since then. We’ve come a long way since 1984!

I also take issue with David Seymour’s simplistic view that we are all "equal." While equality would be ideal—but admittedly a bit dull—it’s just not the reality we live in. Seymour’s insistence on equality seems to come from a place of unrepentent privilege, and it ignores the complex, messy realities we face as a society.

So, while I’m not a fan of why and how the ACT Party presents the Treaty Principles Bill, I do debate whether it’s worth opening up a broader conversation about how we live together as New Zealanders in 2024. Sure, we must be careful to get this conversation right, making sure it doesn’t become a divisive platform for racists or bitter loud voices. But if we can engage all Kiwis—all Kiwis—and develop a shared framework for an Aotearoa that values and cherishes it's past, while also celebrating it's diversity, inclusivity, and equity, then maybe—just maybe that'd be something we can all be proud of. 

There, I’ve said it. —David Seymour’s right. Let’s have that debate about the Treaty Principles.

Thanks for your eyes and your brains. 

Till next time, 

Gordy