Have Your Say

WHERE WOULD NEW ZEALAND BE NOW IF THE TREATY PRICIPLES BILL HAD BEEN ADOPTED

MORE JOBS, LESS HOMELESS, EQUALITY FOR NON-MAORI ASSURED — CLEAR DIRECTION — WAITANGI TRIBUNAL REDUNDANT — WHAT WE MISSED OUT ON

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill was officially voted down in its second reading on 10 April 2025 by a margin of 112 to 11. While proponents argued it would have established a “colorblind” democracy, its rejection preserved the existing legal framework of Treaty “principles” as defined by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal.

From the perspective of those who supported the Bill, here is an editorial look at the “alternate reality” New Zealand might have occupied by April 2026 had the legislation passed into law.

The Road to “Equality” and Legal Certainty — Supporters envisioned the Bill as a constitutional “course correction” to stop what they termed “Treaty overreach”. If adopted, the Bill would have replaced decades of shifting judicial interpretations with three fixed statutory principles:

As a Unified Sovereign — Parliament would have absolute power to make laws for everyone, explicitly ending the “partnership” model where the Crown and iwi are viewed as equal political entities.

Equal Rights for All —By April 2026, many race-based policies—such as the former Māori Health Authority or specific co-governance requirements in local government—would likely have been dismantled or legally challenged based on the “Right to Equality” principle.

Finite Settlement Obligations: —Māori rights would have been strictly limited to those explicitly defined in historical settlements, preventing the “unbounded” expansion of rights through modern court rulings.

The Fiscal Argument: Savings or Stability — the fiscal impact of the Bill remains a point of deep contention. Proponents argued that adopting the Bill would have improved New Zealand’s fiscal position by reducing “race-based” spending and regulatory red tape.

Reduced Administrative Costs — Eliminating co-governance arrangements in sectors like water –3-Waters and Maori segregated health would, in this view, have streamlined the public service and reduced the cost of multi-layered bureaucracy.

Business and commerce management — some in the oil and gas industries, argued that clearly defined principles would have removed the “uncertainty” and “extra payments” often required when navigating Treaty obligations in resource management.

By defining Treaty rights through the lens of individual equality, the Crown might have avoided future financial obligations stemming from broader “unsettled” claims to natural resources like the marine and coastal area.

WHAT ARE THE LANDMINE TRICKS FOR 2026 —In this alternate timeline, New Zealand would currently be preparing for a binding nationwide referendum in late 2026 to confirm the Bill’s principles.

The focus of governance would have shifted from “equity” (targeted outcomes based on need and history) to “formal equality” (the same rules for everyone.

Government departments would likely be operating under strict directives to deliver services solely on the basis of need, rather than ancestry, theoretically reducing “waste” on race-specific initiatives.

So where are we at now — Maori Governance of all infrastructure is happening and Shane Jones, NZFirst is funding it on the taxpayer.

SCRATCH THAT – NOW 2027 – BILL REVISIT?