As coalition negotiations between National, Act and NZ First continue, one potential sticking point has popped out beyond the cone of silence that’s otherwise being maintained by the three parties.
Despite insisting he’s “not doing this by negotiation through the media,” National leader Christopher Luxon has stated that a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi [which happens to be a major policy that Act campaigned on] would be “divisive and unhelpful”. Although he hasn’t categorically ruled it out, one can presumably take this to mean a plebiscite is off the table.
Luxon is certainly not alone in that view. Former National prime minister Jim Bolger has opined that a referendum “won’t and shouldn’t happen”, noting that “National did a lot of work and made huge progress on resolving Treaty issues. They’re not going to tear that up because David Seymour wants to.”
Sir Douglas Graham, who was Bolger’s minister in charge of Treaty negotiations, is also anti the idea – although, like his former boss, he isn’t a fan of the Labour government’s handling of co-governance policy either.
Those affiliated with other parties have also given a big thumbs down to the prospect of a referendum on te Tiriti o Waitangi: the Green’s Marama Davidson has issued a challenge to the incoming government [“Just try and come for the Treaty, just try”] while her co-leader James Shaw has publicly worried that, if it were to go ahead, “you will see wide scale social disruption – it could lead to violence”.
Te Pāti Māori president John Tamihere has stated a referendum would essentially “unwind 30 years of hard won incremental treaty jurisprudence overnight with a tyranny of the majority” and that should such a vote come to pass “there will be significant civil unrest”, while Tamihere’s former radio show co-host, Labour MP Willy Jackson, has delivered “a warning: I work amongst our people … who will go to war for this, war against [ACT leader David] Seymour and his mates” [although Jackson has also clarified that he’s just the messenger regarding this sentiment and he doesn’t “want any disruption or violence. I’m not advocating for that at all.”].
Now, promises of disruption – or even hurt feelings – are a poor reason not to do something. By the same token, forging ahead with an action for the primary purpose of demonstrating that you won’t be cowered by threats is seldom such a flash idea either.
It would appear the idea that a referendum on the treaty would be divisive is one that we can confidently take to the bank. But it’s also readily apparent there have been major changes in the way te Tiriti is interpreted by the judiciary, the bureaucracy, academia, and activists in recent years – changes that a significant proportion of the population hasn’t received the memo on.
So rather than a referendum, how about the new government organises some kind of formal discussion – a “national conversation” if you will – about the whys and wherefores of these recent interpretations, and whether they stand up to scrutiny, so everyone is at least on the same page?
Because it’s only when we start talking with – rather than past – one another that we’ll be able to properly plan the best way forward. Together.
