GEOFF PARKER: LUXON'S SILENCE ON THE TREATY DEBATE IS BECOMING DEAFENING
- Administrator
- Jun 20
- 3 min read
"I have been talking to iwi leaders ... for the past 12 months."
— Christopher Luxon, April 2025
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon's latest meeting with iwi leaders raises an important question: WHO EXACTLY IS HE GOVERNING FOR?
No reasonable New Zealander would object to the Prime Minister meeting Māori leaders. In a democratic country, governments should engage with all sectors of society. Farmers, business owners, unions, community groups, churches, environmental organisations and iwi all have a right to be heard.
The problem is not that Luxon met with iwi leaders.
The problem is that iwi leaders increasingly appear to enjoy A PRIVILEGED POSITION IN SHAPING GOVERNMENT POLICY, while many concerned New Zealanders are left wondering who is standing up for them.
The National Iwi Chairs Forum requested this meeting after objecting to the Government's review of Treaty clauses throughout legislation. Their complaint was that they had not been sufficiently consulted before Cabinet considered reforms.
Think about that for a moment.
The Government was elected by the people of New Zealand. It has a democratic mandate to review legislation. Yet iwi leaders are effectively arguing that government policy affecting all New Zealanders SHOULD NOT PROCEED WITHOUT THEIR APPROVAL OR PARTICIPATION.
That is not democracy. That is the gradual elevation of one group above all others.
Christopher Luxon should be meeting with New Zealanders from every walk of life with the same enthusiasm he shows for iwi leadership. Where are the special forums for ratepayers concerned about co-governance? Where are the closed-door meetings with taxpayers who fund the growing network of race-based programmes? Where are the invitations to the millions of New Zealanders who simply believe that every citizen should have equal rights and equal political influence REGARDLESS OF ANCESTRY?
Many New Zealanders are becoming increasingly concerned about the steady expansion of treaty-based provisions throughout government, local government, resource management, health, education and public administration. They see a growing system in which ethnicity determines influence, consultation rights, representation and access to public resources.
Yet on these concerns, Luxon remains largely silent.
Even more disappointing was his role in killing ACT's Treaty Principles Bill.
Whether one supported the Bill or opposed it, the proposal sought to answer a fundamental question: what are the principles that should govern the relationship between citizens and the state in modern New Zealand?
ACT argued that all New Zealanders should enjoy EQUAL POLITICAL RIGHTS AND EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW. Millions of New Zealanders supported at least having that debate.
INSTEAD, LUXON SHUT IT DOWN.
By refusing to allow A MEANINGFUL NATIONAL CONVERSATION ABOUT THE TREATY AND ITS PLACE IN MODERN GOVERNANCE, he sent a clear message. The political establishment was prepared to discuss almost anything except the growing influence of treaty-based governance itself.
The result is that many New Zealanders now feel politically homeless. They watch as more powers, consultation requirements and decision-making influence flow toward tribal organisations, while politicians dismiss concerns about democratic equality as somehow unreasonable.
Luxon insists his Government is merely seeking clarity around Treaty clauses. If that is true, then why does he appear so reluctant to challenge the continual expansion of Treaty-based obligations throughout public life? AND SINCE WHEN DID IWI LEADERS BECOME THE FINAL ARBITERS OF WHAT THE TREATY MEANS? The Treaty was drafted by representatives of the Crown, written first in English and then translated into Māori. Its interpretation affects the rights and responsibilities of every New Zealander. It should not be treated as the exclusive preserve of any one group.
The Treaty belongs to New Zealand's history, but its interpretation shapes New Zealand's future. THAT FUTURE AFFECTS EVERY CITIZEN, and the conversation should never be confined to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and iwi leaders alone.
His critics increasingly see a Prime Minister who talks about economic growth while avoiding the constitutional questions that concern many voters. They see a leader who appears more comfortable negotiating with iwi leaders than confronting the growing public unease about race-based governance.
Fair or unfair, that perception is becoming harder to ignore.
CHRISTOPHER LUXON WAS ELECTED TO GOVERN FOR ALL NEW ZEALANDERS. Not just those with political influence. Not just those with Treaty settlements. Not just those with access to ministers and government departments.
All New Zealanders.
Until he demonstrates that commitment more clearly, many voters will continue to ask whether he and his ally Tama Potaka are merely managing the pace of constitutional change rather than challenging it.
And if that question continues to grow, LUXON MAY DISCOVER THAT SILENCE CARRIES A POLITICAL COST OF ITS OWN.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
The chiefs of the most powerful tribes obviously agreed to cede their sovereignty.
If they had not, what we call New Zeakand could not have become a British Colony goverened from London, until after 1852 when the New Zealand Constitution Act permitted limited self governance.
The TOW did not "found a nation". It founded a British Colony in which all residents were British SUBJECTS with the same privileges and responsibilities granted by British Law.
How can people who criticize colonialism aslo argue that the decision to become a BRITISH COLONY could have been a treaty between two nations?
There was no Maori Nation!
The region was divided into territories of over 500 independent and often hostile tribal "identity groups" who did…
I keep trying to establish whose role is it to decide whether or not Māori ceded sovereignty to the Crown. I have approached Human Rights Commission, Auckland Uni,my church,Rotary, and Lions to see whether or not they would organize debates on the topic. Their answers were " Not my role, too busy, or too controversial a topic"
Surely one day a Govt will make a decision and then hopefully the many other issues surrounding ' The Treaty' would eventually be resolved
The elite deciders in the national party must hve soime vested interest in this ANCESTRAL PRIVILEGE and division of us into opposing tribal identity groups.
They definmitely do not want the majoroity of us to vote for equal respect, opportunities and responsible ownership of our own lives.
National is the party of and for the self interests of the most wealthy citizens who fund it so "generously". Labour is by and for the Marxists who would like to replace our social and economic system with COMMUNISM, "for the common good" of the rest of us who have to comply with their decisions about what we are allowed to think, say or do.
Neither is a good choice. I will definitely not be…
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed with 'Natives' and Natives includes Waitaha. Moriori and others. The incoming 1350 Polynesian through violent warfare seized some though not all portions of land. UNDRIP was supposed to represent the indigenous peoples of the world, not 'some Johnny come lately'. as is the case in NZ. The whole Treaty settlement saga is a fraudulent mess with many payments simply disappearing into individual private hands. The cheque book was not on a marae it was held privately. The average Maori who was supposed to benefit in too many cases got nothing. Ihuamatao is one case of land belonging to the indigenous and not to Maori. The giveaway is the stone walls. The Treaty money should…
President Lincoln had multiple political factions to deal with, before and during the Civil War.
Being great but not omnipotent, he wrestled with his own side as well as the also divided opponents. The prime object being, to keep the U.S. whole, and second, avoid a war. He failed the second, won the first.
You paint a picture with primary colours. For this reason, I doubt your conclusions.
If you lived then, you would be a Radical Republican, and you seem to say PM Luxon is a Copperhead.
What are PM Luxons goals? This isn’t as clear in this one area as it could be, granted.
Doing a good job in education and health shows they know how to deliver.