The Act leader thought he had a winning hand with the Treaty Principles Bill but as the cards are revealed, the gamble isn’t playing out in his favour.
Act’s leadership went all in with the Treaty Principles Bill, confident that their bold attempt to redefine te Tiriti o Waitangi would pay off politically. But as the bill’s proposed principles are unveiled, it’s clear the gamble is far from a sure thing. What was supposed to be a strategic move has backfired, putting Act on a path that could seriously harm both their party and Māori-Crown relations.
The proposed principles released yesterday not only deviate from the text of te Tiriti, but they also stray from Act’s original promises. Facing opposition from government departments, coalition partners and the wider public, the bill seems poised to cause more damage to Act’s political reputation than the party anticipated. The contradictions within the proposed principles are leaving Act in an increasingly precarious position.
Act’s vision of “equal rights for all” appeals to voters frustrated by what they perceive as preferential treatment for Māori, something Act blames on vague judicial interpretations of te Tiriti. The Treaty Principles Bill was a non-negotiable in coalition talks, a cornerstone of Act’s crusade against so-called “divisive race-based policies” and a belief that Māori get special treatment. It’s being sold as a move to reassert parliamentary supremacy and reinforce the rule of law.
While there is discontent with the current political system, many New Zealanders are wary of the extreme positions Act is pushing. The rise of global indigenous rights movements, alongside a growing understanding of New Zealand’s colonial past, means the public is more aware of the nuances of te Tiriti than Act might have expected. By simplifying Treaty principles into an “equal rights for all” framework, Act has misread the wider sentiment that values the Māori partnership and the ongoing reconciliation of historical grievances.
A miscalculated hand
Originally, Act promised a clear, unambiguous approach to te Tiriti, one that would cement equality for all. But as the draft principles emerge, it’s clear the party has overplayed its hand. The proposed principles not only contradict Act’s own promises but also diverge from the text of te Tiriti itself. Instead of delivering clarity, they introduce confusion, leaving both supporters and critics wondering what the party truly stands for.
Act’s insistence on reducing the Treaty’s principles to a rigid framework of “equal rights” oversimplifies its role in New Zealand’s legal and political systems. The idea that Māori rights could be equalised without acknowledging their historical and cultural context disregards both legal precedent and the Crown’s obligations under Treaty settlements. It shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how deeply embedded the principles of te Tiriti are in the nation’s governance.
The bill attempts to recognise the rights of hapū and iwi but also insists on “equal rights for all”. This framework pleases no one. Māori rights are acknowledged but only to the extent they’re recognised in legislation or Crown agreements.
As debate over the bill intensifies, Act’s coalition partners have started to fold. Both National and NZ First have publicly stated they won’t support the bill beyond its first reading. With no backing from within the government, Act’s position is weakening. What the party envisioned as a unifying move for New Zealand has become a symbol of division. Government agencies, including Te Arawhiti and the Ministry of Justice, have voiced concerns, warning that the bill could further inflame racial tensions and undermine Māori rights.
What was intended as a calculated political manoeuvre has become a polarising issue. Instead of uniting New Zealanders under the banner of equality, Act risks deepening the rift between Māori and non-Māori.
A risky bet on populism
Populism thrives on division – us vs them, winners vs losers – but te Tiriti is inherently about balancing competing interests in a shared society. Reducing this foundational agreement to a yes/no referendum on principles – which a Cabinet paper released yesterday confirmed would be part of the bill – risks polarising the nation and feeding ideologies that frame Māori as having undue privileges, rather than being partners in a historic agreement that shaped the bicultural foundation of Aotearoa.
Allowing Treaty principles to be the subject of populist rhetoric opens the door to further undermining of Māori rights. A referendum on these principles sets a dangerous precedent. It could enable future challenges to initiatives like language revitalisation, Whānau Ora, or even Treaty settlements themselves. The stability of Māori-Crown relations hangs in the balance and Act’s gamble threatens to unravel decades of hard-won progress.
In the long run, Act’s gamble could backfire. Far from solidifying its political standing, the party risks alienating mainstream voters and shifting towards the political fringes, tainted by divisive, hard-right rhetoric. New Zealanders who don’t fully understand Treaty law may still be wary of populist appeals that undermine social cohesion. Once Pandora’s box is opened, there’s no telling how far the divisions could spread, making this gamble far riskier than Act anticipated.
Seymour and Act are now banking on a referendum to secure a win but they’ve miscalculated how deeply divisive this could be. Pushing for a referendum may seem like a strategic move but it’s turning Treaty principles into a political football – a bet that could erode social cohesion. The party now faces a critical decision: double down on a risky hand, or fold before the damage becomes irreversible.
Act has to now choose whether to push forward with a bill that no one supports or backtrack and risk alienating its voter base. Like a gambler who stays at the table too long, Seymour risks losing everything if he doesn’t walk away soon.
