Andy Loader argues that New Zealand’s debate over the Treaty of Waitangi, Māori representation and co-governance has become increasingly disconnected from the principles of equal citizenship. Looking from the conflicts preceding 1840 through to today’s political institutions, he challenges prevailing interpretations of the Treaty and asks whether race-based representation and policy can be reconciled with a modern democracy in which every citizen is equal before the law.
Why the Treaty was signed—how dramatically New Zealand changed afterwards.
History should never be sanitised—but that rule must apply to every part of New Zealand’s past.
Crown violence, land confiscation and the New Zealand Wars should be examined, but so must the Musket Wars, intertribal conquest, slavery and the violence that existed before British government was established.
Without that full examination we cannot properly understand why the Treaty was signed—or how dramatically New Zealand changed afterwards.
Prior to the signing of the Treaty there was nearly four decades of devastation. Beginning around 1807 and continuing into the early 1840s, the Musket Wars were not a handful of isolated disputes. They spread from Northland throughout the North Island, into the South Island and eventually to the Chatham Islands.
The Ministry for Culture and Heritage estimates that approximately **20,000 Māori were killed between 1818 and the early 1830s alone**. Many more were enslaved, expelled from their ancestral lands or forced to become refugees.
The Māori population may have been only around 100,000 at the time. The estimated death toll therefore represented a devastating proportion of the population—and exceeded the approximately 18,000 New Zealanders killed during the First World War.
Muskets did not create tribal rivalry, but they transformed existing conflicts into increasingly destructive campaigns. Communities were devastated, territorial boundaries were overturned and defeated people faced death, slavery or exile.
This was the New Zealand from which the Treaty emerged.
In 1831, thirteen northern chiefs asked King William IV for protection amid fears of foreign intervention and continuing conflict between tribes. By the late 1830s, there were also concerns about unruly European settlers, expanding trade and the possibility that another foreign power might take control.
British government replaced endless warfare with law and order and established nationwide courts, laws and public institutions. Alongside missionary peace-making, the spread of Christianity, greater parity in access to firearms British authority helped secure peace and bring large-scale intertribal warfare to an end.
Slavery also declined following the Musket Wars and was eventually extinguished under British law. On the Chatham Islands, Moriori were officially released from slavery in 1863.
Whatever modern activists may say about colonisation, replacing recurring warfare, conquest and slavery with government and a common system of law was an enormous improvement which gave ordinary people greater security than they had possessed during the nearly four prior decades of devastating tribal conflict.
New Zealand gradually developed courts, representative government, public infrastructure, literacy, commerce and legal rights applying across the country and that transformation must be included when colonisation is discussed. Discussing only its alleged costs while concealing its benefits is not history—it is political advocacy.
Confiscation must be placed in context and land confiscations following the New Zealand Wars must also be explained accurately.
Under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, the government authorised confiscation from tribes it deemed to be in “open rebellion” against the Queen’s authority. From the Crown’s perspective, armed rebellion challenged the sovereign authority established under the Treaty.
Some confiscations extended to land belonging to neutral or pro-government Māori but it must also be understood that these confiscations occurred during and after armed conflict—not simply because the Crown decided one morning to steal Māori land without cause or context.
We need to stop replacing history with grievance politics. The Treaty did not suddenly appear in an otherwise peaceful country. It emerged from tribal warfare, foreign threats, expanding settlement, trade, missionary influence and demands for recognised government and protection.
Leaving out the Musket Wars, slavery and the conditions leading to the Treaty creates a distorted picture in which Māori history effectively begins in 1840 and everything afterwards becomes an exercise in blaming the Crown.
History should provide the complete picture—not cherry-pick the past to sustain a modern grievance industry.
It is just over forty years (1980 to be exact) when New Zealand stood almost on the brink of civil war regards the effects from the opposition to the South African, (Springbok) Rugby team’s tour of New Zealand.
South Africa at that time was a country ruled by the white minority population under a system of Apartheid which gave the ruling white citizens all of the power and control of the nation whilst restricting any persons of colour to a life of not much more than slavery.
At the time that the tour was announced an organisation with the name of H.A.R.T. (Halt All Racist Tours) was formed to protest and try to stop the tour as a signal to the country and the world of our opposition to the system of Apartheid, and it has been said many times by a lot of different people since then that this had a huge part to play in the demise of Apartheid in South Africa.
The social unrest that developed within NZ as a result of the protests saw almost rioting in the streets with one of the tour games being cancelled at the last minute due to a pitch invasion by a large number of protestors.
On Aug. 28, 1963, American civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr. addressed the crowd at the Lincoln Memorial in Washington, D.C., where he gave his "I Have a Dream" speech in which he said those oft repeated words:
“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
He was speaking about the coloured people of America’s segregation based on race and he also said:
“When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir. This note was a promise that all men — yes, Black men as well as white men — would be guaranteed the unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.’
Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quick sands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God's children.”
New Zealand has had a democratic system of government that is the oldest in the world, going back to the emancipation of women under the suffragette movement when they were granted the inalienable right to vote regardless of colour or gender in 1893.
On 19 September 1893, Governor Lord Glasgow signed a new Electoral Act into law, and New Zealand became the first self-governing country in the world to enshrine in law the right for women to vote in parliamentary elections.
Dedicated Maori seats were introduced in the early years of our new Parliament to ensure Maori had the right to vote.
The New Zealand Constitution Act (NZCA) 1852 granted the franchise for both the provincial councils and the House of Representatives to all males – including Māori – who were over 21 years and who had any of the following:
- a freehold estate within the electorate valued at £50;
- a leasehold with an annual value of £10;
- a tenement with an annual rental of £10 in a town (or £5 in the country).
Although these qualifications on voting rights applied to Māori and non-Māori males alike, in effect it meant that few Māori were able to vote – since most land held by Māori was communally held (rather than held by individuals), and held in customary title (unregistered).
It is a fact that the Maori seats should have actually been abolished in 1893 when New Zealand adopted universal suffrage, and all adults gained the right to vote irrespective of land ownership or tenancy.
In the nineteen nineties, when MMP was introduced, instead of the Maori Seats being abolished - as recommended by the Royal Commission on the Electoral System to prevent an over-representation of Maori in Parliament - they were retained. As predicted, with 27 percent of MPs now of Maori descent, the reserved seats have become discriminatory, denying non-Maori New Zealanders fair representation in Parliament.
Māori representation in Parliament is clearly no longer dependent on the existence of separate Māori electorates.
Māori candidates can, and do, win general electorates. Māori candidates can, and do, enter Parliament through party lists. Māori New Zealanders participate throughout our political system as candidates, MPs, ministers, party leaders and voters.
So why, in 2026, do we continue to maintain electorates defined by ancestry?
Why do we still put up with a political party which is race based; “Te Pati Maori”.
This is nothing more than racism cloaked as some sort of obligatory right for Maori.
The Maori Party is only in Parliament because they have guaranteed Maori seats, but in today’s times this is an anachronism that should have been done away with a long time ago. In fact it was recommended by The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System, in their report titled; Towards a Better Democracy which recommended:
- The Commission unanimously recommended the adoption of mixed member proportional, with a threshold of 4% and that a referendum be held before or at the 1987 election.
- They also recommended that the Māori electorates be abolished, with Māori parties instead receiving representation if they did not pass the threshold.
They warned that if New Zealand adopted MMP without removing the reserved Maori seats, Maori would be over-represented in Parliament and would have a disproportionate and dangerous influence on the running of the country and that’s exactly how it has turned out.
Maori make up 12.3% of the population that is of voting age yet there are currently 33 MPs of Maori descent across all six parties in Parliament.
The Maori Party (which claims falsely, to represent the Maori population of NZ) and the self-appointed so-called tribal elite of Iwi are pushing to go back and reinstate a system of race based governance.
Maori make up 12.3% of the population that is of voting age yet the Maori Party only managed to gain 2.8% of the vote in the last election.
Our electoral system should reflect enduring democratic principles of fairness, equality and equal citizenship. Every New Zealander should participate in our democracy on the same basis, regardless of ancestry and that all citizens are equal before the law.
Who could possibly disagree with equal rights?
How can anyone oppose the statement that every citizen in a democracy is equal before the law? The frantic pushback from certain politicians and activists says far more about them than it does about these common-sense principles.
Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the rule of tikanga was followed and loyalty was for those in the hapu or iwi; all others were of no importance and could be robbed of land, killed, and eaten. War bred war, as frequently a group would escape a stronger tribe and move to attack another. Fighting was strengthened by the demand for revenge, utu, and the call to defend the mana of relations and ancestors.
Prior to the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the average life expectancy for Maori was mid-thirties; the tribes were constantly at war with one another and the Maori practised slavery and cannibalism as a common effect of their warlike practices.
In 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi was signed, an agreement between the British Crown and Maori which established British law in New Zealand.
As a result of the signing of the Treaty, Maori and other immigrants have lived in a reasonably harmonious relationship since then, notwithstanding that there were complaints around the confiscation of lands by the European settlers.
The Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 to hear claims related to issues around the Treaty of Waitangi and also the actions of the early European settlers to NZ.
What began as a well-meaning effort to settle all such claims and offer an apology to those affected has since that time developed into nothing more than an industry that is focussed on claimants’ getting every last cent they are able to extract from the Crown (read taxpayers of NZ) for any and everything they can possibly dream up to make a claim in relation to.
The Tribunal was originally about redress in relation to the actions of our first European settlers but has now ended up as a vehicle which is used to try to claim as much financial reward as possible and to give absolute power to a very small section of our population.
It has become a tool used to side-line democracy and to force the total population to accept that there is some unchallengeable right for Maori through their use of “Te Reo & Tikanga”, to have a right of veto (or power) over all other races which call NZ home.
Insistence on a separate Maori government has built up over the decades since the formation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975. The Tribunal has over time constructed and publicised a complete rewriting of history – the “retrospective recrimination” and “counterfactual history” of the Tribunal, quoting the words of historian Bill Oliver. This fundamental reversal of the message and meaning of the Treaty has been aided by a captive media and the crippling of free speech.
We are constantly being told that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori and to fulfil this we need to adopt a system of Co-Governance with Maori.
This whole idea of Co-Governance is nothing more than a racist attempt to gain control based on an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty.
Co-governance is not about the Treaty it is solely about control and getting the monetary benefits that go with having control. It’s about a small percentage of the population (approximately 17%) getting fifty percent of control based on their ethnicity and the others (approximately 83%) getting the rest.
We are told repeatedly by the so-called elite from Iwi that this is the only way forward to honour the Treaty. But in fact this is nothing more than moving from the democratic system of government we have had since the signing of the Treaty to a system of racial discrimination where equality in government has no place as it will be replaced by a person’s ethnicity.
It was also during this period of time that the claim that Maori are a Treaty ‘partner’ with the Crown gained traction, with special Maori consultation rights and privileges included although there was no mention anywhere in the Treaty that related to partnership.
What we have now is a system of ideological indoctrination which is cloaked in cultural empathy, enforced by social shame, and hidden behind a virtue signalling sea of Maori culture with many of our public servants scrambling to prove their cultural credentials and enforcing a cultural ideology across every aspect of national life rather than concentrating on delivering basic services.
The so-called elite have used Maori culture and Te Ao Maori (the Maori world view) to assert their claims, under the Treaty of Waitangi, to be given the right of co-governance when in actual fact there is no basis in truth for this assertion.
Over decades since the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal, the so called Maori elite have gained positions of power and influence through division and deceit. The Waitangi Tribunal has morphed into an almost permanent commission of inquiry into contemporary breaches of the Treaty with jurisdiction extended to include already-settled historic claims and anything else that can be quantified, giving rise to what has become a multi-billion dollar Treaty gravy train.
Following are examples of race based spending solely related to Maori ethnicity:
$811,000,000 to enable Health NZ to deliver hauora Māori services
$119,000,000 for the promotion of Māori language and culture through direct funding of broadcasting entities (Te Māngai Pāho and Māori Television Service), Te Mātāwai and Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori (Māori Language Commission)
$60,000,000 to discharge the departmental responsibilities of Te Puni Kōkiri,
$41,000,000 to fund Māori development initiatives that assist Māori to meet their economic, cultural, land development, technological, and health aspirations, including Rangatiratanga grants
$35,000,000 to provide practical assistance and resources to whanau and Māori housing providers to improve housing outcomes for Māori
$18,000,000 to purchase services from the Māori Trustee
$13,000,000 to support the work of community and Māori governance organisations
$49,000 for meeting the administrative expenses for Crown land and for various legislative payments administered by Te Puni Kōkiri.
$179,000,000 for purchasing the achievement of Whānau Ora outcomes from non-government commissioning agencies
$9,000,000 for activities associated with implementing, developing, administering and evaluating the Whānau Ora approach.
$9,000,000 for strengthening Crown capability and supporting significant events that demonstrate and strengthen the Māori Crown relationship.
$538,000 for Whakanui - Embedding Te Ao Māori in Aotearoa through Sustainable Support for Matariki and Waitangi Commemorations
$750,000 for ToW celebrations
$1,600,000 for - Mana Wāhine Kaupapa Inquiry
$6,914,000 support for Maori land
$1,556,000 Tūwharetoa Māori Trust Board
$404,000,000 to help stop Maori re-offending
$1,000,000 in funding to support equitable transitions and community climate action for Māori and contributions to international institutions
$147,000,000 to increase the housing supply provided by Māori service providers
Whilst some of these examples may well be justified in providing services directly to Maori in support of identified needs, they should never and cannot ever be justified solely on the basis of ethnicity.
In a truly democratic nation such as New Zealand, our system of government should reflect enduring democratic principles of fairness, equality and equal citizenship. Every New Zealander should participate in our democracy on the same basis, regardless of ancestry and all citizens are seen as equal before the law.
Attempts to racialise New Zealand through implementation of co-governance, has provoked significant public complaint. Government has a duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the democratic rights of all New Zealanders.
And yet, here we are: using race-based politics and reinvented Treaty theology to alter the democratic systems which we have always stood on. It’s not a brave attempt to implement some erroneous interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, it’s just stupid.
New Zealand is fast becoming a textbook case in how to get it wrong; how to destroy a democratic system of government and eliminate any semblance of equality for all citizens.
Somewhere between the Waitangi Tribunal, the Supreme Court, and an endless supply of cultural consultants, we’ve managed to turn that Treaty into a magical entitlement factory—churning out “rights” that are rapidly making us the banana republic of the pacific.
We are now seeing the consequences of decades of allowing vested interest groups committed to subverting democracy and seizing power for their own enrichment, to infiltrate all levels of government in New Zealand.
After fifty years of being allowed to virtually have their own way, tribal groups have become powerful and dangerous. They see themselves as de-facto rulers, and if things don’t go their way, they do not hesitate to bully and intimidate, demand and threaten, and with very deep pockets, resort to legal action through a ‘captured’ court system, until opponents cave in.
There can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights.