Summarised by Centrist
Professor Elizabeth Rata argues that the Treaty Principles Bill essentially poses a choice about the kind of society New Zealand wants to be: a democratic nation controlled by elected representatives, or dominated by rent-seeking elites leveraging historical grievances.
Rata critiques the judiciary’s reliance on what she describes as an “ahistorical” view, where the Treaty and tikanga practices are treated as immutable mandates, filled with “spiritual authority.”
She warns that this perspective distorts democracy. “New Zealand is not the United States,” she states, noting that Parliament, not the courts, has the ultimate legislative power.
The Treaty Principles Bill seeks to reassert democratic control, resisting calls from radical traditionalists who claim that the 1840 Treaty permanently binds New Zealanders.
She argues that this implies a “historical” view.
“Events are understood to be created by humans and are of their time and place. What people create can be retained, changed, or discarded. It is not the ancestors, the fates or the capricious gods which control us. Democracy brings that power down to earth, to be exercised on our behalf by elected representatives without appeal to a spiritual authority,” she writes.
Rata says that tribal corporations like Ngai Tahu thrive on modern business principles, and not spiritual agency.
She warns these could shift from being productive businesses to making money by claiming ownership of public resources instead of contributing through work or investment.
