NZ’s new PM Christopher Luxon won’t rule out referendum on Treaty of Waitangi

Christopher Luxon says a referendum on NZ’s founding document would be divisive but hasn’t ruled it out despite warnings it would cause ‘civil disobedience’ and ‘violence’.

National Party leader and Prime MInister elect Christopher Luxon with deputy leader Nicola Willis. Picture: NZ Herald.

New Zealand’s incoming prime minister has not ruled out a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand’s founding document, despite warnings it would cause “civil disobedience” and “violence”.

Christopher Luxon told NZ media on Monday he felt a referendum would be divisive but he would “get through those issues with the respective parties.”

The ACT party, which is set to go into a coalition government with National under new PM Christopher Luxon, wants to redefine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and hold a referendum on enshrining them into legislation. The proposal, which was supported by 60 per cent of voters in a pre-election poll, is a “bottom line” for ACT leader David Seymour.

But minor party politicians strongly oppose a referendum, with Green Party leader James Shaw making a comparison with the defeat of the Indigenous voice to parliament.

“I think you have just seen the equivalent of that in Australia, where you have a majority that has voted to continue to override the indigenous rights there, and I think you could see something very similar here,” Mr Shaw told the Stuff website.

“If that happens, you will see wide scale social disruption – it could lead to violence,” he said.

John Tamihere, president of the radical Te Pati Māori, said that to “unravel” and “question” the Treaty would create “some of the largest civil disobedience and unrest in the country.”

ACT leader David Seymour will push for a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi principles. Picture: Getty Images.

The Treaty principles have become a polarising issue in NZ, particularly the principle of partnership, which has become a ­central tenet of co-governance arrangements which give Maori and non-Maori equal seats around the table in local and national decisions.

Mr Seymour and other opponents argue the principle of partnership was never in the original Treaty but was drawn up by members of the judiciary and academia in the mid 1980s, and has led to discrimination against non-Maori members of the NZ population.

Mr Luxon said during the election campaign that a referendum would be unhelpful and divisive.

However as negotiations with Mr Seymour begin, Mr Luxon said: “I’m just not going to play the rule-in, rule-out game.”

He said he still felt “strongly” that a referendum would be divisive, but added: “We’ll get our way through those issues with the respective parties.”

Mr Seymour described Mr Tamihere’s warnings of civil disobedience as “unhinged” and asked Mr Shaw to retract his claim of potential violence.

He has told NZ media a referendum would be a part of coalition negotiations with National.

“The Treaty today is mainly understood through its principles but those principles have never been discussed, debated or settled by the people of New Zealand,” he said.

Mr Seymour told the Australian the principles should be redefined to protect the rights of the non-Maori population.

“You can be asked to consult on something just because you’re Maori. It means special rights for Maori because they are indigenous. That’s created an enormous amount of division,” he said.