BSA Decisions Ngā Whakatau a te Mana Whanonga Kaipāho

Summary  

[This summary does not form part of the decision.] 

The Authority has not upheld a complaint under the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards about a Q + A interview with David Seymour on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill). The complainant alleged TVNZ’s reporting on the Bill, in this broadcast and in general, was biased; interviewer Jack Tame inaccurately claimed the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership and erroneously cited the ‘Fleming version’ of the Treaty; and it was unfair to ‘only present one side of an argument’. The Authority found the balance standard does not apply to concerns of bias, and the audience was likely to be aware of significant perspectives on the Bill from this broadcast and other media coverage. It also found it was not misleading to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership or cite the official English text of the Treaty. The fairness standard did not apply.

Not Upheld: Balance, Accuracy, Fairness

The broadcast

[1]  The 24 November 2024 broadcast of Q+A centred on the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill (Bill) and ‘the actual substance of what’s being proposed’. Presenter Jack Tame interviewed ACT Party leader, and architect of the Bill, David Seymour, and Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngawera-Packer.

[2]  The segment opened with Tame explaining the public reaction to the Bill where, as the Bill passed its first reading, ‘it was greeted by a protest inside the house and a hīkoi to the steps of Parliament’. The item then cut to pre-recorded footage of the hīkoi and brief interviews with protesters, following which Tame said:

But despite the public opposition, David Seymour’s bill is now before the Select Committee as he seeks to establish a legislative definition of the Treaty principles. And here they are.

[Each principle from the Bill was shown on-screen in full, in turn]

Principle One: The Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.

Principle Two: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty, Te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements. 

And Principle Three: Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination. 

[3]  The segment turned to a live, 30-minute-long interview with David Seymour and included the following relevant excerpts:

What Seymour was ‘trying to achieve’ with the Bill

Seymour:       We need an understanding of our founding document that’s actually unifying rather than divisive. Over the past 50 years, since Parliament said there were principles but failed to say what they are, a relatively small and narrow group of New Zealanders – mainly judges, the Waitangi Tribunal, iwi leaders, some public servants in Wellington – have come up with a version of the principles that’s totally inconsistent with liberal democracy. It says that there is a partnership between races in terms of the Court of Appeal, other people say there’s a partnership between the Crown and Māori. And the problem with that is that we look at ourselves as part of a collective based on ancestry, rather than a group of individuals who have all different things about them, all different hopes and aspirations and challenges and choices, trying to overcome what they face on their time on Earth to flourish in their own way. That’s what we should be looking at. But instead, we’re told ‘oh you’re tangata whenua, you’re tangata Tiriti, you have a different role in society’. 

Now, out of that comes a whole lot of policies, like having co-governance of Three Waters, a separate Māori Health Authority, need to consult people on the Resource Management Act, different takes on what the history of our country is on the curriculum, different procurement by councils. You get a whole lot of issues where we need to actually get a lot better at, say, building houses or getting more jobs or doing health care better, but we’re constantly held back by this idea that before you can take a person seriously, you’ve got to ask, well, you know, what’s your ancestry? Which side of the Treaty partnership? How should I talk to you? And you see this in the recent report by the Waitangi Tribunal on my Bill, where they went and said, you know, ‘this Bill will trample all Māori’. Well, hang on a second. Actually, since when do they speak for a whole race of people? Since when do all of us have to think the same and take the view that the Waitangi tribunal thinks? I think that statement on the Waitangi Tribunal’s most recent report on my Bill sums up everything that is wrong with the last 50 years of the way the Treaty principles have developed. 

And that’s why I propose the principles that you have just put up on screen – and thank you for doing that, I think it’s more important that people actually look at what they’re saying. That the government has the right to govern and make laws. You know, that we have actually have an obligation as a government to uphold people’s rights, including Māori, but that all of those rights should be equal before the law. 

Whether Seymour ‘believe[s] in the sanctity of contract’

Seymour:       Yes, I do, but I also believe that contracts need to be interpreted, especially over 184 years. And you’ve got to balance that against the rights of people to be a thinking and valuing being with equal dignity and equal respect afforded to them in our constitutional arrangements. 

Tame:             You would agree, if not a partnership between races, you would agree, I think, that the Treaty is a binding agreement between iwi, hapū and the Crown, right? So, how would it be just for one party to an agreement to unilaterally define the meaning of that agreement without the other party’s consent? 

Seymour:       Well, that’s exactly what’s been happening over the past 50 years, when the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have a very narrow range–

Tame:             Respectfully, the courts aren’t the Crown, though, are they? 

Seymour:       Well, that may be true. 

Tame:             So, the courts aren’t actually one of those parties that signed the agreement. The Crown signed the agreement with iwi and hapū. Those are the two separate parties to the agreement. So, the courts are the closest thing we actually have to a neutral arbiter. I mean, it is the responsibility of the courts to resolve conflicts or divisions between the Crown and other parties, which is exactly what they’ve been doing. 

Seymour:       Nonetheless, what they’ve come up with is a version of the Treaty that is completely unworkable in a liberal democratic state. I mean, we’ve just seen that the best examples you can come up with are American, Canadian and, you know, Australian reserves. 

Principle Two of the Bill

Tame:             So, let’s have a look at Principle Two, because I think much of the opposition to your principles at the moment seems to centre on an argument that they don’t actually reflect what the Treaty itself says.

[Principle Two of the Bill is displayed on screen] 

So, this is Principle Two, and I know there’s an argument that says that your principles are inconsistent with the spirit, the intent, and the actual text. Now, many legal scholars and experts would say that Article 2 of Te Tiriti specifically grants Māori tino rangatiratanga over their lands, over their fisheries, over their taonga. Your principle here says that if those rights, quote, ‘differ from the rights of everyone’, then they’re only recognised in the context of historical Treaty settlements. So, do you accept that your principles do not include a guarantee of Māori-specific tino rangatiratanga? 

Seymour:       No, because they guarantee self-determination to everybody. And I think where… some people… mistakenly oppose this legislation, is that they believe that somehow, you’re going to have your mana or your reo or your culture taken away by this bill. The reality is this protects everybody’s right to express themselves and be themselves, be Māori, but actually just recognise that we’re now a multicultural society with people from many different places who will each try to live in their own way.

Tame:             The point of your opponents, though, is that nowhere in the Treaty does it actually guarantee everyone that level of tino rangatiratanga, that it specifically includes a carve out for iwi and hapū. 

Seymour:       Well, it said it would give tino rangatiratanga to all the people of Nu Tirani, all the people in New Zealand. Now, of course, most people say, well, clearly that meant just the chiefs that were there in 1840… 

Tame:             You think it means all the people. 

Seymour:       I think it should mean all the people of New Zealand. 

Tame:             You think it should mean. You think it should mean. But do you think that’s what it meant? 

…

Tame:             So… you quoted Te Tiriti there, ‘Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani' – New Zealand, right. ‘Nga tanga katoa’, and you’ve interpreted that as meaning all New Zealanders. 

Seymour:       All the people of New Zealand, yes. 

Tame:             So, but I mean, you’re giving us an English translation of a Māori text there. But of course, we don’t need the English translation of the Māori text because the Māori text was based on the original English text, right. So, what does the English text of Article Two of the Treaty say? 

Seymour:       Well, you’ve got it in front of you, why don’t you read it. 

…

Tame:             I’ll read it out. Just because, I mean, you’ve given us an interpretation of the Māori text, but here’s the English text upon which the Māori text was written: ‘Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof, the full exclusive and undisturbed possessions of their Lands [and] Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess, so long as it is their wish’. That’s tino rangatiratanga for Māori. A specific carve out for Māori, not for all New Zealanders. 

Seymour:       Oh, I understand that’s what it says. But equally, everyone tells you you’ve got to use the Māori text because that’s what the signatories understood. 

Tame:             Interpreting the Māori text when the Māori text is based on the English text shows that clearly it’s a carve out for Māori, not for everyone.

…

Seymour:       …[Y]our cute argument is that we must listen to the Māori text because it’s the Māori text that it was signed, it’s the Māori text that the British were the proposers of it, therefore it should be the Māori interpretation that is used. And then as soon as convenient you say, oh no, actually no, we’ll go back to the English. 

Tame:             And your cute argument is that the legal scholars [who] have interpreted the Māori text as meaning one thing are wrong, even though the Māori text was based on an English text which very clearly shows that the carve out was for Māori, not for all New Zealanders…

…

Tame:             But well, your English language interpretation of the Māori text differs from Māori legal scholars. And well, if we instead of taking your interpretation of the Māori text, we go back to the original text upon which it’s based, it’s pretty obvious. 

Seymour:       The difference is mine’s based on the Māori text and consistent with liberal democracy. 

Tame:             Well, mine’s arguably based on both.

The complaint

[4]  Peter Foster complained the broadcast breached the balance, accuracy, and fairness standards of the Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand. The complainant provided detailed submissions, key points from which are summarised below:

Balance

• TVNZ’s reporting was biased. The concept of the Treaty of Waitangi/[T]e Tiriti o Waitangi being a partnership was ‘constantly pushed’ in the broadcast and ‘no contrary view was allowed’.
• TVNZ receives money from the Public Interest Journalism Fund¹ which requires recipients ‘to show that the [T]reaty was a partnership’.
• TVNZ’s overall coverage of Treaty issues is biased and unbalanced. Partnership (as a principle of the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti) is ‘almost exclusively promoted’ by TVNZ on a regular basis, ‘either in direct comment or in giving preferential exposure to [a Māori] point of view’, and ‘views that counteract that are [non-existent]’. For example, Julian Batchelor ‘has never been allowed to comment on anything, never interviewed’, and ‘only disruption of his meetings was ever shown’.

Accuracy

• It was inaccurate for Jack Tame to claim the Treaty of Waitangi/[T]e Tiriti o Waitangi is a partnership. Nothing in the text of the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti, nor in the comments by rangatira who signed the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti (as recorded on 5 February 1840 by William Colenso), indicated the concept of partnership.
  • ‘The Treaty of Waitangi was never a partnership [and] to portray it as such is dishonest.’ The concept has never been recognised in law.
  • The Lands² case did not call the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti a partnership. Cooke P said the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti was akin to a partnership, but this comment was ‘made in his personal explanation’ of the Court’s findings and did not ‘constitute part of their findings’.
  • It is irrelevant that the Waitangi Tribunal declared partnership to be the prime principle of the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti. The Waitangi Tribunal is ‘an advisory body’ and ‘not a court’, so has no authority to make such claims.
• Tame read from the Fleming version of the Treaty of Waitangi in the broadcast, which was ‘misleading and dishonest’:
  • The Littlewood version was translated into Māori and signed at Waitangi, not the Fleming version ‘as Tame claimed’. 
  • Tame said Article 2 guaranteed Māori tino rangatiratanga, but what was guaranteed only applied to Māori land, did not include land sold or land confiscated in war, and made no reference to forests or fisheries. Article 2 ‘therefore does not suggest in [any way]’ that the Treaty/[T]e Tiriti is a partnership.
• Tame quoted a section of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 which ‘he claimed gave partnership to [Ngāi Tahu]’ over ‘areas of the [S]outh Island’. However, this relied on an interpretation of rangatiratanga which was inconsistent with what ‘tino rangatiratanga meant in 1840’.

Fairness

• It was unfair to ‘only present one side of an argument’, ‘deny opposing views from being heard’, and ‘denigrate those presenting an opposing view’.

The broadcaster’s response

[5]  TVNZ did not uphold the complaint for the following reasons:

Balance

• The proposed Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is a controversial issue of public importance. ‘However, within the broadcast’s narrow and clearly defined scope, an interview with David Seymour alone, in his capacity as ACT Party leader and lead proponent of the bill in question, viewers would not reasonably have expected to have been presented with a range of alternative perspectives.’
• ‘The Treaty Principles Bill has been extensively reported on and discussed in surrounding media, and viewers would be aware that many alternative views exist in relation to it. They have agency to apprise themselves of such views in the fulness of time and within the period of current interest, as this Standard envisages under Guideline 5.2.’

Accuracy

• The Littlewood version of Te Tiriti is not accepted as the original draft of the document. ‘It is considered to be a back-translation of the te reo Māori [T]reaty, and so there is no legitimate reason for Jack Tame to reference its wording in the discussion. The version Jack Tame mentioned is from the accepted English language draft.’
• ‘The three Ps’ – partnership, protection, and participation – are often referred to when discussing Treaty principles. Partnership is therefore ‘one of the overarching Treaty principles, developed by the courts, law and the Crown’.
• The Law Commission has clearly outlined that the principle of partnership was affirmed in the Lands case.

Fairness

• The fairness standard is designed to ensure people and organisations taking part or referred to in broadcasts are dealt with fairly. The complainant’s claims of unfairness ‘do not relate to the unfair treatment of a particular person or organisation involved in the broadcast’, and so are ‘not relevant to this decision’.
• If the complainant regarded the interview to be unfair to David Seymour, TVNZ strongly disagreed. David Seymour ‘was afforded ample opportunity to discuss his views on the Treaty Principles Bill’, and the threshold for finding a breach of the fairness standard is higher in relation to politicians and public figures than for someone unfamiliar with the media.

The standards

[6]  The purpose of the balance standard (Standard 5) is to ensure competing viewpoints about significant issues are available, to enable the audience to arrive at an informed and reasoned opinion.³ The standard states:⁴

When controversial issues of public importance are discussed in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant viewpoints either in the same broadcast or in other broadcasts within the period of current interest unless the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage.

[7]  The purpose of the accuracy standard (Standard 6) is to protect the public from being significantly misinformed.⁵ The standard states:⁶

• Broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure news, current affairs or factual content:
  • is accurate in relation to all material points of fact
  • does not materially mislead the audience (give a wrong idea or impression of the facts).
• Further, where a material error of fact has occurred, broadcasters should correct it within a reasonable period after they have been put on notice.

[8]  The purpose of the fairness standard (Standard 8) is to protect the dignity and reputation of those featured in programmes.⁷ The standard states:⁸

Broadcasters should deal fairly with any individual or organisation taking part or referred to in a broadcast.

Our analysis

[9]  We have watched the broadcast and read the correspondence listed in the Appendix.

[10]  As a starting point, we considered the right to freedom of expression. It is our role to weigh the right to freedom of expression against any harm potentially caused by the broadcast. We may only intervene when the limitation on the right to freedom of expression is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.⁹

[11]  Political speech and discussion of political policy and issues, as featured in this broadcast, are recognised as having high public interest. A correspondingly high level of harm is necessary to justify regulatory intervention and imposing a limit on such speech.¹⁰

Balance

[12]  The balance standard applies only to ‘news, current affairs and factual programmes’ which ‘discuss’ a ‘controversial’ issue ‘of public importance’.¹¹ We consider the broadcast discussed a controversial issue of public importance – the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. However, the issue Foster complained was not presented in a balanced manner was whether Te Tiriti established a principle of partnership. This is an issue concerning the interpretation of a historical document. While it is natural for aspects of historical events to be researched and debated over time, as previously noted,  the balance standard does not apply to the discussion or analysis of historical matters.¹²

[13]  To the extent the complaint might be directed to a need for balance in discussion of the Bill, we are satisfied the broadcaster has complied with its obligations under the balance standard.

[14]  Competing viewpoints were presented in the broadcast. The interviewee was David Seymour, the architect and main proponent of the Bill. The interview lasted for 30 minutes, during which Seymour was given ample opportunity to respond to Tame’s comments and present his perspective on the Bill and Treaty/Tiriti issues generally.

[15]  We do not consider partnership, as a Treaty principle, was ‘constantly pushed’. Tame referenced partnership once. Seymour mentioned the term numerous times but not in a manner which might be seen as ‘pushing’ partnership as a Treaty principle:

• ‘Over the past 50 years, since Parliament said there were principles but failed to say what they are, a relatively small and narrow group of New Zealanders – mainly judges, the Waitangi Tribunal, iwi leaders, some public servants in Wellington – have come up with a version of the principles that’s totally inconsistent with liberal democracy. It says that there is a partnership between races in terms of the Court of Appeal, other people say there’s a partnership between the Crown and Māori.’
• ‘You get a whole lot of issues where we need to actually get a lot better at, say, building houses or getting more jobs or doing health care better, but we’re constantly held back by this idea that before you can take a person seriously, you’ve got to ask, well, you know, what's your ancestry? Which side of the Treaty partnership? How should I talk to you?’
• ‘I live in a country where it’s harder to get homes built because we’ve taken a view under resource management that because the [Resource Management Act] has to observe or at least have reference to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, the councils go away and say, “well, the Treaty is a partnership”…’.
• ‘So even just getting enough housing done, before you get on to education where instead of asking… what is actually the best knowledge in the world for the students that are going through school now to have to survive and thrive, we say, “Oh, well, hang on a minute, what does the Treaty say? What does the partnership require?”’
• ‘…one day we’ll get to a stage where people say, “Yeah, yeah, people used to make all these legal arguments and say it’s a partnership. But eventually we realised that things separated into two different racial categories was a dumb way to run a country.”’

[16]  The balance standard does not require broadcasts to present alternative viewpoints where ‘the audience can reasonably be expected to be aware of significant viewpoints from other media coverage’.¹³ The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill has received extensive media coverage, and we consider the audience is likely to be aware of significant perspectives on the Bill from both this broadcast and other media coverage.¹⁴

[17]  While the complainant alleges Tame’s reporting was biased, the balance standard does not require news, current affairs, and factual programming to be presented impartially or without bias.¹⁵

[18]  Finally, our role is to consider complaints about programmes not complying with the Code of Broadcasting Standards. We have no role or powers in connection with the Public Interest Journalism Fund or any editorial decisions it may or may not encourage. There is no evidence it influenced this broadcast. It is not relevant to the question of whether the broadcast complied with the balance standard. Further, our jurisdiction is limited to specific programmes, which means we cannot consider the complainant’s concerns about TVNZ’s broader coverage over time, including its reporting of Julian Batchelor’s tour.  

[19]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the balance standard.

Accuracy

[20]  Determination of a complaint under the accuracy standard occurs in two steps. The first step is to consider whether the programme was inaccurate or misleading. The second step is to consider whether the broadcaster made reasonable efforts to ensure that the programme was accurate and did not mislead.

[21]  The complainant alleged it was inaccurate to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership primarily because nothing in the English and Māori texts ‘grants partnership to [Māori]’.

[22]  We are satisfied it was not misleading to suggest the Treaty/Te Tiriti is a partnership. Partnership is a core, well-established Treaty principle, deriving from decades of precedent from the Courts and Waitangi Tribunal.¹⁶ The principles of the Treaty are grounded in various sources, including:¹⁷

…the historical context of the signing, the objectives of the Crown and Māori signatories, the actual texts of the Māori and English versions, as well as the constitutional significance and the spirit of the Treaty/Te Tiriti.

[23]  The complainant also alleged it was ‘misleading and dishonest’ for Tame to read from the ‘Fleming version’ of the Treaty of Waitangi – ‘the one in Te Papa’ – instead of the ‘Littlewood version’. We do not accept it is inaccurate, or a breach of the broadcaster’s obligation to use reasonable efforts to ensure accuracy, to cite the official English text of the Treaty.¹⁸

[24]  Finally, the complainant alleged Tame quoted a section of the Ngāi Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 that ‘he claimed gave partnership to [Ngāi Tahu]’ over ‘areas of the [S]outh Island’. However, he considered this relied on an interpretation of rangatiratanga which was inconsistent with what ‘tino rangatiratanga meant in 1840’.

[25]  It is not the Authority’s role to settle issues associated with differing interpretations of the English and Māori texts of the Treaty/Te Tiriti. Regardless, this is a technical point that was unlikely to significantly affect the audience’s understanding of the content as a whole,¹⁹ and we note that Tame specified ‘many legal scholars and experts would say that Article 2 of Te Tiriti specifically grants Māori tino rangatiratanga over their lands, over the fisheries, over their taonga’.

[26]  Accordingly, we do not uphold the complaint under the accuracy standard.

Fairness

[27]  The fairness standard applies only to individuals or organisations taking part or referred to in a broadcast. The complainant did not identify an individual or organisation alleged to have been treated unfairly, so the standard does not apply.

Final Comments

[28]   Finally, we found some of the complainant’s submissions offensive. We encourage complainants to maintain basic courtesy in their communications with the broadcaster and the Authority. Offensive and disrespectful language or conduct may result in a complaint being dismissed without determination.

For the above reasons the Authority does not uphold the complaint.

Signed for and on behalf of the Authority

Aroha Beck
Acting Chair
9 June 2025    

Appendix

The correspondence listed below was received and considered by the Authority when it determined this complaint:

1  Foster’s original complaint and confirmation of relevant standards – 27 and 30 November 2024

2  TVNZ’s decision – 23 December 2024

3  Foster’s referral to the Authority, and supporting documentation – 
27 December 2024

4  Foster’s additional submissions – 2 January 2025

5  TVNZ’s response – 31 January 2025

6  Foster’s final comments – 6 February 2025

7  TVNZ’s confirmation of no further comment – 10 March 2025

¹ Irirangi Te Motu | New Zealand On Air “Public Interest Journalism Fund: General Guidelines” (updated 11 March 2022) <nzonair.govt.nz> 
² New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641
³ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 14
⁴ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁵ Commentary, Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 16
⁶ Standard 6, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁷ Commentary, Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 20
⁸ Standard 8, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
⁹ Introduction, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 4
¹⁰ See Flanagan and Discovery NZ Ltd, Decision No. 2024-020 at [7] and Chapel, Garbutt & Hopcroft and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2024-042 at [17]
¹¹ Guideline 5.1
¹² Grieve & Ryburn and Television New Zealand Ltd, Decision No. 2023-104 at [29]
¹³ Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand
¹⁴ Russell Palmer “The Treaty Principles Bill has been released: Here's what's in it” Radio New Zealand (online ed, 8 November 2024); Lloyd Burr “Explained: The Treaty Principles Bill” Stuff (online ed, 14 November 2024); Ayesha Perera “Thousands of Māori bill protesters reach New Zealand parliament” BBC (online ed, 18 November 2024); Eva Corlett “What is the treaty principles bill and why is it causing controversy in New Zealand?” The Guardian (online ed, 19 November 2024); Mike Hosking “Mike’s Minute: The Treaty Principles Bill is a half-baked, deeply divided mess” (online ed, 7 April 2025); The Platform “David Seymour On What’s Next For The Treaty Principles Bill” (30 January 2024) YouTube <youtube.com>
¹⁵ Commentary, Standard 5, Code of Broadcasting Standards in New Zealand, page 15
¹⁶ Waitangi Tribunal Ngā Mātāpono | The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, (Wai 3300, 2024) at 74; Carwyn Jones “Carwyn Jones: The Treaty bill is an act of extreme bad faith” E-Tangata (online ed, 21 July 2024); New Zealand Māori Council v Attorney-General [1987] 1 NZLR 641; Janine Hayward “‘Flowing from the Treaty’s Words’: The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in Janine Hayward and Nicola R. Wheen (ed) The Waitangi Tribunal: Te Roopu Whakamana i Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books, 2004) 29 at 40; Frances Hancock and Kirsty Gover He Tirohanga O Kawa Ki Te Tiriti O Waitangi: A Guide to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi As Expressed By the Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal (Te Puni Kōkiri, 2001) at 77
¹⁷ Waitangi Tribunal Ngā Mātāpono | The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, (Wai 3300, 2024) at 67
¹⁸ Manatū Taonga | Ministry for Culture and Heritage “Read the Treaty” NZ History <nzhistory.govt.nz>; Archives New Zealand “Ngā tuhinga taketake o Te Tiriti o Waitangi | The Treaty of Waitangi original documents” <archives.govt.nz>; Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, sch 1
¹⁹ Guideline 6.2