The phrase “treaty principles” first appeared in New Zealand political discourse in 1974, in Maori Affairs Minister Mat Rata’s introduction to his Treaty of Waitangi Bill. 

At that stage, no one knew what treaty principles were because they did not exist in any written form.  

Twelve years later, in 1986, there were concerns that when passed by Parliament, the State-Owned Enterprises Act would infringe rights guaranteed to Maori by the Treaty of Waitangi when Crown assets were transferred to new enterprises. 

Ngati Tuwharetoa paramount chief Sir Hepi Te Heuheu approached Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer. 

Te Heuheu said that inclusion of the phrase “nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of the treaty” would allay concerns. 

Palmer agreed and included such a reference as section nine of the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 as a treaty clause. 

The first written version of the principles appeared in an Appeal Court judgement titled NZ Maori Council v Attorney General 1987. That case was to do with the above-mentioned transfer of assets to State-owned enterprises. 

Five Appeal Court Justices either wrote summaries of what they thought they were or commented on them in the 1987 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General decision.

Because addressing Maori grievances was politically unpopular and risked being outvoted, Palmer wrote in his 1990 book New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis, he set up “processes, procedures and the principles on which decisions should be based.”

Those “principles” are the Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi. Published on July 4, 1989, these five principles are:

• kāwanatanga (government), which recognises the cession of sovereignty and the government’s right to govern and make laws in exchange for protection of rangatiratanga;

• rangatiratanga (self-management). The second article of the treaty guarantees to iwi the control and enjoyment of taonga that they wish to retain. “This is the price the Crown paid for what it obtained in the first article”;

• equality, which recognises the guarantee in the third article of legal equality and the actual enjoyment of social benefits between Māori and other citizens of New Zealand. Legal equality means that “all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law” while the enjoyment of social benefits recognises that “where serious and persistent imbalances exist between groups in their actual enjoyment of social benefits, then government will consider particular measures to assist in redressing the balance”;

• reasonable co-operation, which states that the treaty is regarded by the Crown as establishing a fair basis for two peoples in one country. “Duality implies distinctive cultural development and unity implies common purpose and community”; and

• redress, in which the Crown ensures a process is provided for resolution of grievances arising from the treaty, be that through the courts, the tribunal or direct negotiation. 

Various entities created their own sets of treaty principles. They included:

    • NZ Maori Council to Court of Appeal 1987- 10 principles

    • Crown to Court of Appeal 1987- 5 principles

    • Waitangi Tribunal 1983-1988- 12 principles

    • Royal Commission on Social Policy 1988—3 principles

    • Hiwi Tauroa (former race relations conciliator) 1989- 4 principles

    • Office of Treaty Settlements 1999- 4 principles

    • Douglas Graham(in his book Trick or treaty) –11 principles

    • Centre for Maori Studies Lincoln University 1994 –4 principles

    • New Zealand Law Commission 1999-13 principles

    • NZ Attorney General 2000 – 6 principles

    • Minister of Health/Privy Council (undated) – 3 principles.

Because differences between the English and Maori texts of the Treaty of Waitangi appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, the treaty principles became a work-around so those textual differences didn’t create an obstacle to creating treaty policy.

“Astonishingly, the parliamentary representatives who inserted the word ‘principles’ did not know what they meant. To include a word estranged from its meaning into legislation is an egregious political failure,” Auckland University Professor of Education Elizabeth Rata wrote.

“The consequence of Parliament’s failure is a racially divided country and a group asserting co-governance rights,” Professor Rata wrote. 

See > Rata, Elizabeth. Two treaties – the articles treaty and the principles treaty https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/elizabeth-rata-two-treaties-of-waitangi-the-articles-treaty-and-the-principles-treaty?fbclid=IwAR1DJ3g76EhZmGWXRSo0BPWx7Q4j4Ee6B3L8dtVaCfIs425-7W7BLm5ncqI