95bFM Public Opinion on Te Tiriti o Waitangi remains positive despite government opposition
10 February, 2026
Interview by Castor Chacko, adapted by Gabriel Timpson-Neill
The University of Auckland’s Dr. Avril Bell says that while public opinion towards Te Tiriti may seem disheartening, there is evidence that most actually have positive opinions towards it. She emphasizes that discussions about Te Tiriti should be seen as an opportunity for conversations about the future of Aotearoa New Zealand.
A new RNZ-Reid Research poll published last week has called attention to New Zealand’s view of Te Tiriti, especially with the gathering of politicians to the Waitangi Marae last week. The poll shows that roughly 38% of New Zealanders saw Te Tiriti as having too much influence over government.
This negative view of Te Tiriti has been encouraged over the last few years by the governing ACT and National Parties, who argue that it provides too many privileges to Māori and takes rights away from Pākehā and other minorities. The government is also working with New Zealand First to review references to Te Tiriti in 23 different laws.
However, taking in all other responses, the poll actually shows that about 50 percent of New Zealanders have a neutral or positive view of Te Tiriti, with 34 percent thinking the influence is just right, and 16.6 percent believing it should have more influence over government.
Dr. Avril Bell, an Honorary Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Auckland, told 95bFM’s The Wire that this was actually a positive sign of support for Te Tiriti. Bell wrote an article for the University of Auckland about the poll earlier last week.
“I thought it was kind of unfortunate that the news coverage had emphasized what I considered negative, the view that there’s too much focus on the Treaty, and failed to point out what I saw as the positive side.”
She says that the poll reveals that New Zealanders are “relatively split” between positive and negative opinions on Te Tiriti, and that the current government has not managed to do unmendable harm to the public’s view of Te Tiriti.
“Despite whatever this government has done over the past few years, I don’t think it has eroded the positive view that has developed over a much longer time period.”
During their Waitangi speeches last week, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon spoke about the principles of Te Tiriti and his own interpretations, while Deputy Prime Minister David Seymour focused on colonization and how it should be interpreted as having been a positive good for Aotearoa New Zealand.
Dr. Bell says that the government’s actions at the Waitangi Marae show that they are seeking to force through their own perspective, rather than have an open dialogue about the future of Te Tiriti and its influence on government.
“One of the things I’m left with, thinking about those speeches, is that they’re very monological. They’re not seeking a conversation, so in a sense they’re antithetical to what the Treaty is about, which is establishing and maintaining relationships.”
She says that rather than seeing Te Tiriti as a negative to the relationship between Māori and non-Māori, there should be a greater focus on it to promote dialogue about New Zealand identity.
She sees it as especially heartening that so many still see Te Tiriti as a net benefit to Aotearoa New Zealand despite the years of attacks against it, and that in any “future change to the political system or make-up” of the country, Te Tiriti must be a part of it.
“The Treaty, now and for a long time, has been a framework and a talisman for a focus on conversations about who we are as a people, who we are as a nation, and our relationships with each other, particularly of course between Māori and the rest of us, and about our history.”
She also states that Māori were not unfairly privileged by Te Tiriti, and in fact their basic rights were never properly protected.
“Really, the non-Māori are the ones who got the most out of the Treaty, because of the agreement for the British to establish a colonial government here to govern its citizens, and to be a “partner” to work with Māori and share rangatiratanga… The commitments we made to the Māori were pretty quickly breached, and continually breached ever since.”
