Submission by the New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) on the Proposed Treaty Principles Bill Legislation
To: The Justice Committee
From: The New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP)
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is widely recognized as a foundational document of Aotearoa New Zealand, enshrining principles of partnership. It serves as a cornerstone for the nation’s commitment to biculturalism, equity, and reconciliation. The New Zealand College of Clinical Psychologists (NZCCP) upholds Te Tiriti and its principles as central to its practice and values, advocating for culturally responsive and trauma-informed approaches to care.
The proposed Treaty Principles Bill seeks to define the principles of Te Tiriti in statute with the stated objectives of:
While these objectives may appear well-intentioned, their implementation risks undermining the mental health and well-being of Māori and failing to achieve the stated goals. This analysis, grounded in a clinical psychology perspective and informed by our Code of Ethics (2002), highlights the potential for harm and the need for an alternative approach.
The stated objective of creating certainty and clarity oversimplifies complex cultural and historical events. The principles of Te Tiriti have evolved through jurisprudence, consultation and negotiation, this creates a richness and adaptability that allows application to contemporary contexts. Codifying these principles in statute creates a rigidity of interpretations that fails to capture the nuanced, indeed living nature of Te Tiriti.
From a psychological perspective, rigid definitions invalidate the relational, contextual, and holistic nature of Māori worldviews. Such invalidation can lead to distress, alienation, and reduced cultural safety in systems reliant on or beholden to these definitions.
Using this Bill as a vehicle for promoting a national conversation about the Te Tiriti’s principles has, as was almost universally predicted, produced divisiveness Psychologically informed debates about constitutional arrangements seek to avoid polarised narratives, this requires active engagement with the lived experiences of marginalised groups – in this case Māori, particularly when systemic inequities remain unresolved.
Research on intergroup relations highlights that public conversations conducted without equity frameworks frequently result in harm to vulnerable groups (Came et al., 2020).
Te Tiriti principles are inherently relational, prioritising collective rights and mutual obligations over individualistic conceptions of rights. Attempting to force a reconciliation of these fundamentally different paradigms in a single statutory framework dilutes the essence of Te Tiriti.
For Māori, a reductionist approach undermines self-determination (tino rangatiratanga), a cornerstone of well-being and cultural identity. This has direct implications for mental health, as loss of autonomy and identity are linked to increased psychological distress (Houkamau & Sibley, 2015).
The assertion that codifying principles will foster consensus and cohesion is simply fallacious. Historical and social inequities require structural remedies, not mere definitional clarity.
Social cohesion relies on trust and mutual respect, which are fostered through genuine partnership and shared decision-making. The Bill, by unilaterally defining principles, tramples on this trust. Psychologists emphasise that consensus is more effectively built through restorative and relational processes, not top-down legislative actions.
The Treaty Principles Bill, and the public discourse surrounding it, holds the potential for profound psychological impacts, particularly for Māori. As clinical psychologists, it is essential to examine these potential harms through the lens of mental health, cultural safety, and the principles of Te Tiriti.
The Code of Ethics (CoE) obliges psychologists to minimize harm and prioritise the well-being of individuals and communities. Māori have historically faced systemic marginalisation and intergenerational trauma stemming from colonisation and breaches of Te Tiriti.
Legislative changes that are perceived to undermine the current Treaty’s principles will exacerbate these harms, including:
Psychologists are ethically required to identify these risks and take steps to mitigate them through trauma-informed and culturally safe care.
The CoE mandates respect for cultural and social diversity, including a specific commitment to understanding and upholding Māori worldviews, values, and rights as tangata whenua. Te Tiriti forms the basis of this commitment, underscoring the importance of honouring Māori autonomy and perspectives in any discussion about Treaty principles.
The Treaty Principles Bill as drafted, diminishes this foundation, and undermines the cultural safety of Māori, increasing feelings of marginalisation and alienation. For non-Māori, this could lead to confusion about national identity and social cohesion, further contributing to psychological strain.
The Code of Ethics calls on psychologists to advocate for the fair and equitable treatment of all individuals and groups, particularly those who have been historically disadvantaged.
In the context of the Treaty Principles Bill, this includes:
Psychologists are required to act with integrity, honesty, and respect in all professional interactions. This includes ensuring that their work and advocacy are informed by accurate information and a commitment to ethical principles. In relation to the Treaty Principles Bill, this means:
NZCCP recognises the enduring effects of historical and intergenerational trauma, particularly for Indigenous populations (Walters et al., 2011). Colonisation, systemic racism, and breaches of Te Tiriti have resulted in collective trauma that continues to manifest as elevated rates of mental health challenges among Māori (Durie, 2001).
The Treaty Principles Bill is reopening historical wounds, diminishing the mana of Te Tiriti. Re-traumatisation occurs when individuals and communities are exposed to experiences that echo past injustices, intensifying feelings of vulnerability, anger, or hopelessness.
By attempting to discount or undermine the lived experiences and historical and contemporary struggles of indigenous Māori people, the TPB may contribute to division, harm, and psychological distress. Studies consistently highlight that when groups feel their identity, history, and suffering are dismissed or invalidated, it can exacerbate intergroup conflict and increase feelings of injustice and resentment.
This phenomenon is evident in the Northern Ireland peace process, where a failure to fully acknowledge the historical trauma and perspectives of all communities (such as nationalists and unionists) hindered reconciliation, and contributed to ongoing tensions (McEvoy & O’Malley, 2008). Similarly, when indigenous Māori experiences, particularly around colonization, are disregarded or minimized, it can result in a sense of collective injustice, reinforcing group divisions and creating a psychological burden that manifests in higher rates of mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and anger (Cohen et al., 2006).
The psychological consequences of this erasure are significant. Studies have shown that when groups experience identity erasure or collective trauma is ignored, they often develop higher rates of mental health issues, including depression, anxiety, and PTSD. For instance, Cohen et al. (2006) found that indigenous populations globally, such as Native Americans and Aboriginal Australians, face elevated mental health problems due to the ongoing effects of colonialism and the denial of their historical and cultural experiences. By rejecting or downplaying the Treaty of Waitangi's significance, the Treaty Principles Bill could fuel this pattern, exacerbating the psychological trauma Māori people have already endured for generations.
A sense of cultural identity and belonging is fundamental to psychological well-being. Te Tiriti represents not only an agreement between Maori and the Crown, but a cultural and spiritual foundation affirming the place of Māori as tangata whenua. Any legislative changes that are perceived to weaken this foundation undermine cultural safety. Clinical frameworks such as Te Whare Tapa Whā (Durie, 1994) highlight the interconnectedness of cultural, spiritual, and psychological well-being. Disruption to cultural identity can result in adverse psychological outcomes, including increased distress and reluctance to engage with support services (Cherrington & Rangihuna, 2018).
Public discourse surrounding the Treaty Principles Bill has already contributed to heightened stress and societal polarisation. For Māori communities and leaders, the emotional burden of advocacy in the face of systemic inequities can lead to burnout and secondary trauma (Came et al., 2020). Polarisation also threatens social cohesion, increasing anxiety and reducing trust between communities. Research indicates that such stress can have cumulative effects, particularly for marginalised groups (Houkamau & Sibley, 2015).
These impacts are compounded by the historical context in which Māori have repeatedly had to fight for recognition and equity (Pihama et al., 2017).
This bill could deepen the divide between indigenous and non-indigenous groups, prolonging conflict and further entrenching societal inequalities. When Māori people's collective identity, rights, and historical narratives are undermined, the resulting feelings of marginalization could erode trust in the government and in society at large, heightening intergroup tension.
Perceived invalidation—feeling dismissed, misunderstood, or disregarded—is a significant contributor to psychological harm. As the Bill is sidelining the principles of partnership, protection, and participation, many will experience emotional distress, including feelings of grief and anger. Clinical evidence suggests that chronic invalidation can contribute to depression, anxiety, and reduced resilience (Hirini, 1997).
The concept of intergenerational trauma is also crucial here. Research into indigenous communities worldwide demonstrates that the denial or distortion of collective history contributes to the perpetuation of psychological distress across generations. For example, in the context of Canada, indigenous peoples' experiences of colonialism, including forced assimilation, residential schools, and land dispossession, have led to higher incidences of substance abuse, depression, and suicidality within indigenous populations (Kirmayer et al., 2000). This trauma is passed down through generations, with children of indigenous families often experiencing a heightened sense of loss, identity confusion, and anger at the historical injustice done to their ancestors. This pattern of trauma is exacerbated when the narrative of colonial oppression is downplayed or dismissed, as it prevents healing and reconciliation.
Similarly, in Australia, the Stolen Generations—children of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander descent forcibly removed from their families by the government—continue to experience devastating psychological consequences. The denial of their history and the ongoing marginalization of their experiences contribute to what has been described as a 'cultural and historical dislocation,' which manifests in widespread mental health issues (Atkinson, 2002). These effects are not confined to the past but continue to impact contemporary generations, making healing and recovery difficult.
Given the potential psychological and cultural impacts, it is recommended that lawmakers:
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a living document that embodies partnership, equity, and cultural safety. It remains central to the well-being of Aotearoa New Zealand. The NZCCP and the Code of Ethics reaffirm the importance of respecting and upholding the principles of Te Tiriti in clinical practice and public policy. As lawmakers consider the Treaty Principles Bill, it is essential to prioritise culturally informed and trauma-sensitive approaches to minimise harm and promote resilience. By honouring Te Tiriti, New Zealand can move towards a future of equity, unity, and collective well-being.
Atkinson, J. (2002). Trauma Trails, Recreating Song Lines: The Transgenerational Effects of Trauma in Indigenous Australia.
Brave Heart, M. Y. H. (2003). The Historical Trauma Response Among Natives and its Relationship with Substance Abuse: A Lakota Perspective.
Cohen, R., et al. (2006). The Impact of Discrimination on the Mental Health of Indigenous Populations.
Chandler, M. J., & Lalonde, C. E. (1998). Cultural Continuity as a Hedge Against Suicide in Canada's First Nations. Transcultural Psychiatry, 35(2), 191–219.
Durie, M. (2001). Māori development: Trends and indicators. Massey University.
Durie, M. (2003). Indigenous Health and Well-Being: A Māori Perspective.
Gee, G. C., et al. (2006). Racial Discrimination and Health Among Asian Americans: Evidence, Assessment, and Directions for Future Research.
Hirini, P. (1997). He whakaaro mō te aria whaiora Māori: A Māori perspective on health. NZ Journal of Psychology, 26(1), 2–9.
Houkamau, C. A., & Sibley, C. G. (2015). The role of culture and identity for economic values: A quantitative study of Māori attitudes. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 25(5), 423–437.
Kirmayer, L. J., et al. (2009). Suicide Among Aboriginal People in Canada. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(1), 1–14.Durie, M. (1994). Whaiora: Māori health development. Oxford University Press.
McEvoy, K., & O’Malley, P. (2008). The Politics of Transitional Justice: A Critical Introduction.
Cohen, R., et al. (2006). The Impact of Discrimination on the Mental Health of Indigenous Populations.
Mossakowski, K. N. (2003). The Mental Health of Native Americans: A Critical Review of the Literature.
Pihama, L., Smith, L. T., & Cameron, N. (2017). Kaupapa Māori theory: Indigenous transformative research approaches. In M. Gray, J. Coates, & M. Yellow Bird (Eds.), Indigenous social work around the world (pp. 69–81). Ashgate Publishing.
Walters, K. L., et al. (2011). Historical trauma, microaggressions, and colonial trauma response: Indigenous perspectives on the intersection of trauma and identity. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26(5), 1056–1084.
.svg){kind=spacer}