King Charles III is greeted with a hongi as he arrives for the annual Commonwealth Day Service at Westminster Abbey in London, on 10 March 2025. (Photo: Belinda Jiao PA Wire)
How might constitutional change work in practice?
In the final part of our series examining the work of Matike Mai Aotearoa, Carwyn Jones discusses the models that describe how change could be enacted.
You can read the first two pieces in his series here and here.
The Matike Mai report proposes six “indicative constitutional models”. These models each describe a high-level framework for a Tiriti-based constitution for Aotearoa.
They’re intended as a basis for taking the conversation further.
The models are grounded in the values identified through hundreds of workshops, hui and wānanga, and they draw on the Waitangi Tribunal’s thinking about constitutional spheres of influence.
The underlying assumption of all the models is that Te Tiriti allows a continuation of the Māori constitutional order. The history of that order — grounded in tikanga and articulated in He Whakaputanga — has been repeatedly dismissed and suppressed by the Crown. This is a fundamental injustice, which should be put right by advocating for constitutional transformation now.
The constitutional vision that came through very clearly, and is reflected in the values identified in the report, is a vision of governance and democracy that is “conciliatory and consensual”.
Realising the vision requires inclusive arrangements for decision-making and law-making. There must be ongoing discussions with all communities in Aotearoa about the form any new constitution should take.
To advance this vision, the report proposes a set of indicative constitutional models. These models draw heavily on the framing used by the Waitangi Tribunal in its report on stage one of its Te Paparahi o Te Raki inquiry, He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti.
In that report, the Tribunal described Te Tiriti o Waitangi as recognising two spheres of influence: a kāwanatanga sphere, reflecting the Crown’s authority and jurisdiction, and a tino rangatiratanga sphere, reflecting ongoing Māori authority and jurisdiction.
The indicative models in the Matike Mai report are all based on the interplay between a kāwanatanga sphere and a tino rangatiratanga sphere.
One model suggests that these spheres of influence could exist together, in a single institution, with iwi/hapū and the Crown making decisions jointly in a single assembly.
Another model suggests that the two spheres could operate separately, each with its own defined jurisdiction and responsibilities.
However, four of the six models include a tino rangatiratanga sphere, a kāwanatanga sphere, and a relational sphere. This recognises the distinct authority, concept and site of power that sit within the spheres of tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga, but also recognises a space for joint decision-making in a relational sphere.
The differences between these four models are essentially how the relational sphere is constituted.
One model sees the relational sphere as simply being a joint body made up of an iwi/hapū assembly and the Crown. A second model includes urban Māori authorities as well. The third makes provision for regional assemblies, and the fourth adds a mana motuhake sphere that would provide for direct iwi/hapū-Crown relationships alongside broader Māori representation through the relational sphere.
One of the sphere models proposed by Matike Mai. (Image supplied)
All these models recognise the distinctive constitutional whakapapa of the tino rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga spheres and, crucially, the ability of both those spheres to act as conciliatory authorities in their own spheres and in relation to each other.
Whatever the technical details of the processes for making joint decisions, they would need to consider the independence of the spheres of influence, the interdependence that exists between them, and the constitutional relationship envisaged by Te Tiriti, where everyone has a place here in Aotearoa.
The Matike Mai working group recommended a process of deliberate discussion about the need for and the possibilities of constitutional transformation.
While that process should be led by Māori and use the report of Matike Mai as a starting point for both formal and informal conversations, these discussions must be inclusive. Dialogues with other communities across Aotearoa and with the Crown and local government are essential.
The need for these discussions is urgent — for our communities, and our relationships with each other and the environment. We have perhaps not progressed the conversation as far as we ought to have in the nearly 10 years since the publication of the Matike Mai report.
However, we have a real opportunity right now to move the conversation along. It’s clear from the response to the Treaty Principles bill that hundreds of thousands of people across Aotearoa are ready for a constructive, principled discussion about Te Tiriti and its role in our constitution. It seems to me that we are more ready than ever to explore the potential of constitutional transformation and take up the vision of Matike Mai Aotearoa.
Dr Carwyn Jones. (Photo supplied)
Dr Carwyn Jones (Ngāti Kahungunu) is Pūkenga Matua (Lead Academic) of Ahunga Tikanga (Māori Laws and Philosophy) at Te Wānanga o Raukawa, and Honorary Adjunct Professor, Te Kawa a Māui (School of Māori Studies) at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University of Wellington.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
