The most usual questions are around what people think of the Treaty Principles Bill and what should happen to it.
The Māori Party people are describing it as treasonous and an affront to Māori/Pākehā/ Crown relationships. The Waitangi Tribunal has "found" that even introducing the Bill would prejudice Māori by damaging the Māori-Crown relationship, and that Māori would feel the brunt of social disorder and division by introducing the Bill and taking it to a select committee.
Labour says the Bill is divisive and expensive to draft and we should listen to the unified voice of Te Iwi Māori.
But the better question to move us forward is who governs New Zealand?
We have a Treaty, an arrangement, between various Māori groups and the Crown. This Treaty is written in two different versions, one in English and one in Māori.
It was given an enhanced life when Sir Geoffrey Palmer talked about it having principles, and the courts found it was an agreement akin to a partnership.
It was then written into various pieces of legislation where an overriding idea was that these principles would be a guiding light.
Somehow it has become a document, or two documents, which create an obligation on the government but to be interpreted in an ever evolving way only by Māori.
We have allowed that the only reality around the Treaty (Treaties) is what various Māori say it is. We have allowed the Waitangi Tribunal to look at it from a Māori perspective, as if it is to do with Māori only.
A group of King’s Counsel lawyers are not sure whether Parliament can decide what it means. The Secondary Principals Council and the Principals Federation are arguing that the schools they speak for may actually take a position on the Treaty principles despite their obligation to be politically neutral because they declare themselves to be self-governing.
Now that ever more wide-ranging obligations are being required by Māori from the government we really do need to know whether this is a conversation we all accept only Māori can contribute to.
Traditionally the media would have a part to play here. They would be trying to help us understand the issues and what was behind the angst we are experiencing.
But somehow the media are reticent about attempting to clarify the situation. The media are reporting that Māori voices are strongly opposed to the Bill, as if there is a unified Māori voice.
There is no suggestion in the media of a relevant voice outside Māoridom.
Usually in a parliamentary democracy Parliament is in charge. It is particularly in charge of any giving up of its powers to allow others to be in charge.
Something which is being considered as constitutionally important is usually done by either a referendum or by a super majority of Parliament (75% of members).
The point of making such issues reach the higher bar of going to the people or a super majority is to make it more likely people are taken on a journey they approve of.
We have reached the current situation not by taking the issue of the truth and reality of what the Treaty means to the people but by slowly and surely going along a path of accepting that only Māori can have the discussion.
David Seymour has proposed answering the question of who decides what the Treaty will mean in the future by putting a Bill out for discussion.
Winston Peters has a different but parallel way of attempting to move forward to decide on Crown/Māori relationships. Clearly both Act New Zealand and New Zealand First believe that we can all have a say on the way forward.
The Labour Party and the Greens are affronted by the very suggestion that the position needs any clarification, and that answering any questions is a cause for division.
Most of those who are against clarification have a significant investment in the confusion around what the Treaty means for us in 2024.
Many are paid by the taxpayer to be involved in the process around what is acceptable as behaviours around the Treaty, or are being paid to interpret it in an evolving basis.
There are many and varied ideas about what the Treaty meant when it was signed. There are equally many thoughts on whether anyone received unfair advantages.
And views on whether both versions can be reconciled, and if not whether one prevails.
But none of these matter compared to the need to find a way to come up with clear expectations we can have about a way forward for New Zealand, one of the most racially diverse countries on earth.
• Hilary Calvert is a former Otago regional councillor, MP and Dunedin city councillor.
