Protecting Te Tiriti.
But what exactly are we protecting?

Defines the phrase and separates protection of the agreement from Treaty-derived rights, Treaty principles, statutory mechanisms and the Crown's constitutional interpretation.

Tests the Māori and English texts, what was explained at signing, the Stage 1 findings, and the limits of applying those findings beyond the February signatories.

Establishes the pre-1840 baseline: hapū and rangatira authority, collective action, the British protection relationship, He Wakaputanga and the limits of treating Te Wakaminenga as a centralised national government.

Separates constitutional significance from direct enforceability and traces the present legal effect of Te Tiriti through statutes, courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and public administration.

Separates the signed Treaty texts from the statutory category created in 1975 and the later principles developed by the Tribunal, courts and Crown.

Maps Parliament, courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, executive government and rangatira/hapū, identifying the different legal authority and limits of each.

Tests what entrenchment actually protects, how reserved provisions work, why the present model is only singly entrenched, and why entrenchment is not automatically constitutional supremacy.

Separates protection within the present parliamentary constitution from constitutional designs that expressly require Treaty-party consent, higher-law remedies or shared spheres of authority.

Tests whether protection preserves actual Māori authority or only Treaty language, rights, consultation and participation inside institutions where final decision-making remains elsewhere.

Shows why deleting a Crown Treaty duty does not itself transfer jurisdiction, and identifies the positive legal architecture required before authority can be said to have moved.

Maps the overlapping reasons: legislation, constitutional practice, courts, Tribunal accountability, public-service duties, settlement commitments, administrative continuity and political choice.

Tests what MPs actually defend: constituency representation, legal safeguards, Treaty rights and remedies, Māori–Crown relationships, settlement commitments and claims to rangatiratanga—while showing there is no single Māori parliamentary doctrine.

Separates historical consent from present legal effectiveness and traces the chain from Crown assertion and imperial legislation to the modern Parliament's statutory “full power to make laws”.

Shows why Matike Mai is a constitutional transformation project rather than a Westminster entrenchment exercise, while recording its declared premises, six indicative models, non-binding legal status and the independence questions raised by the new 2026 funding proposal.

Tracks who gains authority, protection, representation or consent rights under parliamentary supremacy, stronger Treaty protection and each Matike Mai model—and identifies the mandate and accountability trade-offs each design creates.

Brings all prior findings together and creates a practical disclosure test for every future proposal to “protect Te Tiriti”: protected object, legal mechanism, decision-maker, amendment power, remedy, rangatiratanga effect, mandate and overlap rule.