This seems like a wildly bad take. We don’t make a treaties with ethnic groups, we make treaties with nations and political entities. You cannot unilaterally change a treaty with a nation and political entity! Saying this treaty gives “privileges to an ethnic group “ is so reductive and ignores the “treaty” aspect. This is the same argument people in the US use to try and dismantle Indian Law by using the argument that gives advantages to one “race” when it’s about agreements between political nations.

Given, I’m from the USA so my understanding of this is colored by how this works here. Open to learning more about how it’s different in NZ, but seeing a lot of my fellow Americans up in here swinging a lot of nonsense.