Activist/educator Tina Ngata (Ngati Porou) has warned proposed changes to Aotearoa New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi principles would undermine indigenous Māori sovereignty, rights, and protections, and risk corporate exploitation and environmental harm.

Ngata is a member of Koekoeā, a tāngata whenua and tāngata tiriti rōpu which brings accessible information and workshops for select committee submissions for the Treaty Principles Bill.

“[ACT leader and Minister for Regulation] David Seymour is saying, ‘it’s just the principles, not the text, so is it really a big deal?’” Ngata said.

“The Crown commitments are framed within the principles so, when you affect the principles, it has the same legal effect as redefining the Treaty itself.”

Ngata said the principles were the strongest tool to ensure the Crown as a Treaty partner was including and consulting with Māori.

People can submit on the Bill here until 7 2025 and here is a video by Koekoeā showing how easy it is to make a submission.

What are the Treaty principles Seymour hopes to redefine?
“The principles are enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which came about in 1975 as a result of that generation undertaking hīkoi and protests calling for our land rights and for the Crown to honour Te Tiriti,” Ngata said.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 introduced the concept of treaty principles, which were commitments for the Crown to uphold Te Tiriti o Waitangi. The act established the Waitangi Tribunal.

The principles were often referred to as the “three P’s” — partnership, participation and protection — but there were others such as tino rangatiratanga, ōritetanga as duty to act reasonably.

Over time the principles became more and more defined, particularly in 1987 in a court case where the Māori Council took the Crown to court for trying to sell Aotearoa’s natural assets and privatise them, which was where the principle of consultation came about.

There are no two versions of the Treaty
Ngata said the principles were put into the act to resolve the conflict between what were believed to be two versions that were equally valid but conflicted — often known as the English version, which only 39 Māori signed, and the Māori version, which between 530 and 540 signed.

She said the idea of two versions had a flawed premise.

The Treaty of Waitangi drafted by Captain William Hobson was supposedly translated into Te Tiriti o Waitangi but Ngata said it didn’t qualify as a translation as the two were radically different.

“Even our Māori activists in 1975 were calling the English text the ‘Treaty of fraud’. They were very clear that there was only one valid treaty,” Ngata said.

By valid she means valid by definition where a treaty is an agreement signed between two sovereign nations, and she said the only definition that applied to was Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Incremental journey towards treaty justice
Ngata said the principles themselves did not represent Treaty justice but were reflective of the time.

In 1989 Ngāti Whātua leader and respected scholar Sir Hugh Kawharu translated the te reo Māori document into English. She said even that translation was caught up in the time because it said Te Tiriti gave permission for the Crown to form a government. But more recent research had found Te Tiriti allowed for a limited level of governance and not a government.

Ngata described the principles as the strongest tool to ensure the Crown as Treaty partner was upholding its commitments but, even with those principles, there were consistent breaches.

“Even though [the principles] are not truly justice, Māori have taken them and used them to protect ourselves, protect our families, protect our mokopuna rights,” Ngata said.

“Often many times to protect Aotearoa’s natural resources from corporate exploitation.”

She said that point was important to remember, that the principles had been a road block. Arguably, the drive to replace those principles was to make it easier for corporate exploitation.

Overall, the Treaty Principles Bill was taking New Zealand back before 1975 and in reverse from that journey towards treaty justice, Ngata said

The principles in the new bill
The Treaty Principles Bill dumps the old principles and introduces three new ones. The proposed principles are below, and Ngata explained the problems in each principle.

1. Civil government — the government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
2. Rights of hapū and iwi Māori — the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.
3. Right to equality — everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

Māori never ceded sovereignty
In 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal found Māori never ceded sovereignty.

Thus the first principle, “the government has full power to govern and Parliament has full power to make laws” negated Māori sovereignty, Ngata said.

In article one, Te Tiriti o Waitangi gave a limited level of governance for the Queen to make laws through a governor but it was not a cessation of sovereignty.

She argued that article three said Māori had the same rights and privileges as those who were British subjects of the Queen.

“If article 1 was a cessation of sovereignty to the Queen over Māori, then why would we need to explicitly say that we then get the same rights and privileges as those who are subjects of the Queen? That would have been inherent within that article.”

Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination
She said this principle was also not in alignment with how the international community understood human rights.

“The second principle the bill is suggesting is that the Crown will recognise the rights of hapū and iwi but only in so far as they are the same rights as everybody else, unless they are rights that have been enshrined within a settlement act,” Ngata said.

But Ngata said Māori rights did not stem from the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and Māori rights did not stem from Te Tiriti. Instead they were inherent.

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples recognised the right of Indigenous peoples to self-determination.

UNDRIP included rights for Indigenous people to freely determine their political status, maintain distinct political, legal, economic, social and cultural institutions, and participate in decision-making processes that affected them.

“It’s preposterous to say that our rights can only come into effect if they’ve been subject to a Treaty settlement.”

‘Colonial governments will only deliver unequal treatment’
The third article states everyone is equal under law and ACT leader and bill designer David Seymour has proudly advocated “one law for all” but Ngata said this wsn’t equality – it was assimilation.

Earlier in the year, Ngata told Te Ao Māori News the government was implementing assimilation policies, which Raphael Lemkin, who coined the term “genocide”, included as part of the broader spectrum of genocide.

One of the examples of assimilation policy was the disestablishment of Te Aka Whai Ora, the Māori Health Authority, which was created to ensure better health outcomes for Māori and provide te ao Māori approaches, meaning cultural differences rather than simply based on race.

She said the Crown had a long-standing history of treating Māori unequally: “Colonial governments will only deliver unequal treatment.”

“If you were treating the Treaty with Maori equally, you would not be undertaking this process in the first place.”

The impacts the bill would have
Ngata said Māori would be impacted in a “whole ecosystem impact of te ao Māori — across housing, whenua, natural resources, waterways, transport and health”.

She said the bill would impact other marginalised groups and the environment and, therefore, everybody.

She said the bill was being pushed to remove the roadblock to protect the natural environment from corporate exploitation.

It was clear the bill was being driven by multinational corporate interests in accessing natural resources and thus once enacted, there would be environmental degradation.

Ngata said the language and rhetoric David Seymour was using on the topic was reminiscent of and in some cases a direct import of the same rhetoric used to negate treaty rights in Canada and the US.

She cited New Zealand having one of the world’s largest exclusive economic zones (EEZ) (the maritime area a nation has exclusive rights to explore, use and manage natural resources). That zone would be of interest to corporates and, in the past, the Treaty principles had blocked corporations from extracting natural resources.

Ngata said there were international dimensions, and there were parallels with other colonial governments, such as France in Kanaky and Indonesia in West Papua, who “ran roughshod” over Indigenous rights to extract natural resources for profit.

Republished with permission from Te Ao Māori News.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Before the sun rose and the birds started singing in Aotearoa today, thousands of people arrived for the traditional dawn service on the Waitangi Treaty Grounds.

Standing in the footprints of those who first signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, they listened to sermons from church ministers and Bible readings from politicians, while singing hymns.

But as always, the highlight was the spectacular sunrise, which washed the grounds in golden rays.

It was a moment which made standing in the longest queue in the world for coffee seem fine.

The waka came back to the beach — Kaihoe paddling strongly and proud just like their tūpuna — and the rowers were called ashore, then entertained the thousands of onlookers with a haka.

Watch a livestream of this morning’s ceremony:

The Waitangi dawn Service. Video: RNZ News

The grounds were awash with thousands of people again later in the morning, holding or wrapped in Tino Rangatiratanga and Te Whakaputanga flags for the hīkoi — another tradition.

About 1000 people marched onto the Treaty grounds, all echoing a call that has gone out again and again over the past few days — Uphold te Tiriti — Toitū te Tiriti!

Hīkoi leader Reuben Taipari acknowledged those who walked with him and encouraged everyone to continue the fight for their mokopuna.

“This new generation coming through now, it’s a powerful generation. They are the raukura, they are the graduates of kōhanga reo, kura kaupapa, whare wānanga,” he said.

“They don’t have a struggle with who they are . . .  so we need to support that new generation.

“We have the experience, but they have the energy.”

It did not take long for the grounds and surrounding markets to fill up, with every piece of shade taken as the sun was scorching.

Lines for drinks, ice creams or anything cold were endless, while teens jumped from the bridge into sea below to cool off and show off.

The roads in and out of Waitangi ground to a stand-still as an endless stream of cars kept coming.

The festival was pumping — each stage was packed with spectators as kapa haka and bands entertained. All the free rides and bouncy castles were full of happy kids.

The most popular item being sold was anything with a Tino Rangatira or Whakaputanga flag on it, or iwi merch.

All accommodation was booked out weeks ago, but it did not stop people coming — some sleeping in their cars just to be part of the day.

This could be one of the biggest turn-outs in Waitangi on Waitangi Day, with tens of thousands of people attending, coming to Waitangi to be part of the Kotahitanga movement, and enforce the message of Toitū te Tiriti.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Aotearoa New Zealand coalition government leaders have rejected allegations they are degrading tino rangatiratanga, saying the proposed Treaty Principles Bill will not “delegitimise” Māori.

The criticism was levelled by protesters at the Waitangi Treaty Grounds today.

The leaders of National, ACT and NZ First faced a confronting reception, with the crowd booing NZ First’s Winston Peters and drowning out ACT’s David Seymour.

Waitangi highlights. Video: RNZ News

But Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said there was “genuinely a sense of unity” and asked people to look beyond the “drama” of the protests and find common ground.

Ahead of the government’s arrival at the treaty grounds, veteran activist Tāme Iti led a hīkoi to the meeting house. The crowd carried white flags and chanted “honour Te Tiriti”.

A pōwhiri followed, with the biggest challenge reserved for Seymour, the leader of the ACT party and main proponent of the Treaty Principles Bill.

He faced a kāhui (group) of kaiwero, while Peters and Prime Minister Luxon were each challenged by one kaiwero.

Seymour then had his speech drowned out with a waiata before a protester walked onto the ātea and was stopped by security.

Seymour called for his opponents to “start talking about ideas and stop attacking people”.

‘Get some manners’
Peters was booed during his speech but quickly fired back.

“You tell me whoever said we’re getting rid of the Treaty of Waitangi. Stop the crap,” he said.

“Get some manners . . .  get an education.”

Among the protesters was Eru Kingi-Kapa, who told RNZ the government’s kōrero was degrading to the tino rangatiratanga of te ao Māori.

Seymour knocked back the allegations, saying ACT had a “long history” of allowing people to self-determine.

“We believe in tino rangatiratanga, perhaps more so than anyone.”

The coalition was devolving decision-making power to Māori, and it was the previous Labour government that “centralised everything”, such as Te Pūkenga, taking power away from Māori, he said.

Seymour described the pōwhiri as “pretty fiery”, but said, “I give as good as I get”.

Ahead of the government’s arrival at the treaty grounds, veteran activist Tāme Iti led a hīkoi to the meeting house. The crowd carried white flags and chanted “honour Te Tiriti”.

IN PICTURES | Politicians from National, NZ First and ACT have been welcomed onto Waitangi Marae – with the fiercest challenge reserved for David Seymour.

Here are some of the best moments caught on camera.

📷 RNZ / Angus Dreaver
🔗 https://t.co/vON5JZLvW2 pic.twitter.com/viLoaTpFSk

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 5, 2024

“I don’t believe anything our government is doing is delegitimising a personal choice many people make to be Māori,” he said.

“If you choose to accentuate that part of your whakapapa, [you’re] entitled to do that.”

Jones said the government was funding wānanga and marae throughout the country: “None of that delegitimises Māori.”

However, the government was “opening up a debate” on the principles of the Treaty and how they were applied in New Zealand’s increasingly multicultural society, he said.

“We need to ensure, as this debate goes forward, we have a long-term view to the best interests of all Kiwis.”

Jones said he would take an active role in that debate.

He said some of the protesters were “unnecessarily rude”, but he understood where they were coming from.

“Young people . . . I was young once. Out in the hot sun, you can get carried away.”

National won’t support Treaty Principles Bill
Luxon used his speech to reflect on Aotearoa’s history, before talking about his vision for Aotearoa in 2040.

The promises of the Treaty were not upheld, he said.

“Every nation’s past isn’t perfect. But no other country has attempted to right its wrongs.”

Speaking to media, he said National had “no intention, no commitment” to support ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond the first reading.

There would also no referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi, he said.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

“Welfare dependent”, “inferior”, “savages”, “natives”…

Walking through Parliament, I head to my office in the press gallery, passing gilded portraits of reporters who came before, and I recall that the people who adorn these walls were the same people who published some of the most racist rhetoric that has ever been printed, rhetoric that has shaped our society and the way the public perceives my people.

That’s how I feel every day walking into my office and, while there are days I feel numb to it, there definitely are days when it shakes me and makes me feel alone — because not only does the space not look like me or represent me, it also celebrates those who oppressed the very thought that someone like me could exist.

A good friend of mine often reminds me that “growth and comfort cannot coexist,” and, ultimately, that’s why I continue to put myself in this uncomfortable environment because I know my people deserve to have their perspectives represented.

I know growth exists here because, for me, comfort sure as hell doesn’t.

However, the discomfort level has felt even more oppressive than usual over the past couple of weeks as Māori have been the centre of attention in parliamentary debates, with Māori-focused health initiatives being called separatist.

Attempts by Māori to claim tino rangatiratanga, the right of self-determination as promised in te Tiriti o Waitangi, are scoffed at.

High-level political banter follows that basically amounts to: “Shut up, Māori. You’re not special. You’re lucky to have us managing you so just try to conform. Try to be a Pākehā like us and your life will be much better.”

It’s about me and my whānau
While some New Zealanders probably see this debate as robust and necessary, I don’t believe they understand the overwhelming effect it has on Māori personally.

This is because while non-Māori may hear phrases like, “Māori are more likely to be diagnosed with type-2 diabetes than non-Māori counterparts,” what I hear is that I am more likely to be diagnosed with type-2 diabetes.

When you hear that Māori are twice as likely to die from cancer as the average New Zealander due to inequities in the health system, what I hear is that my siblings are more likely to die of cancer.

When you hear that Māori will probably die seven years younger than other nationalities, what I hear is that my parents will probably die seven years younger than my friends’ parents.

To non-Māori, these are just statistics. But for Māori, it is literally a case of life and death.

So why wouldn’t Māori want to see more money and energy put into Māori health? Why wouldn’t Māori want a health system created and managed by Māori?

The very existence of disparities is racist. It makes sense that we would want to pull away from a system where it seems that just being Māori is a deficit.

Stop the rhetoric
This is the reality we know and understand too well. This is also why hearing non-Māori debate what is good for Māori and whether it’s a viable option for New Zealand is sickening. It’s painful and once again it’s uncomfortable.

While my years in journalism have taught me to avoid making assumptions, I often think that parliamentarians must know how their words influence and affect the country, resulting in discomfort at best and outright racial discrimination at worst.

Hearing the echo of their own words in hate speech on the streets must be enough for them to take care with how they speak about Māori.

If people dying directly from the outcomes of racial discrimination is not enough to stop the rhetoric, what will?

These thoughts are my reality, the reason I make that lonely walk through the press gallery every day.

Because the fact of the matter is that while the majority of our national leaders talk about how Māori can be better, I have to live it and be one of the bridges between the political world and the public and ensure that te iwi Māori is informed on the issues that affect us all.

I don’t get to hang my Māori hat up at the end of the day. Walking away would be the easy option.

But when that thought rears its head, and when unseen voices whisper at me that it’d be easier to just give up and try to fit in with the Pākehā instead, I remember the wise words of another Māori who challenged the rhetoric of what a Māori should be, and I get on with the job:

“It is preposterous that any Māori should aspire to become a poor Pākehā, when their true destiny, prescribed by the creator, is to become a great Māori.” – Tā James Himi Hēnare

Rukuwai Tīpene-Allan is a journalist for Te Ao Māori News. She has also worked on Te Kaea, Kawekōrero and Rereātea. This article first appeared on Māori Television’s website and has been republished on Asia Pacific Report with permission.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

It was supposed to chart a new way forward but He Puapua, a report on how the government can uphold tangata whenua rights by giving affect to tino rangatiratanga, has become bogged down in the swamp of politics.

New Zealand was one of four countries that voted against adopting the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007.

That was under a Helen Clark-led Labour government, just three years after the Foreshore and Seabed controversy.

Going back a few more years, Labour declared all government funding had to be based on need and not race, in response to former National Party leader Don Brash’s Ōrewa speech in 2004.

Within just a year of Brash’s campaign against Māori “special privileges”, Clark went from mentioning the Treaty of Waitangi 26 times in her speeches to just three.

Her senior cabinet minister, Trevor Mallard, now Speaker of the House, had the job of responding to the Ōrewa speech; as past of that response he stated “Māori have no extra rights or privileges under the treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand government”.

Fastforward to 2021 and the latest campaign by the National Party – with ACT alongside – against “separatist” and “racist” policies, cannot simply be dismissed as a desperate attempt to gain traction in the polls, as Minister of Māori Development Willie Jackson describes it.

Separatist rhetoric
The separatist rhetoric has sent Labour running from Māori before, and if there is a boost in National’s polls this time around, it could spook the Labour government into backing away from He Puapua.

It might end up like Puao-te-Ata-tu, the landmark report by a Ministerial Advisory Committee from 1988 on how to stop so many Māori children going into state care which includes recommendations to devolve power of the care and protection of tamariki Māori to iwi and hapū.

Willie Jackson describes National and ACT’s latest campaign against “separatist” and “racist” policies as a desperate attempt to gain traction in the polls. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone

It gathered dust for more than 30 years and He Puapua could too be shelved.

Labour may have avoided much of the political spectacle if it had proactively released the report, and front-footed the kōrero on what partnership between iwi-hapū and the Crown could look like.

Ministers say they did not want it to appear like it was government policy and for it to be misrepresented, misquoted or misused.

That has backfired.

Upper House
National and ACT say the report calls for a “Māori Parliament”, when in fact it proposes an Upper House to scrutinise legislation for Te Tiriti o Waitangi compliance, made up of 50 percent rangatiratanga representation (iwi/hapū leadership) and the other half from Parliament.

Politics has overshadowed the substance of He Puapua and the opportunity to have a national conversation about New Zealand’s constitution and the place of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

It suggests making Waitangi Tribunal recommendations binding, and paying royalties to Māori for natural resources such as water and petrol.

It also calls to exclude Māori freehold land from the Public Works Act, and for Māori to maintain rights and interests in respect of all Crown lands.

Then there’s the higher level stuff or structural changes needed to give effect to tino rangatiratanga.

Much of this is pulled from existing literature like Matike Mai, the report by Professor Margaret Mutu and Dr Moana Jackson suggesting models for an “inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa” using Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Māori Declaration of Sovereignty (He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni 1835) as its basis.

It proposes to massively expand the small sphere of Māori governance over people and places and the currently miniscule area of co-governance between rangatiratanga and the government in the next 20 years.

Co-governance bodies
For instance, it asks that co-governance and co-management bodies for freshwater be made compulsory.

There are a number of existing models of co-governance – just take a look at Te Mātāwai (the independent statutory body for the revitalisation of te reo Māori).

Then there are models for how Māori can have full authority over an area – like Te Urewera, which has the same legal rights as a person and is managed by Ngāi Tūhoe, the kaitiaki (guardians) of forest, making decisions on its behalf.

As Waikato-Tainui leader Rāhui Papa said this week, no one cares after three years.

There are those who will never agree with implementing Te Tiriti o Waitangi on the basis of its guarantee of tino rangatiratanga – self-determination, sovereignty – for Māori.

ACT Party leader David Seymour said self-determination should be for everyone, not the “exclusive preserve of Māori based on a certain interpretation of the Treaty”.

He argues that the modern English translation of the Māori version of the Treaty, by Sir Hugh Kawharu gives all people of New Zealand the same rights and privileges under article 3.

Māori equity guarantee
The interpretation put forward in He Puapua is that article 3 guarantees Māori equity, which “does not mean all individuals should be treated the same”.

The Waitangi Tribunal – the judiciary responsible for interpreting the Treaty – concludes the Crown must recognise the status of Māori groups exercising rangatiratanga in order to honour its Treaty obligations.

All of this is laid out in He Puapua which report author Claire Charters said was supposed to be an “instrument to have a genuine discussion about realising our international obligations and what Te Tiriti o Waitangi requires”.

Instead, it will likely keep being kicked around as a political football, particularly while the idea of the nascent Māori Health Authority – which seeks to give affect to Māori-Crown partnership – is still fresh.

Māori Party co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer cannot understand “what is so repelling and revolting” about partnership with Māori for National and ACT.

And there is the fear that current political discourse could lead to racial division like the Brash years, Minister for Māori Development Willie Jackson has said, although he adds his belief is New Zealanders are “more mature now”.

The Māori Labour caucus will need to be a backbone for the government as it progresses the Authority and chooses what recommendations of He Puapua it moves on.

The report name means “to break” which the authors said was to represent “the breaking of the usual political and societal norms and approaches”.

So far, that’s yet to be realised.

This article is republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz