COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

The island of Papua is a land of profound paradox. Beneath its ancient, cathedral-like forests and within its mineral-rich mountains lies a narrative of staggering contrast.

It is a place where immense natural wealth exists alongside some of Indonesia’s most acute human development challenges.

This dissonance poses a central riddle: why does a land of such abundance host populations grappling with persistent poverty, gaps in education and healthcare, and a deep sense of political marginalisation?

A principle found in Papuan wisdom offers a starting point: the past is a mirror for gazing upon tomorrow.

To understand Papua’s present and navigate its future, we must look honestly into that mirror. Yet, when the reflection shows recurring patterns of inequality and unfulfilled promises, we are compelled to ask what kind of future is being built.

The story of Papua is not merely one of resources; it is fundamentally about people, their rights, and their place within the Indonesian nation.

This reflection need not occur in isolation. Looking east across the Pacific, two nations — Australia and New Zealand — have embarked on their own complex, painful, and unfinished journeys of reconciling with their Indigenous peoples.

Their experiences are not blueprints, but they offer invaluable mirrors in which Indonesia might glimpse reflections of its own challenges and potential pathways forward.

The central, reflective question is this: Amidst Indonesia’s unique historical and political complexity, is there room to learn from these Pacific neighbours? Can Jakarta find a distinctive, yet equally courageous, path to reconciliation with Papua?

Unsettled foundation: A history demanding to be heard
Any discussion of Papua must begin by acknowledging the fractured foundation upon which its relationship with Jakarta is built. Unlike New Zealand, where the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) provides a contested but acknowledged founding document for Crown-Māori relations, Indonesia and Papua have no mutually agreed foundational treaty.

Papua’s integration was solidified through the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969, a process whose legitimacy remains internationally debated and is remembered with bitterness by many Papuans.

This unresolved historical grievance is the DNA of the conflict. It infects every policy, fuels distrust, and allows security-centric approaches to dominate.

Jakarta’s apparent reluctance to engage in open, high-level dialogue about this history keeps the wound open. New Zealand’s experience, though painful and expensive, demonstrates that confronting a dark past is not a threat to national unity, but a prerequisite for building a common future on a clearer moral and legal foundation.

The first lesson from the Pacific is that sustainable solutions cannot be built on unacknowledged history.

The Australian mirror: Pillars of incremental recognition
Australia’s relationship with its Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples represents a protracted and painful journey from the brutal realities of colonisation toward a fragile, imperfect process of recognition and repair.

The historical backdrop is one of profound trauma, marked by dispossession, assimilation policies, and the devastating legacy of the Stolen Generations. Yet, in recent decades, a discernible — though inconsistent — policy shift has emerged, built upon several key pillars that provide a structured, if unfinished, framework for addressing historical wrongs.

These pillars offer critical points of comparison for other contexts, such as that of West Papua under Indonesian administration, illuminating stark contrasts in both philosophy and outcome.

Political recognition: From absence to acknowledgment
The 1967 Referendum, which allowed Aboriginal people to be counted in the census and gave the federal government power to make laws for them, stands as a symbolic turning point in Australian political consciousness. Today, the lexicon of recognition is embedded in official discourse, with terms like “First Nations People” and “Traditional Custodians” routinely used in parliamentary speeches and public ceremonies.

The establishment of the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) represents a systematic, though often criticised, effort to coordinate policy across government. This reflects a tangible, if uneven, move toward recognising Aboriginal peoples not merely as citizens, but as original inhabitants with a unique historical and cultural status deserving of specific acknowledgment.

Papuan Special Autonomy: Otsus in stark contrast
In stark contrast, Jakarta’s primary instrument for Papua is Special Autonomy (Otsus), a policy centered on fiscal transfers and nominal political affirmation. While Otsus mandates native Papuan leadership in provincial governments, its essence is consistently stifled by centralised security policies, the dominance of national political parties, and the imposition of territorial divisions with minimal deep consultation.

Consequently, Otsus feels less like a partnership born of genuine historical recognition and more like a technical administrative concession granted — and tightly controlled — from the centre. The core Papuan struggle remains one for existential recognition: an acknowledgment of their distinct identity as Indigenous peoples with inherent political rights, rather than merely as beneficiaries of state-administered policy.

Economic rights: Land and resource sovereignty
Australia’s Native Title Act of 1993 was a revolutionary legal development, overturning the doctrine of terra nullius and recognising the persistence of Aboriginal traditional ownership and connection to land. Although the claims process is notoriously arduous and contested, it has resulted in the return of millions of hectares of land.

Complementing this are land handback programmes and innovative co-management models for national parks and cultural sites, such as Uluru-Kata Tjuta.

Furthermore, nascent royalty-sharing schemes from mining on Indigenous-held land aim to provide an independent economic base, positioning communities not as passive recipients but as stakeholders with property rights.

The contrast with Papua is profound. The region functions as Indonesia’s primary economic engine, with megaprojects like the Freeport copper and gold mine and the Tangguh LNG facility driving national exports. Yet, this extractive model is intensely centralised, with profits flowing to Jakarta and global corporate headquarters while Indigenous communities near these operations often live in stark deprivation.

Otsus funds, while substantial, are funneled through government mechanisms and do not alter this fundamental, exploitative structure. Critically, Papuan customary land rights (hak ulayat) are routinely overridden by state-issued business permits. There exists no large-scale, legally empowered mechanism for reparations or asset restitution to Papuan tribes, leaving them economically marginalised on their own land.

Social policy: Closing the gap
Since 2008, Australia has formally adopted the Closing the Gap Strategy, a framework establishing specific, measurable targets for improving Indigenous life outcomes in health, education, and employment.

This strategy represents an explicit, if imperfect, admission that historical marginalization requires targeted, accountable, and data-driven intervention by the state. It acknowledges a collective responsibility to address disparities directly, even as critiques of its implementation and pace persist.

Indonesia lacks an equivalent national policy framework specifically tailored to address Papua’s acute and unique disparities. Development indicators and programs are largely standardized, failing to account for Papua’s distinct geography, history, and cultural context. As a result, health and education systems suffer from severe infrastructure deficits, critical staffing shortages, and a curriculum that ignores local knowledge.

Maternal mortality and malnutrition rates remain among the highest in Southeast Asia. The fundamental gap lies in agency: for meaningful progress, Papuans must be transformed from objects of development into its active, designing subjects.

Cultural recognition: Beyond symbolism
In Australia, Aboriginal cultural expression has increasingly moved beyond tokenism toward a more integrated, though still contested, national presence. Indigenous languages are being documented and revitalised, customary law receives limited recognition within the justice system, and Aboriginal art is celebrated as central to the nation’s identity.

The practice of acknowledging Traditional Custodians at the outset of official events, while symbolic, performs a daily act of cognitive recognition.

In Papua, the situation is different. The region’s stunning cultural diversity, encompassing over 250 distinct languages, is often treated as an intangible treasure or tourist asset rather than a living foundation for governance.

Local languages are not mediums of formal instruction, and customary norms are easily overridden by narratives of national unity and acculturation. While Papuan art and ritual are occasionally showcased, they are seldom integrated into substantive policymaking for cultural preservation and transmission, leaving this profound heritage vulnerable to erosion.

New Zealand mirror: A framework for courageous reconciliation
If Australia demonstrates a fitful journey toward recognition, New Zealand presents a more advanced, treaty-based model of reconciliation. The 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, despite its contested translations and history of breaches, is the accepted foundational document of the modern state. This has provided a crucial platform for building concrete mechanisms to address historical grievances and partnership.

The Waitangi Tribunal and reparations
Established in 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry that investigates Crown actions alleged to breach the Treaty’s principles. Its recommendations have fueled a massive, ongoing process of historical settlement involving land restitution, financial compensation, and formal Crown apologies.

This process, while not without controversy, provides a formal channel for redressing historical wrongs and transferring resources back to Māori iwi (tribes).

Guaranteed political voice
Māori have had dedicated parliamentary seats since 1867, ensuring a direct voice in the national legislature. This has been complemented by the rise of a dedicated Te Pati Māori political party and the establishment of the Ministry for Māori Development (Te Puni Kōkiri), which advocates for Māori interests within the government apparatus.

This structural presence ensures that Indigenous perspectives are embedded in political discourse.

Biculturalism as national policy
Biculturalism is woven into New Zealand’s institutional fabric. Te reo Māori is an official language, supported by Māori-language immersion schools (Kura Kaupapa Māori), a dedicated television channel (Māori Television), and prominent university faculties.

The national curriculum incorporates Māori history, knowledge, and perspectives, fostering a broader public understanding.

Comparison with Papua
For Papua, the absence of any such foundational agreement or framework leaves a profound vacuum. There is no equivalent to the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate historical grievances or restore resources.

Politically, there are no guaranteed mechanisms for Papuan representation at the national level in Indonesia. Socio-culturally, while Papua’s languages are celebrated in folkloric terms, there is no nationally broadcast, Papuan-led television channel or a system of dedicated higher education institutes focused on Melanesian studies and leadership.

New Zealand’s lesson is the transformative power of a framework — however contested — that creates institutional channels for grievance, voice, and cultural revitalization.

Deep Pacific connection: Why New Zealand cares
New Zealand’s sustained attention on Papua transcends standard diplomatic concern; it is rooted in profound connections that resonate deeply with the New Zealand public and polity, creating a unique sense of obligation.

First, a demographic kinship creates relatability: New Zealand’s population of approximately 5.1 million is nearly equivalent to the population of Indonesia’s six Papuan provinces (around 5.6 million). This similar scale makes the challenges faced by Papuans feel immediate and comprehensible.

More profoundly, there are undeniable historical and anthropological links. Scientific research in population genetics traces Polynesian ancestry, including that of Māori, back through Melanesia.

Culturally, the social structures of Papuan highlands tribes, with their complex clan and confederation systems, closely mirror the traditional Māori hapu (clan) and iwi (tribe) organisations. Similarities extend to concepts of customary governance, spirituality, and reciprocal exchange, suggesting shared ancestral roots.

This connection is cemented by modern history. Papuan people provided crucial aid to Australian and New Zealand troops during the Pacific War in thd Second World War. Furthermore, as documented by historians like Maire Leadbeater, New Zealand was indirectly involved in the territory’s mid-century fate, initially supporting Dutch efforts to prepare Papua for independence before acquiescing to the controversial Act of Free Choice that facilitated Indonesian integration.

For many New Zealanders, particularly Māori, advocating for Papuans is viewed as a Tangata Moana (People of the Ocean) responsibility — a moral, cultural, and spiritual call to support fellow Pacific indigenes facing adversity.

This deeply felt public and civic sentiment ensures the issue remains persistently alive in New Zealand’s parliament, churches, universities, and civil society, constantly applying pressure and challenging any government inclination toward a “business as usual” foreign policy approach toward Indonesia regarding Papua.

This unique solidarity, born of shared identity and history, makes New Zealand a distinct and vocal stakeholder in Papua’s ongoing struggle.

Forging a distinctive path: Strategic recommendations for Indonesia
Indonesia’s engagement with the Pacific region offers a reservoir of wisdom, yet the fundamental lesson is that adaptation, not adoption, is key. The nation’s immense diversity, complex history, and unique political architecture mean that solutions cannot be copy-pasted.

However, the perennial fear of national disintegration must not become a paralysing force that stifles the bold policy innovation required to address the root causes of discord, particularly in Papua. Moving beyond rhetorical commitments to tangible action demands significant political will and courage.

The following recommendations outline a potential pathway for transformative change, aiming to forge a new social contract built on justice, partnership, and genuine autonomy:

The journey must begin with a profound act of historical reckoning and political courage. The President should personally initiate a high-level National Reconciliation Framework for Papua.

This would be a landmark political initiative, potentially involving the establishment of an independent Papuan Truth and Reconciliation Commission. Its mandate must be coupled with an official, unambiguous state acknowledgment of past human rights violations.

This process would create a structured and equal dialogue platform, moving past cycles of recrimination. Addressing this historical wound is not an end in itself but a necessary precondition to cleanse the poisoned well of present-day interactions and build a foundation of trust for all subsequent reforms.

Concurrently, the policy of Special Autonomy must be radically reimagined. The concept of “Otsus Plus” should evolve from a mechanism of fiscal devolution into a genuine political and economic partnership. This entails granting local governments conditional veto rights over major investments affecting customary land (ulayat), ensuring development is not imposed but negotiated.

Furthermore, the legislative and cultural authority of the Papuan People’s Assembly (MRP) as the authentic voice of indigenous institutions must be constitutionally strengthened.

Finally, granting full autonomy over education and cultural policy, including locally relevant curricula and language instruction, is essential for preserving Papuan identity and fostering endogenous development.

True partnership is impossible without a fundamental restructuring of the economic model in Papua. The economy must shift from a centralised, extractive paradigm to one based on community sovereignty and benefit.

This requires legalising and strengthening customary land rights (hak ulayat) as a supreme legal principle, not a secondary consideration. Building on this, transparent and direct royalty-sharing mechanisms from natural resource projects must be established, ensuring proceeds flow to indigenous land-owning communities.

Complementing this, a Papuan-led “Closing the Gap” strategy with clear, measurable targets for health, education, and employment should be developed, with progress annually reported to the national parliament to ensure accountability.

Security and political representation form the twin pillars of stability and dignity. The prevailing security approach must be recalibrated to prioritise dialogue, community engagement, and human security over militarized confrontation. In parallel, to ensure Papuan voices are substantively embedded in national lawmaking, permanent seats for indigenous Papuan representatives should be constitutionally created in the Indonesian House of Representatives (DPR RI).

Following the precedent set for Aceh, this guaranteed political representation would ensure Papuan perspectives directly influence national legislation that affects their lives, transforming them from subjects of policy to active architects of their future within the Republic.

Finally, Indonesia should strategically reframe its external engagement regarding Papua. Rather than viewing the Pacific’s cultural and political solidarity with Melanesian Papuans as a point of friction, Indonesia should embrace it as an opportunity for cultural diplomacy.

By proactively encouraging and funding robust academic, cultural, and civil society exchanges between Papuan and Māori/Pacific Island communities, Indonesia can build powerful bridges of people-to-people understanding. This initiative would acknowledge shared heritage while showcasing Indonesia’s commitment to inclusive development, thereby transforming a diplomatic challenge into a channel for soft-power connection and regional leadership.

In conclusion, this pathway is neither simple nor quick, but it is necessary. It calls for a series of courageous, interconnected leaps from the status quo toward a system predicated on acknowledgment, partnership, and substantive self-determination.

By addressing historical grievances, redesigning autonomy, restructuring the economy, reforming security, guaranteeing political voice, and leveraging cultural diplomacy, Indonesia has the potential to resolve its most persistent internal conflict. The result would be a stronger, more unified nation, where stability is built not on force but on justice and the full recognition of its diverse peoples’ aspirations.

Hope for the Land of Papua
The fate of Papua is the ultimate test of Indonesia’s inclusive nationhood. It can no longer be managed through a narrow security lens or obscured by macroeconomic statistics. This is about people, identity, history, and a shared future.

Hope endures. It shines in the eyes of Papuan children, the dedication of local health workers and teachers, and the voices of community and religious leaders calling for peace. It is also present among those in Jakarta who recognise the need for a new approach.

Australia and New Zealand, with their colonial burdens, have begun their imperfect journeys. Indonesia, with its experience of resolving the Aceh conflict through dialogue, can do the same. The condition is a fundamental shift in perspective: seeing Papuans not as a problem to be managed, but as equal partners and full subjects of their own destiny within the Republic.

A just and prosperous Papua is not a threat to Indonesia. It would be the fulfilment of the nation’s founding ideals of unity in diversity, and the pinnacle of a truly inclusive national project.

The mirror from the Pacific shows both the depth of the challenge and the possibility of a different reflection. It is now a matter of choosing to look and having the courage to act.

Laurens Ikinia is a Papuan lecturer and researcher at the Institute of Pacific Studies, Indonesian Christian University, Jakarta. He is also an honorary member of the Asia Pacific Media Network (APMN) in Aotearoa New Zealand and an occasional contributor to Asia Pacific Report.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

Members of the King’s Counsel, some of New Zealand’s most senior legal minds, say the controversial Treaty Principles Bill “seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself” and are calling on the prime minister and the coalition government to “act responsibly now and abandon” it.

More than 40 KCs have written to the prime minister and attorney-general outlining their “grave concerns” about the substance of the Treaty Principles Bill and its wider implications for the country’s constitutional arrangements.

The bill is set to have its first reading in the House on Thursday, and has led to nationwide protests, with Prime Minister Christopher Luxon himself calling it “divisive”.

Its architect, ACT leader David Seymour, has said the purpose is to provide certainty and clarity and to “promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements”.

“I can see why they don’t like the Treaty Principles Bill. Everyone gets a say, even if you’re not a KC,” Seymour said in a statement.

“The debate over the Treaty has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.”

He said the select committee process would finally “democratise” the debate.

Co-governance, ethnic quotas
“The courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services and ethnic quotas in public institutions.

“The Treaty Principles Bill provides an opportunity for New Zealanders — rather than the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal — to have a say on what the Treaty means. Did the Treaty give different rights to different groups, or does every citizen have equal rights? I believe all New Zealanders deserve to have a say on that question,” Seymour said.

The senior members of the independent bar view the introduction of the bill (and the intended referendum) as “wholly inappropriate as a way of addressing such an important and complex constitutional issue”.

The letter states the existing principles (including partnership, active protection, equity and redress) are “designed to reflect the spirit and intent of the Treaty as a whole and the mutual obligations and responsibilities of the parties”. They say the principles now represent “settled law”.

The letter said the coalition’s bill sought to “redefine in law the meaning of te Tiriti, by replacing the existing ‘Treaty principles’ with new Treaty principles which are said to reflect the three articles of te Tiriti”.

The lawyers say those proposed principles do not reflect te Tiriti, and, by “imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself”.

The Treaty Principles Bill, they say, would have the “effect of unilaterally changing the meaning of te Tiriti and its effect in law, without the agreement of Māori as the Treaty partner”.

Historical settlements
The proposed principle 2 “retrospectively limits Māori rights to those that existed at 1840”, they said, and the bill states that “if those rights ‘differ from the rights of everyone’, then they are only recognised to the extent agreed in historical Treaty settlements with the Crown”.

The lawyers said that erased the Crown’s Article 2 guarantee to Māori of tino rangatiratanga.

“By recognising Māori rights only when incorporated into Treaty settlements with the Crown, this proposed principle also attempts to exclude the courts, which play a crucial role in developing the common law and protecting indigenous and minority rights.”

They also explained the proposed principle 3 did not “recognise the fundamental Article 2 guarantee to Māori of the right to be Māori and to have their tikanga Māori (customs, values and customary law) recognised and protected in our law”.

They said it was not for the government of the day to “retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties”.

“This would offend the basic principles which underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.”

They added that the bill would cause significant legal confusion and uncertainty, “inevitably resulting in protracted litigation and cost”, and would have the “opposite effect of its stated purpose of providing certainty and clarity”.

In regards to the wider process and impact of the bill, they pointed to a lack of meaningful engagement as well as the finding by the Waitangi Tribunal that the Bill was a breach of the Treaty.

The ACT Party has long argued the original articles have been interpreted by the courts, the Waitangi Tribunal and successive governments — over decades — in a way that has amplified their significance and influence beyond the original intent.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The ACT Party’s election promise of a referendum for Aotearoa New Zealand to redefine and enshrine the “principles” of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi) is likely to dominate debate at this year’s Rātana and Waitangi Day events.

ACT’s coalition agreement with the National Party commits the government to supporting a Treaty Principles Bill for select committee consideration. The bill may not make it into law, but the idea is raising considerable alarm.

Leaked draft advice to Cabinet from the Ministry of Justice says the principles should be defined in legislation because “their importance requires there be certainty and clarity about their meaning”. The advice also says ACT’s proposal will:

change the nature of the principles from reflecting a relationship akin to a partnership between the Crown and Māori to reflecting the relationship the Crown has with all citizens of New Zealand. This is not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty.

Setting aside arguments that the notion of “partnership” diminishes self-determination, the 10,000 people attending a hui at Tūrangawaewae marae near Hamilton last weekend called by King Tūheitia were motivated by the prospect of the Treaty being diminished.

Do we need Treaty principles?
The Treaty principles were developed and elaborated by parliaments, courts and the Waitangi Tribunal over more than 50 years to guide policy implementation and mediate tensions between the Māori and English texts of the document.

The Māori text, which more than 500 rangatira (chiefs) signed, conferred the right to establish government on the British Crown. The English text conferred absolute sovereignty; 39 rangatira signed this text after having it explained in Māori, a language that has no concept of sovereignty as a political and legal authority to be given away.

Because the English text wasn’t widely signed, there is a view that it holds no influential standing, and that perhaps there isn’t a tension to mediate. Former chief justice Sian Elias has said: “It can’t be disputed that the Treaty is actually the Māori text”.

On Saturday, Tūheitia said: “There’s no principles, the Treaty is written, that’s it.”

This view is supported by arguments that the principles are reductionist and take attention away from the substance of Te Tiriti’s articles: the Crown may establish government; Māori may retain authority over their own affairs and enjoy citizenship of the state in ways that reflect equal tikanga (cultural values).

Author and Professor of Māori Studies at the University of Auckland, Margaret Mutu, who was in attendance at the recent hui-ā-iwi at Tūrangawaewae marae, says the government is required to honour Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/zSusoi5RER pic.twitter.com/dMrxjtMRan

— 95bFM News (@95bFMNews) January 26, 2024

Democratic or undemocratic?
The ACT Party says this is undemocratic because it gives Māori a privileged voice in public decision making. Of the previous government, ACT has said:

Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.

Liberal democracy was not the form of government Britain established in 1840. There’s even an argument that state government doesn’t concern Māori. The Crown exercises government only over “its people” – settlers and their descendants. Māori political authority is found in tino rangatiratanga and through shared decision making on matters of common interest.

Tino rangatiratanga has been defined as “the exercise of ultimate and paramount power and authority”. In practice, like all power, this is relative and relational to the power of others, and constrained by circumstances beyond human control.

But the power of others has to be fair and reasonable, and rangatiratanga requires freedom from arbitrary interference by the state. That way, authority and responsibility may be exercised, and independence upheld, in relation to Māori people’s own affairs and resources.

Assertions of rangatiratanga
Social integration — especially through intermarriage, economic interdependence and economies of scale — makes a rigid “them and us” binary an unlikely path to a better life for anybody.

However, rangatiratanga might be found in Tūheitia’s advice about the best form of protest against rewriting the Treaty principles to diminish the Treaty itself:

Be who we are, live our values, speak our reo (language), care for our mokopuna (children), our awa (rivers), our maunga (mountains), just be Māori. Māori all day, every day.

As the government introduces measures to reduce the use of te reo Māori in public life, repeal child care and protection legislation that promotes Māori leadership and responsibility, and repeal water management legislation that ensures Māori participation, Tūheitia’s words are all assertions of rangatiratanga.

Those government policies sit alongside the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to diminish Māori opportunities to be Māori in public life. For the ACT Party, this is necessary to protect democratic equality.

In effect, the proposed bill says that to be equal, Māori people can’t contribute to public decisions with reference to their own culture. As anthropologist Dr Anne Salmond has written, this means the state cannot admit there are “reasonable people who reason differently”.

Today thousands answered the Māori Kings call for unity by descending on Tūrangawaewae marae for a national hui to discuss Act’s proposal to redefine the principles of the treaty. Here’s David Seymour being grilled by @moanatribe on his questionable use of the word apartheid. pic.twitter.com/1E9pItTqLm

— Kelvin Morgan 🇳🇿 (@kelvin_morganNZ) January 20, 2024

Liberal democracy and freedom
Equality through sameness is a false equality that liberal democracy is well-equipped to contest. Liberal democracy did not emerge to suppress difference.

It is concerned with much more than counting votes to see who wins on election day.

Liberal democracy is a political system intended to manage fair and reasonable differences in an orderly way. This means it doesn’t concentrate power in one place. It’s not a select few exercising sovereignty as the absolute and indivisible power to tell everybody else what to do.

This is because one of its ultimate purposes is to protect people’s freedom — the freedom to be Māori as much as the freedom to be Pakeha. If we want it to, democracy may help all and not just some of us to protect our freedom through our different ways of reasoning.

Freedom is protected by checks and balances on power. Parliament checks the powers of government. Citizens, including Māori citizens with equality of tikanga, check the powers of Parliament.

One of the ways this happens is through the distribution of power from the centre — to local governments, school boards and non-governmental providers of public services. This includes Māori health providers whose work was intended to be supported by the Māori Health Authority, which the government also intends to disestablish.

The rights of hapū (kinship groups), as the political communities whose representatives signed Te Tiriti, mean that rangatiratanga, too, checks and balances the concentration of power in the hands of a few.

Checking and balancing the powers of government requires the contribution of all and not just some citizens. When they do so in their own ways, and according to their own modes of reasoning, citizens contribute to democratic contest — not as a divisive activity, but to protect the common good from the accumulation of power for some people’s use in the domination of others.

Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan is adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s opposition parties have seized on a leaked ministerial memo about the coalition government’s proposed Treaty Principles bill, saying the prime minister should put a stop to it.

ACT is defending the bill, while National has repeated its position of supporting it no further than select committee.

Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi posted a screenshot of part of a page of the leaked document on social media on Friday, saying it showed the government’s “intentions to erase Te Tiriti o Waitangi”.

1News also reported that it had a full copy of the leaked report, which it said warned the proposal’s key points were “at odds with what the Treaty of Waitangi actually says”.

Ministry of Justice chief executive Andrew Kibblewhite confirmed the leak “of a draft paper seeking to include the Treaty of Waitangi Bill in the Legislation Programme for 2024” would be investigated.

“We are incredibly disappointed that this has happened. Ministers need to be able to trust that briefing papers are treated with utmost confidentiality, and we will be investigating the leak as a priority.

“All proposed Government Bills are assigned a priority in the Legislation Programme. The draft paper was prepared as part of that standard process, and had a limited distribution within the Ministry of Justice and a small number of other government agencies.

“We will be keeping Minister [of Justice Paul] Goldsmith informed on our investigation and will not be making any further comment at this stage.”

ACT: ‘That is what I believe our country needs’
The bill was an ACT Party policy during the election, which National in coalition negotiations agreed to progress only as far as the select committee stage. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon in Parliament last year said “that’s as far as it will go”.

Party leader David Seymour defended the bill.

“Over the last 40 years, the principles of the Treaty have evolved behind closed doors with no consultation of the average New Zealander, no role for them to play in it whatsoever,” he said.

That referred to the courts’ attempts over the last few decades to reconcile the differences between the English and reo Māori texts of the Treaty, based in part on the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal — an independent body set up by a previous National government to examine the Treaty’s role in New Zealand.

Seymour said people in the bureaucracy had become set in that way of thinking about the Treaty, but that it had made the country feel more divided by race.

“And when ACT comes along and says, ‘hey, we need to have an open discussion about this and work towards a unified New Zealand’, you expect that they’re going to be resistant. Nonetheless, there’s the band aid this government has, and that is what I believe our country needs.

“I believe that once people see an open and respectful debate about our founding document and the future of our constitutional settings, that’s actually something that New Zealanders have been wanting for a long time that we’re delivering, and I suspect it might be a bit more popular than the doomsayers anticipate.”

In a statement, he said the party was speaking for Māori and non-Māori alike who believed division was one of the greatest threats to New Zealand.

“We’re proposing a proper public debate on what the principles of the Treaty actually mean in the context of a modern multi-ethnic society with a place in it for all.

“ACT’s goal is to restore the mana of the Treaty by clarifying its principles. That means the New Zealand government has the right to govern New Zealand, the New Zealand government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property, and all New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.”

He said they would be consulting all New Zealanders on it, and once it got to select committee they would have a chance to recommend changes to the bill, which would then be put to the public as a referendum.

Te Pāti Māori: ‘The worst way of rewriting the Tiriti’
Te Pāti Māori co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer told RNZ News she was not surprised to see ministry officials warning against the bill.

“The extent and the depth of the erasing of Tangata Whenua, the arrogance to assume to rewrite a Treaty based on one partner’s view — and that was a partner who only had 50 rangatira sign — is really alarming.”

She said she did not trust Prime Minister Christopher Luxon would not support the bill any further than the select committee stage.

“It’s the worst way of rewriting the Tiriti we could ever have expected, it’s made assumptions that don’t exist and again has highlighted that they rate the English version of te Tiriti.

“I’m not quite sure when the last time you could believe everything a prime minister said was factual,” she said.

“The prime minister has been caught out in his own lies . . . the reality is that a clever politician and intentional coalition partner will roll anyone out of the way to make sure that something as negatively ambitious as what this rewrite is looking like can happen.”

She said one of Māoridom’s biggest aspirations was to be a thriving people “and ensure that through our whakapapa te Tiriti is respected”, she said, criticising Luxon’s refusal to attend this weekend’s national hui.

“He didn’t have to be the centre of all the discussions, a good leader listens,” she said.

Labour: ‘A total disgrace and a slap in the face for the judiciary’
Labour’s Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson however said the bill was a “total breach” of the Treaty, its obligations, and the partnership between Māori and the Crown.

“It’s a total attack on the Treaty and the partnership that we have, that Māori have with the Crown, and it continues the negative themes from this government from day one.

“The reality is that the Treaty principles — in terms of what’s been drawn up in terms of the ‘partnership’ — was already a compromise from Māori. That’s why the judiciary wrote up the partnership model — so if they want to go down this track they’ll open up a can of worms that they’ll live to regret.”

He said the government should not be pushing ahead with the bill.

“Absolutely, absolutely not, and Luxon should show some leadership and rule it out now. This is a disgrace, what ACT are doing, a total disgrace and a slap in the face for the judiciary and all the leaders who in past years have entrenched the partnership.

“You’re talking about National Party leaders like Jenny Shipley, Jim Bolger, Doug Graham, John Key. This is just laughable and idiotic stuff that is coming from Seymour, and Luxon should shut this down now because it goes in the face of legal opinion, legal history, judiciary decisions since 1987, prime ministerial decisions from National and Labour.

“All of a sudden we’ve got this so-called expert Seymour who thinks he knows more than every prime minister of the last 40 years and every High Court judge, Supreme Court judge — you name it … absolute rubbish and it should be thrown out.”

He said Seymour was “trying to placate his money men . . .  trying to placate some of his extreme rightwing mates”.

He did not trust the government to do as Luxon had said it would, and end support for the bill once it reached select committee.

“I mean surely this government would be the last group of people you’d trust right now wouldn’t you think? These are people that are going to disband our magnificent smokefree laws to look after their tax cuts.

“They also must be told in no uncertain terms that there can be no compromise on the Treaty relationship.”

Greens: ‘All of the kupu are a breach’
Green Party Māori Development spokesperson Hūhana Lyndon also said the government should not proceed with the bill, arguing all the words proposed by ACT for replacing the principles were a breach of the Treaty itself.

“All of the kupu are a breach to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and this is the choice of the National government to allow this to go ahead into select committee. There’s been no consultation with te iwi Māori or the general public.

“The government shouldn’t proceed with it. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is Te Tiriti o Waitangi — and those words need to be given effect to by the government, any changes to Te Tiriti o Waitangi is between hapū, iwi and the Crown.”

She said the new words proposed to assert a specific interpretation of te Tiriti and its historical context “does not give effect to te Tiriti and does not honour the sacred covenant that our tūpuna signed up for”.

“Ultimately, as we can see, even the government advice is cautioning strongly that the proposed words in the Treaty principles bill will be contentious, and could splinter — and, in fact, undermine — the strong relationship of te iwi Maori with the Crown to date as we have our ongoing conversation around how we honour te Tiriti o Waitangi.

“As we’ve seen with this government thus far, they are rushing through bad legislation under urgency, and this is no different to what we saw before Christmas.”

National: ‘It’s just a simple coalition agreement’
National’s Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith repeated to RNZ the party’s stance was to only progress it as far as the select committee, and no further.

“That’s what the prime minister has indicated,” he said. Asked why the government was even supporting it that far, he said it was part of the coalition agreement.

“Look, it’s just a simple coalition agreement that we have with the ACT Party, we agreed to support it to the select committee so that these matters can be given a public hearing, people can debate it. And so that was the agreement that we had.

“The process that we’ve got will introduce a bill that will have the select committee hearing, lots of different views on it and its merits.”

Asked about National’s position on whether the Treaty principles needed to be defined in law, he said their position was very clear, “that we support this piece of legislation going to the Select Committee and that’s as far as our support goes”.

He rejected Waititi’s suggestion it was an attempt to erase the Treaty.

“Look, I think there’ll be a lot of inflamed rhetoric over the coming weeks, and I’m not going to contribute to that . . . there’s no intention whatsoever to erase the Treaty and that’s not what this bill would do.”

When asked about the memo’s author saying the bill would be in opposition to the Treaty itself, he said the memo was a draft and the matter would be debated at select committee.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Many different arguments for and against the Voice to Parliament have been heard in the lead-up to this year’s referendum in Australia. This has included some media and politicians drawing comparisons between the Voice and South Africa’s apartheid regime.

Cory Bernardi, a Sky News commentator, argued, for instance, that by implementing the Voice, “we’re effectively announcing an apartheid-type state, where some citizens have more legal rights or more rights in general than others”.

As legal scholar Bede Harris has pointed out, it’s quite clear Bernardi doesn’t understand apartheid. He said,

How the Voice could be described as creating such a system is unfathomable.

Comparisons to apartheid
Apartheid was a system of racial segregation implemented by the South African government to control and restrict the lives of the non-white populations, and to stop them from voting.

During apartheid, non-white people could not freely visit the same beaches, live in the same neighbourhoods, attend the same schools or queue in the same lines as white people. My wife recalls her white parents being questioned by police after visiting the home of a Black colleague.

The proposed Voice will ensure First Nations peoples have their views heard by Parliament.

It won’t have the power to stop people swimming at the same beaches or living, studying or shopping together. It won’t stop interracial marriages as the apartheid regime did. It doesn’t give anybody extra political rights.

It simply provides First Nations people, who have previously had no say in developing the country’s system of government, with an opportunity to participate in a way that many say is meaningful and respectful.

Apartheid and the Voice are polar opposites. The Voice is a path towards democratic participation, while apartheid eliminated any opportunity for this.

Evoking emotional responses, like Bernardi attempted to do, can inspire people to quickly align with a political cause that moderation and reason might not encourage. This means opinions may be formed from limited understanding and misinformation.

🗣️ “Whether you vote yes or no in the coming referendum, your choice deserves respect.” #CharlesSturtUni constitutional law expert has challenged claims made by a SKY TV host likening the proposed Voice to Parliament to an apartheid-type state.https://t.co/EePzMcIksO

— Charles Sturt University (@CharlesSturtUni) May 9, 2023

Misinformation doesn’t stop at apartheid comparisons
The Institute of Public Affairs, a conservative lobby group, has published a “research” paper claiming the Voice would be like New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal and be able to veto decisions of the Parliament.

The truth is the tribunal is not a “Maori Voice to Parliament”. It can’t veto Parliament.

The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry. It is chaired by a judge and has Māori and non-Māori membership. Its job is to investigate alleged breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The tribunal’s task is an independent search for truth. When it upholds a claim, its recommended remedies become the subject of political negotiation between government and claimants.

The Voice in Australia would make representations to Parliament. This is also not a veto. A veto is to stop Parliament making a law.

We need to raise the quality of debate
Unlike the apartheid and Waitangi arguments, many objections to the Voice are grounded in fact.

Making representations to Parliament and the government is a standard and necessary democratic practice. There are already many ways of doing this, but in the judgment of the First Nations’ people who developed the Voice proposal, a constitutionally enshrined Voice would be a better way of making these representations.

Many people disagree with this judgment. The National Party argues a Voice won’t actually improve people’s lives.

Independent Senator Lidia Thorpe says she speaks for a Black Sovereignty movement when she advocates for a treaty to come first. The argument is that without a treaty, the system of government isn’t morally legitimate.

Other people support the Voice in principle but think it will have too much power; others think it won’t have enough.

Thinking about honest differences of opinion helps us to understand and critique a proposal for what it is, rather than what it is not. Our vote then stands a better chance of reflecting what we really think.

Lies can mask people’s real reasons for holding a particular point of view. When people’s true reasons can’t be scrutinised and tested, it prevents an honest exchange of ideas.

Collective wisdom can’t emerge, and the final decision doesn’t demonstrate each voter’s full reflection on other perspectives.

Altering the Constitution is very serious, and deliberately difficult to do. Whatever the referendum’s outcome, confidence in our collective judgment is more likely when truth and reason inform our debate.

In my recently published book, Indigeneity, Culture and the UN Sustainable Development Goals, I argue the Voice could contribute to a more just and democratic system of government through ensuring decision-making is informed by what First Nations’ people want and why.

Informed, also, by deep knowledge of what works and why.

People may agree or disagree. But one thing is clear: deliberate misinformation doesn’t make a counter argument. It diminishes democracy.

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan,  adjunct professor, Faculty of Health and Environmental Sciences, Auckland University of Technology, and professor of political science, Charles Sturt University.  This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Australian Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s recent claim that New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has veto powers over Parliament was met with surprise in New Zealand, especially by the members of the tribunal itself.

That’s because it is just plain wrong.

As the debate around the Voice to Parliament ramps up, we can probably expect similar claims to be made ahead of this year’s referendum. But the issue is so important to Australia’s future that such misinformation should not go unchallenged.

From an Australian perspective, New Zealand may appear ahead of the game in recognising Indigenous voices constitutionally. But that has certainly not extended to granting a parliamentary power of veto to Māori.

The Waitangi Tribunal was originally established as a commission of inquiry in 1975, given the power only to make recommendations to government. And so it remains. The Crown alone appoints tribunal members and many are non-Māori.

As with all commissions of inquiry, it’s up to the government of the day to make a political decision about whether or not to implement those recommendations.

Deceptive and wrong
Price’s claim echoed a February article and paper published by the Institute of Public Affairs, aimed at influencing the Voice referendum. Titled “The New Zealand Māori voice to Parliament and what we can expect from Australia”, it was written by the director of the institute’s legal rights program, John Storey.

The paper makes a number of assertions: the Waitangi Tribunal has a veto over the New Zealand parliament’s power to pass certain legislation; the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear land claims but its brief has expanded to include all aspects of public policy; and the Waitangi Tribunal “shows the Voice will create new Indigenous rights”.

The last of the statements is deceptive and the others are completely wrong. The Waitangi Tribunal’s jurisdiction was largely set in stone by the New Zealand parliament in 1975 when it was established.

Far from investigating land claims, it initially wasn’t able to examine any claims dating from before 1975. Parliament changed the tribunal’s jurisdiction in 1985, giving it retrospective powers back to 1840 (when the Treaty of Waitangi/te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed).

The tribunal then started hearing land claims. But in its first decade, it focused on fisheries, planning issues, the loss of Māori language, government decisions being made at the time and general issues of public policy.

Historic grievances
Over the past 38 years, the tribunal has focused on what are called “historical Treaty claims”, covering the period 1840 to 1992. In 1992 a major settlement of fishing claims began an era of negotiation and settlement of these claims, quite separate from the tribunal itself.

With the majority of significant historic claims now settled or in negotiation, that aspect of the tribunal’s work is coming to an end. It has returned to hearing claims about social issues and other more contemporary issues.

Far from expanding its jurisdiction, the tribunal’s powers have been steadily reduced in recent decades. In 1993, it lost the power to make recommendations involving private land — that is, land not owned by the Crown.

In 2008, it lost the power to investigate new historical claims, as the government looked to close off new claims that could undermine current settlements.

There is one area where the tribunal was given the power to force the Crown to return land. The 1984-1990 Labour government set a policy to rid itself of what were seen as surplus Crown assets.

A deal was struck between Māori claimants and the Crown to allow the tribunal to make binding recommendations to return land in very special cases.

This compromise was not created by the tribunal but through ambiguity in legislation, which was resolved in favour of Māori claimants in the Court of Appeal. The ability to return land has almost never been used and is being progressively repealed across the country as Treaty settlements are implemented in legislation.

Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price made the erroneous comments while appearing at a debate on the Voice to Parliament referendum in Australia. https://t.co/XGBfteJDaM

— Stuff (@NZStuff) April 27, 2023

Wide political support
Storey quotes a number of tribunal reports, which make findings about the Crown’s responsibilities, as if these findings are binding on the Crown or even on Parliament. This is not the case. The Waitangi Tribunal investigates claims that the Crown has acted contrary to the “principles of the Treaty”.

The Waitangi Tribunal establishes what those principles are, but they are binding on neither the courts nor Parliament. Having made findings, the tribunal makes recommendations — not to Parliament, as Storey suggests, but to ministers of the Crown.

Some recommendations are implemented, others are not.

Where there is a dispute between the Crown and Māori, the tribunal has often recommended negotiation rather than make specific recommendations for redress.

Storey has elsewhere referred to the tribunal as a “so-called advisory, now binding, Māori Voice to Parliament” that has “decreed” certain things. In the longer paper he does admit the “tribunal cannot dictate the exact form any redress offered by government must take”.

But he then falls back on the notion of a “moral veto” — that its status is so elevated that parliament is forced, however reluctantly, to do its bidding.

Yet not only does the Crown ignore tribunal recommendations as it chooses, it refuses even to be bound by the tribunal’s expert findings on history in negotiating settlements.

The Waitangi Tribunal will remain a permanent commission of inquiry because there is wide political support for its work. Nor can be it held solely responsible for increasing Māori assertiveness or political engagement with government, even if this was in any way a bad thing.

A larger social shift has taken place in Aotearoa New Zealand over the past few decades. No fiat from the Waitangi Tribunal has eliminated the cultural misappropriation of Māori faces and imagery — something Storey warns could mean “tea towels with a depiction of Uluru/Ayers Rock, or boomerang fridge magnets, would become problematic”.

The Waitangi Tribunal has often done no more than make Māori histories, Māori perspectives and Māori values accessible to a non-Māori majority. It has certainly had no power to control where debates on Indigenous issues fall.

Dr Michael Belgrave is professor of history, Massey University. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Joe Hawke — the prominent kaumātua and activist who led the long-running Takaparawhau occupation at Auckland’s Bastion Point in the late 1970s — has died, aged 82.

Born in Tāmaki Makaurau in 1940, Joseph Parata Hohepa Hawke of Ngāti Whātua ki Ōrākei, led his people in their efforts to reclaim their land and became a Member of Parliament.

He had been involved in land issues in his role as secretary of Te Matakite o Aotearoa, in the land march led by Dame Whina Cooper in 1975, before Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei walked onto their ancestral land on the Auckland waterfront in January 1977 and began an occupation that lasted 506 days.

He was among the 222 people arrested in May 1978 when police, backed by army personnel, ejected the protesters off their whenua.

In archival audio recorded during the protest, he exhibited his relentless commitment to the reclamation and return of whenua Māori — his people’s land — and for equality.

“We are landless in our own land, Takaparawha means a tremendous amount to our people. The struggle for the retention of this land is the most important struggle which our people have faced for many years. To lose this last bit of ground would be a death blow to the mana, to the honour and to the dignity of the Ngāti Whātua people,” Hawke said1977.

“We are prepared to go the whole way because legally we have the legal right to do it.”

In 1987, he took the Bastion Point claim to the Waitangi Tribunal and had the satisfaction of seeing the Tribunal rule in Ngāti Whātua’s favour] and the whenua being returned.

He was a pou for protests and demonstrations thereafter — a prominent pillar in Māori movements.

In the 1990s Hawke became a director of companies involved in Māori development, and in 1996 he entered Parliament as a Labour Party list MP, before retiring from politics in 2002.

In 2008, he became a Member of the New Zealand Order of Merit for his services to Māori and the community.

Hawke’s tangi will be held at Ōrākei Marae this week. Wednesday marks the 44th anniversary of the Bastion Point eviction. His nehu will be on Thursday.

E te rangatira, moe mai rā.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Whether he knows it or probably not, the year Joe Bennett arrived in Aotearoa from England was a milestone year for te reo Māori. After years of petitions, protest marches and activism from New Zealanders of all ethnicities as well as a Waitangi Tribunal inquiry: te reo Māori became an official language in its own land on 1 August 1987.

This was the same day our organisation opened its doors for the first time and in a few months, we will celebrate our 35th birthday.

Just getting to 1987 was not an easy road. It was a battle that had already been fought in our families, towns, schools, workplaces, churches and yes, newsrooms for decades.

In 1972, the Māori Language Petition carried more than 33,000 signatures to the steps of Parliament calling for te reo to be taught in our schools and protected.

Organised by the extraordinary Hana Te Hemara from her kitchen table, well before the internet, this was flax roots activism at its finest.

Hana mobilised hundreds of Māori university students who along with language activists and church members from all denominations, knocked on thousands of front doors across Aotearoa.

As the petition was circulated more easily in urban areas with large populations, the majority of those who signed the petition were not Māori. Most of those Kiwis (who would all be well into their 70s by now) didn’t think that te reo was ‘Māori nonsense’.

Identity as New Zealanders
We know from our own Colmar Kantar public opinion polling that more than eight in 10 of us see the Māori language as part of our identity as New Zealanders. Today in 2022, most Kiwis don’t see te reo as Māori nonsense.

Racist, official policies that banned and made te reo socially unacceptable saw generations of Māori families stop speaking te reo. It takes one generation to lose a language and three to get it back: the countdown is on.

Story time: I was alerted today to an opinion piece in @otd I have thought hard about sharing it but I think it’s important to show the views of people who have significant platforms but also the support they receive. Have a read… pic.twitter.com/hXyUiv7DDK

— Māni Dunlop (@manidunlop) April 27, 2022

Last year and the year before more than 1 million New Zealanders joined us to celebrate te reo at the same time, that’s more than one in five of us. We don’t see te reo as Māori nonsense.

Putting personal opinions aside, the elephant in the room of Bennett’s article is an important and rather large one: te reo Māori is endangered in the land it comes from.

It is a language that is native to this country and like an endangered bird, its future depends on what we do.

And from the behaviour of New Zealanders over the past half-century: it does not seem that we are willing to give up te reo without a fight.

Bennett says that languages that are not useful will wither away because they exist for one reason only: to communicate meaning.

Telling the stories of humanity
Languages are much more than this. They tell the stories of humanity, they are what make us human.

Te reo serves as both an anchor to our past and a compass to the future. It connects Māori New Zealanders to ancestors, culture and identity.

It grounds all New Zealanders by giving us a sense of belonging to this place we call home. It guides us all as we prepare for the Aotearoa of tomorrow.

Our team won the world’s most prestigious public relations award last year for our Māori Language Week work because they valued language diversity much as biodiversity.

The global judging panel told us in the ceremony held in London that we won because our work is critical to the future. Language diversity is the diversity of humanity and if we do nothing, half of our world’s languages will disappear by the end of this century.

And with them, our unique identities, those very things that make us who we are will disappear with them. It may be nonsense to a few but it’s nonsense more than 1 million of us will continue to fight for.

A note from RNZ: RNZ feels a deep responsibility, as required by our Charter and Act of Parliament, to reflect and support the use of Te Reo Māori in our programming and content. We will continue to do so. This article was originally published on Te Taura Whiri i te Reo Māori — Māori Language Commission — in response to Joe Bennett’s Otago Daily Times article “Evolving language scoffs at moral or political aims” on 21 April 2022 and is  republished under a community partnership agreement with RNZ.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

The Waitangi Tribunal has released a scathing ruling of the New Zealand government’s covid-19 response and vaccine rollout, saying Māori were put at risk.

The tribunal held an urgent hearing early this month, and released its findings today.

The tribunal says cabinet’s decision to go against official advice and not prioritise Māori in the vaccine rollout breached the Treaty principles of active protection and equity.

The government has said it instead opted for a whānau-centred approach.

The tribunal, in its report, said it could not understand why it would go for this against all expert advice.

While accepting a shift to the traffic light system was necessary, it found the rapid transition put Māori at risk.

The decision also put Māori health providers under extreme pressure on limited resources — pressure created by a delayed rollout, and years of chronic underfunding by the state.

It also said the Crown did not consistently engage with Māori to the fullest extent practicable on its pandemic response, a breach of the principle of partnership.

Better support recommended
It recommended better ethnicity data collection, better resourcing and support for Māori providers and communities, and a more equitable rollout for booster shots and paediatric vaccines.

Māori Council national secretary Peter Fraser described the Waitangi Tribunal report as “vindication”.

Fraser told RNZ Morning Report it was a strong ruling that showed the Crown had to uphold its Treaty obligations during a pandemic.

“We want to give credit to the tribunal, they took urgency.”

He said the “exceptional report” of more than 140 pages was put together in a couple of weeks before Christmas.

“It’s absolutely vindicated the Māori Council.”

He said he expected a difference in the paediatric vaccine rollout and booster programme.

Hopeful about new Māori Health Authority
“We are hopeful about the Māori Health Authority and we wish it was up and running now.”

Interim Māori Health Authority chief executive Riana Manuel said the report’s findings were not surprising.

She told Morning Report that she had been on the frontline during the pandemic, vaccinating and swabbing communities for nearly two years.

“We knew that if we didn’t prioritise Māori, we were going to be having to do what we’ve done for the last five months, which is try and get our people back online to getting them vaccinated.”

She said Māori were exposed to lots of misinformation while they waited for access to the vaccine, which had increased hesitancy.

“The problem is, though, like everybody else, we expend a lot of our time getting our people out of that misinformation mode and getting them back into those clinics.

“If we can learn to take the politics out of health and actually focus on what health requirements are … it’ll bring us back to what we need to do, what the right thing is to do.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal has heard the voices of Māori women have been marginalised for far too long and the impact of colonisation has caused the negation of rights over their bodies, minds, and beliefs.

The Mana Wāhine Inquiry is underway in Kerikeri – it is the first of the pre-hearings – which are exploring the tikanga of mana wāhine and the pre-colonial understanding of wāhine in te ao Māori; of which will set the context for the inquiry.

The inquiry includes a number of wāhine-related claims – but the original claim was made in 1993 by 16 leaders – Dame Areta Koopu, Dame Whina Cooper, Dame Mira Szaszy, Ripeka Evans, Dr Erihapeti Murchie, Dame Georgina Kirby, Dame June Mariu, Violet Pou, Hine Potaka, Dame Aroha Reriti-Crofts, Dr Papaarangi Reid, Donna Awatere-Huata, Lady Rose Henare, Katerina Hoterene, Te Para (Mabel) Waititi, and Kare Cooper-Tate.

Lawyer for the original claim Natalie Coates had said the wāhine had much support behind them from others at the time it was presented in person 28 years ago.

The claim was triggered by the removal of Dame Mira Szaszy from the shortlist of appointees to the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.

The inquiry will examine the inherent mana and iho of ngā wāhine Māori; the systemic discrimination, deprivation and inequities experienced by wāhine Māori; and the extent to which the Crown’s conduct in this respect had been, and is, Treaty non-compliant.

Hineahuone was truly present at Turner centre in Kerikeri as claimants, their lawyers, and whānau packed into the room to begin the first pre-hearing of the inquiry.

First to give evidence
One of the original claimants, Ripeka Evans, who also put in a claim on behalf of the hapū and iwi of Te Tai Tokerau alongside Dr Papaarangi Reid, was first to give evidence yesterday.

Fighting back tears, she urged the tribunal to complete the claim in her lifetime – something that some of the original claimants were unable to witness. She said it would be remiss of her to not acknowledge how special this moment was.

After many joined her in acknowledging the significance of the beginning of these hearings, Evans told the tribunal and a packed public gallery – it was “time for business”.

She emphasised the inherent power, authority and status of wāhine in te ao Māori and the role of her tīpuna who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, who she called the founding mothers.

She described the traditional roles of men and women as essential parts of the collective whole, both forming part of the whakapapa that linked Māori to the beginning of the world and women in particular played a key role in linking the past with the present and the future.

Evans provided the historic context of the impact of colonisation.

“The colonial frame in which the colonising culture that looked to men as leaders and chiefs – this caused the negation of wāhine Māori mana motuhake and rangatiratanga over their whenua, taonga, mātauranga, hearts, bodies, minds and beliefs.”

Power, authority and status the bottom lines
She hoped that the inquiry would look at the power, authority and status as the three bottom lines that claimants were there to address at these tūāpapa hearings, to not just talk about, but find solutions for the future.

When asked by the tribunal to go back to what triggered the original claim and the role of the Crown in removing Dame Mira from the shortlist, she talked to the wider context of the Crown’s role in being silence on these particular.

Evans said, although the Crown had provided funding for the inquiry, this was not enough to show they had learnt a lesson after 28 years.

“The fact that we are here today, I have to call it out, the Crown funding for this claim is for the Crown to bring it – not for me – not for the claimants to come and tell their stories.

“It beggars belief that the lesson of the last 28 years his that the Crown has not woken up yet about mana wāhine and about the opportunities that that presents for those big issues.”

“And we are still looking to the tribunal as our ray of hope – we don’t have deep pockets.”

The hearing is set down until Thursday and will hear from more original claimants and other notable wāhine Māori leaders.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz