Speakers contrasted and condemned settler colonialism strategies in Aotearoa New Zealand and Israel’s illegal occupation and genocide in Palestine at a feisty solidarity rally in Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau today — a day after Waitangi Day, the national holiday marking the 1840 signing of Te Tititi o Waitangi between 46 chiefs and the British crown.

Palestine Solidarity Network Aotearoa (PSNA) co-chair John Minto was one of the speakers after attending an earlier rally at Kerikeri and then driving 240 km with four fellow activists to join the Auckland protest.

“Colonisation in the present resonates with every Māori family. So here we are in that process of decolonisation, a slow process — it’s happening within Māoridom, and it’s happening in the Pākehā world,” Minto told the crowd.

“I was so delighted that when the Treaty Principles Bill came in we had that huge hikoī in Wellington,” he said.

“For those of you who know Wellington, we were in Manners Street towards the end of the march.

“And we got word that the rally had started in Parliament. We still had a kilometre to go. The streets were jammed with people, Pākehā, Māori, migrant people — Indigenous people from all over the world, all saying ‘no’.

“New Zealand is not a European country. We have an Indigenous people here and we want to work in partnership through the Treaty of Waitangi.

‘Weak prime minister’
“And what we have now, again, we’ve got a government that is — we have a weak prime minister, and we have got leaders of strong rightwing parties, that’s Winston Peters from New Zealand First, and that other guy from ACT . . .

“You know, whatever his name is . . .” Minto said jokingly. The crowd reeled of David Seymour’s name with a mocking tone and cries of “one term government” with a general election due on November 7.

Among other speakers was Janfrie Wakim, a longtime advocate for Palestine and one of the founders of the Auckland-based Palestine Human Rights Campaign founded in the 1970s, which later evolved into the PSNA in 2013.

She gave a “high fives” message of praise for protesters supporting the cause of Palestine justice and self-determination in this 122th week of demonstrations since October 2023.

Wakim also lauded the “kaimahi” — the workers who turned up each week to set up and pack up.

She said the colonisation of Aotearoa and Palestine had similarities — “but also some differences and decolonising is our task here in Aotearoa and in Palestine.”

Wakim paid tribute to Annette Sykes — “a wahine toa and heroic lawyer” advocate for Māori iwi — who wrote recently “decolonising is not erasing history but rewriting who controls the narrative”.

‘Enriching empires’
“Classic colonialists set out to exploit resources and enrich their empires,” Wakim said.

“European imperial powers dominated the past 500 years and they exited when their empires collapsed,” she said, naming Britain, France, Germany, Belgium, Portugal and Spain.

However, she added, “settler colonialism is different — it remains and is ongoing. All settler-colonial states seek more territory and fewer Indigenous people by ‘ethnic-cleansing’.”

“Settler colonialists sought to recreate Europe in the lands they invaded and they needed to eliminate the local native populations living there — think Australia.

“That is the story of Palestine.

“Settler colonialism is a structure not an event. And Zionists built their structure on that platform.”

Wakim said early Zionists knew well that Palestine was populated. They knew that the land had to be “emptied” to allow European Jews to establish their settler-colonial project.

Nakba refugees
She referred to the 1948 Nakba — “the catastrophe” — when 750,000 Palestinians were expelled by Israeli militias. They became refugees in Gaza, Jordan, Lebanon and Syria but with a UN-backed right to return.

More than 500 Palestinian villages were destroyed and their land stolen by the Israelis.

Wakim also told of the Zionists’ racist narrative dehumanising the Palestinians and their relationship to the land”.

“But nothing compares with what Israel is doing today — the brutal, ongoing genocide and ethnic cleansing we have been witnessing and continue to witness.”

Wakim said the Zionist structure was built on a weak foundation that was crumbling — “not fast enough but the cracks are widening as is Israel’s reliance on one superpower which itself is in decline”.

She said Palestine and Palestinians remained steadfast and resisting the injustices.

“As here in Aotearoa, they are actively working across the world in solidarity with others to expose the lies and change the narrative and unite people of all nations, ethnicities and religions.

BDS movement growing
“BDS — [the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement] is growing slowly but surely.”

She said Israel was imploding and she called on New Zealand to renew its “lead on social justice issues”.

“We may be small, but we can be powerful,” she added.

Another speaker, kaiāwhina Kerry Sorensen-Tyrer, spoke of her encounter that day at Te Komititanga Square with three IDF soldiers from Israel “holidaying” in New Zealand. After a brief exchange, she photographed them and reminded the crowd to be vigilant and to report information to the PSNA’s IDF hotline.

“We do not want you in Aotearoa,” she said of the soldiers and their role in a genocidal war on Gaza to loud cheers from the crowd.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

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

Ngāti Toa Rangatira have gathered near the peak of their sacred maunga, Whitireia, to celebrate its historic return to iwi ownership.

Te Rūnanga o Toa Rangatira has purchased 53 ha of land at Whitireia — just north of Tītahi Bay — from Radio New Zealand (RNZ) for just under $5 million — adjoining an earlier settlement acquisition on the peninsula.

Ngāti Toa have waited 177 years to get the whenua back. In 1848, the iwi gifted around 202 ha to the Anglican Church in exchange for the promise of a school to be built for Ngāti Toa tamariki.

The school was never built, but the land remained in church ownership.

That prompted Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata, a Ngāti Toa rangatira and MP, to take court action against the Bishop of Wellington who argued the whenua “ought to be given back to the donors” because the promise of a school was never fulfilled.

In his 1877 judgement, Chief Justice James Prendergast ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a “simple nullity” signed by “primitive barbarians”. It denied Ngāti Toa ownership of their maunga for decades and set a damaging precedent for other Māori seeking the return of their land.

Ngāti Toa kuia Karanga Wineera, 96, remembers listening to her elders discuss how her people had fought to reclaim Whitireia over the decades.

She told RNZ seeing the maunga finally returned was “wonderful”.

‘Wonderful gift’
“It’s a most wonderful, wonderful gift to Ngati Toa to have Whitireia come home after so many years of fighting for Whitireia and not getting anywhere, but today, oh, it’s wonderful,” she said.

In the early 1900s, Whitireia was vested in the Porirua College Trust Board, allowing the whenua to be sold. In 1935, the New Zealand Broadcasting Service purchased 40 ha for what would become Radio 2YA, now RNZ.

Iwi members, rūnanga chiefs and representatives from police, the Anglican Church and RNZ attended a formal ceremony to commemorate the sale.

In his speech, Ngāti Toa chair Callum Katene said the deal showed what a “Te Tiriti-centric” New Zealand could look like.

“The birds still sing here at dawn, the same winds sweep the hills and carry the scent of the sea. Beneath us, the earth remembers every footprint, every prayer — Whitireia holds these memories… in this morning, as the first light spills across the harbour, we are reminded that history is not carved in stone, it is living breath,” he said.

“As we look ahead, Whitireia can shine as a beacon of hope, a reminder that reconciliation is not about reclaiming the past so much, but about realising the future envisaged in 1848 — education, faith, unity, and enduring partnership.”

The rūnanga say all existing leases, easements, and public access agreements have been transferred to them as part of the acquisition and day-to-day operations for tenants, recreational users, and visitors will not change.

Lease back for AM
They will lease back 12 ha to RNZ to continue AM transmission operations.

Ngāti Toa Rangatira had a first right of refusal on the property under the Ngāti Toa Rangatira Claims Settlement Act 2014 and Public Works Act.

Speaking to media after the ceremony, Katene said he could not speak highly enough of how “accommodating” RNZ had been during the negotiation process, but admitted there were a few “hiccups”.

“There were a few hiccups when it came to the technical details of the exchanges, there always are in these sorts of things.

“The important distinction for us is this isn’t a financial transaction, it’s not economic for us — it’s returning the land,” he said.

Asked why the land could not be gifted back free of charge, RNZ chair Jim Mather said the possibility of gifting the land back was raised during negotiations.

“The return of the land recognised that Ngāti Toa Rangatira had been compensated previously as part of the settlement and were now in a position to actually effect that transaction,” he said.

“If it was up to us as a board we would have handed it over, but we have responsibilities as governors of assets held in the interest of the public of Aotearoa.”

Breach of the Treaty
Rūnanga chief executive Helmut Modlik said while the negotiations were “principled”, there was still a “conversation” worth “revisiting” at some time.

“As everybody has admitted, the loss of this land was as a result of a breach of the Treaty, and as everybody knows, Treaty settlement processes are a take it or leave it exercise, and we weren’t able to have this whenua returned at that point,” he said.

“To me, that’s a matter of principle that’s worth a future conversation.”

Ngā uri o Wi Parata spokesperson Kahu Ropata said because Wiremu Te Kakakura Parata had had the audacity to take the case up he was discriminated against by the “Pākehā propaganda machine”.

The whānau have had to grow up with that hara (offence) against their tūpuna, he said.

“We grew up with the kōrero that it cost him his health and his wealth fighting this case.

“And so for many years, we grew up in that, I suppose, for some of my uncles and aunties, in that trauma of a loss of mana, I suppose you could say, and for a rangatira of his ilk, it would have been quite damaging knowing that he was to go to the grave and the case actually not settled in his name.”

Ropata said RNZ returning the whenua was a “great step” towards reconciliation.

“We’re still in discussions with the Anglican Church in terms of the whānau and the iwi about reconciliation and moving forward.

“Fifty-three-odd hectares, there’s still another . . .  450-odd acres that we still need to reconcile [and we’re] looking at discussions around how we can accomplish that.”

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A prominent academic has criticised the New Zealand coalition government for compromising the country’s traditional commitment to upholding an international rules-based order due to a “desire not to offend” the Trump administration.

Professor Robert Patman, an inaugural sesquicentennial distinguished chair and a specialist in international relations at the University of Otago, has argued in a contributed article to The Spinoff that while distant in geographic terms, “brutal violence in Gaza, the West Bank and Iran marks the latest stage in the unravelling of an international rules-based order on which New Zealand depends for its prosperity and security”.

Dr Patman wrote that New Zealand’s founding document, the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, emphasised partnership and cooperation at home, and, after 1945, helped inspire a New Zealand worldview enshrined in institutions such as the United Nations and norms such as multilateralism.

“In the wake of Hamas’ terrorist attacks in Israel on October 7, 2023, the National-led coalition government has in principle emphasised its support for a lasting ceasefire in Gaza and the need for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict over the occupied territories of East Jerusalem, Gaza and the West Bank,” he wrote.

However, Dr Patman said, in practice this New Zealand stance had not translated into firm diplomatic opposition to the Netanyahu government’s quest to control Gaza and annex the West Bank.

“Nor has it been a condemnation of the Trump administration for prioritising its support for Israel’s security goals over international law,” he said.

Foreign minister Winston Peters had described the situation in Gaza as “simply intolerable” but the National-led coalition had little specific to say as the Netanyahu government “resumed its cruel blockade of humanitarian aid to Gaza in March and restarted military operations there”.

Silence on Trump’s ‘Gaza ownership’
“Even more striking was the government’s silence on President Trump’s proposal to own Gaza with a view to evicting two million Palestinian residents from the territory and the US-Israeli venture to start the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) in late May in a move which sidelined the UN in aid distribution and has led to the killing of more than 600 Palestinians while seeking food aid,” Dr Patman said.

While New Zealand, along with the UK, Australia, Canada and Norway, had imposed sanctions on two far-right Israeli government ministers, Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar ben Gvir, in June for “inciting extremist violence” against Palestinians — a move that was criticised by the Trump administration — it was arguably a case of very little very late.

“The Hamas terror attacks on October 7 killed around 1200 Israelis, but the Netanyahu government’s retaliation by the Israel Defence Force (IDF) against Hamas has resulted in the deaths of more than 56,000 Palestinians — nearly 70 percent of whom were women or children — in Gaza.

Over the same period, more than 1000 Palestinians had been killed in the West Bank as Israel accelerated its programme of illegal settlements there.

‘Strangely ambivalent’
In addition, the responses of the New Zealand government to “pre-emptive attacks” by Israel (13-25 June) and Trump’s United States (June 22) against Iran to destroy Iran’s nuclear capabilities were strangely ambivalent.

Despite indications from US intelligence and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran had not produced nuclear weapons, Foreign Minister Peters had said New Zealand was not prepared to take a position on that issue.

Confronted with Trump’s “might is right” approach, the National-led coalition faced stark choices, Dr Patman said.

The New Zealand government could continue to fudge fundamental moral and legal issues in the Middle East and risk complicity in the further weakening of an international rules-based order it purportedly supports, “or it can get off the fence, stand up for the country’s values, and insist that respect for international law must be observed in the region and elsewhere without exception”.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Legal experts and Māori advocates say the fight to protect Te Tiriti is only just beginning — as the controversial Treaty Principles Bill is officially killed in Parliament.

The bill — which seeks to redefine the principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi — sparked a nationwide hīkoi and received more than 300,000 written submissions — with 90 percent of submitters opposing it.

Parliament confirmed the voting down of the bill yesterday, with only ACT supporting it proceeding further.

The ayes were 11, and the noes 112.

Riana Te Ngahue, a young Māori lawyer whose bite-sized breakdowns of complex issues — like the Treaty Principles Bill — went viral on social media, said she was glad the bill was finally gone.

“It’s just frustrating that we’ve had to put so much time and energy into something that’s such a huge waste of time and money. I’m glad it’s over, but also disappointed because there are so many other harmful bills coming through — in the environment space, Oranga Tamariki, and others.”

Most New Zealanders not divided
Te Ngahue said the Justice Committee’s report — which showed 90 percent of submitters opposed the bill, 8 percent supported it, and 2 percent were unstated in their position — proved that most New Zealanders did not feel divided about Te Tiriti.

“If David Seymour was right in saying that New Zealanders feel divided about this issue, then we would’ve seen significantly more submissions supporting his bill.

“He seemed pretty delusional to keep pushing the idea that New Zealanders were behind him, because if that was true, he would’ve got a lot more support.”

However, Te Ngahue said it was “wicked” to see such overwhelming opposition.

“Especially because I know for a lot of people, this was their first time ever submitting on a bill. That’s what I think is really exciting.”

She said it was humbling to know her content helped people feel confident enough to participate in the process.

“I really didn’t expect that many people to watch my video, let alone actually find it helpful. I’m still blown away by people who say they only submitted because of it — that it showed them how.”

Te Ngahue said while the bill was made to be divisive there had been “a huge silver lining”.

“Because a lot of people have actually made the effort to get clued up on the Treaty of Waitangi, whereas before they might not have bothered because, you know, nothing was really that in your face about it.”

“There’s a big wave of people going ‘I actually wanna get clued up on [Te Tiriti],’ which is really cool.”

‘Fight isn’t over’
Māori lawyer Tania Waikato, whose own journey into social media advocacy empowered many first-time submitters, said she was in an “excited and celebratory” mood.

“We all had a bit of a crappy summer holiday because of the Treaty Principles Bill and the Regulatory Standards Bill both being released for consultation at the same time. A lot of us were trying to fit advocacy around summer holidays and looking after our tamariki, so this feels like a nice payoff for all the hard mahi that went in.”

She said the “overwhelming opposition” sent a powerful message.

“I think it’s a clear message that Aotearoa as a whole sees Te Tiriti as part of this country’s constitutional foundation. You can’t just come in and change that on a whim, like David Seymour and the ACT Party have tried to do.

“Ninety percent of people who got off their butt and made a submission have clearly rejected the divisive and racist rhetoric that party has pushed.”

Despite the win, she said the fight was far from over.

“If anything, this is really just beginning. We’ve got the Regulatory Standards Bill that’s going to be introduced at some point before June. That particular bill will do what the Treaty Principle’s Bill was aiming to do, but in a different and just more sneaky way.

‘The next fight’
“So for me, that’s definitely the next fight that we all gotta get up for again.”

Waikato, who also launched a petition in March calling for the free school lunch programme contract to be overhauled, said allowing the Treaty Principles Bill to get this far in the first place was a “waste of time and money.”

“Its an absolutely atrocious waste of taxpayers dollars, especially when we’ve got issues like the school lunches that I am advocating for on the other side.”

“So for me, the fight’s far from over. It’s really just getting started.”

ACT Party leader David Seymour continued to defend the Treaty Principles Bill during its second reading on Thursday, and said the debate over the treaty’s principles was far from over.

After being the only party to vote in favour of the bill, Seymour said not a single statement had grappled with the content of the bill — despite all the debate.

Asked if his party had lost in this nationwide conversation, he said they still had not heard a good argument against it.

‘We’ll never give up on equal rights.”

He said there were lots of options for continuing, and the party’s approach would be made clear before the next election

“It’s been a lot of work to get to this point, but we feel like this is a very good day for our country.”

At the end of the hīkoi mō Te Tiriti, ActionStation co-delivered a Ngāti Whakaue rangatahi led petition opposing the Treaty Principles Bill, with more than 290,000 signatures — the second largest petition in Aotearoa’s history.

They also hosted a live watch party for the bill’s second reading on Facebook, joined by Te Tiriti experts Dr Carwyn Jones and Tania Waikato.

Hartendorp said it was amazing to see people from all over Aotearoa coming together to reject the bill.

“It’s no longer a minority view that we should respect, but more and more and more people realise that it’s a fundamental part of our national identity that should be respected and not trampled every time a government wants to win power,” she said.

Looking to the future, Hartendorp said Thursday’s victory was only one milestone in a longer campaign.

Why people fought back
“There was a future where this bill hadn’t gone down — this could’ve ended very differently. The reason we’re here now is because people fought back.

“People from all backgrounds and ages said: ‘We respect Te Tiriti o Waitangi.’

“We know it’s essential, it’s a part of our history, our past, our present, and our future. And we want to respect that together.”

Hartendorp said they were now gearing up to fight against essentially another version of the Treaty Principles Bill — but on a local level.

“In October, people in 42 councils around the country will vote on whether or not to keep their Māori ward councillors, and we think this is going to be a really big deal.”

The Regulatory Standards Bill is also being closely watched, Hartendorp said, and she believed it could mirror the “divisive tactics” seen with the Treaty Principles Bill.

“Part of the strategy for David Seymour and the ACT Party was to win over the public mandate by saying the public stands against Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That debate is still on,” she said.

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

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

BACKGROUNDER: By Sarah Shamim

A fight for Māori indigenous rights drew more than 50,000 protesters to the New Zealand Parliament in the capital Wellington yesterday.

A nine-day-long Hīkoi, or peaceful march — a Māori tradition — was undertaken in protest against a bill that seeks to “reinterpret” the country’s 184-year-old founding Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed between British imperial colonisers and the Indigenous Māori tangata whenua (people).

Some had also been peacefully demonstrating outside the Parliament building for nine days before the protest concluded yesterday.

On November 14, the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was introduced in Parliament for a preliminary first reading vote. Māori parliamentarians staged a haka (a traditional ceremonial dance) to disrupt the vote, temporarily halting parliamentary proceedings.

So, what was the Treaty of Waitangi, what are the proposals for altering it, and why has it become a flashpoint for protests in New Zealand?

Who are the Māori?
The Māori people are the original residents of the two large main islands now known as New Zealand, having lived there for several centuries.

The Māori came to the uninhabited islands of New Zealand from East Polynesia on canoe voyages betweemn 1200 and 1300. Over hundreds of years of isolation, they developed their own distinct culture and language. Māori people speak te reo Māori and have different tribes, or iwi, spread throughout the country.

The two islands were originally called Aotearoa by the Māori. The name New Zealand was adopted by the colonisers who took control under the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840.

While Dutch explorer Abel Tasman was the first European to “discover” New Zealand in 1642, calling it Staten Land, three years later Dutch cartographers renamed the land Nova Zeelandia after the Dutch province of Zeeland.

British explorer James Cook later anglicised the name to New Zealand.

New Zealand became a “dominion” under the British crown in 1907 after being a colony.

It gained full independence from Britain in 1947 when it adopted the Statute of Westminster.

However, for a century the Māori people had suffered mass killings, land grabs and cultural erasure at the hands of colonial settlers.

There are currently 978,246 Māori in New Zealand, constituting around 19 percent of the country’s population of 5.3 million. They are partially represented by Te Pāti Māori — the Māori Party — which currently holds six of the 123 seats in Parliament.

What was the Treaty of Waitangi?
On February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, also called Te Tiriti o Waitangi or just Te Tiriti in te reo, was signed between the British Crown and around 500 Māori chiefs, or rangatira. The treaty was the founding document of New Zealand and officially made New Zealand a British colony.

While the treaty was presented as a measure to resolve differences between the Māori and the British, the English and te reo versions of the treaty actually feature some stark differences.

The te reo Māori version guarantees “rangatiratanga” to the Māori chiefs. This translates to “self-determination” and guarantees the Māori people the right to govern themselves.

However, the English translation says that the Maori chiefs “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”, making no mention of self-rule for the Maori.

The English translation does guarantee the Māori “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries”.

“The English draft talks about the British settlers having full authority and control over Māori in the whole country,” Kassie Hartendorp, a Māori community organiser and director at community campaigning organisation ActionStation Aotearoa, told Al Jazeera.

Hartendorp explained that the te reo version includes the term “kawanatanga”, which in historical and linguistic context “gives British settlers the opportunity to set up their own government structure to govern their own people but they would not limit the sovereignty of Indigenous people”.

“We never ceded sovereignty, we never handed it over. We gave a generous invitation to new settlers to create their own government because they were unruly and lawless at the time,” said Hartendorp.

In the decades after 1840, however, 90 percent of Māori land was taken by the British Crown. Both versions of the treaty have been repeatedly breached and Māori people have continued to suffer injustice in New Zealand even after independence.

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent body to adjudicate treaty matters. The tribunal attempts to remedy treaty breaches and navigate differences between the treaty’s two texts.

Over time, billions of dollars have been negotiated in settlements over breaches of the treaty, particularly relating to the widespread seizure of Māori land.

However, other injustices have also occurred. Between 1950 and 2019, about 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in state and church care, and a commission found Māori children were more vulnerable to the abuse than others.

On November 12 this year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued an apology to these victims, but it was criticised by Māori survivors for being inadequate. One criticism was that the apology did not take the treaty into account.

While the treaty’s principles are not set in stone and are flexible, it is a significant historical document that upholds Māori rights.

What does the Treaty Principles Bill propose?
The Treaty Principles Bill was introduced by Member of Parliament David Seymour, leader of the libertarian ACT Party, a minor partner in New Zealand’s rightwing coalition government. Seymour himself is of Māori heritage.

The party launched a public information campaign about the bill on February 7 this year.

The ACT Party asserts that the treaty has been misinterpreted over the decades and that this has led to the formation of a dual system for New Zealanders, where Māori and pākehā (white) New Zealanders have different political and legal rights. Seymour says that misinterpretations of the treaty’s meaning have effectively given Māori people special treatment.

The bill calls for an end to “division by race”.

Seymour said that the principle of “ethnic quotas in public institutions”, for example, is contrary to the principle of equality.

The bill seeks to set specific definitions of the treaty’s principles, which are currently flexible and open to interpretation. These principles would then apply to all New Zealanders equally, whether they are Māori or not.

According to Together for Te Tiriti, an initiative led by ActionStation Aotearoa, the bill will allow the New Zealand government to govern all New Zealanders and consider all New Zealanders equal under the law.

Activists say this will effectively disadvantage indigenous Māori people because they have been historically oppressed.

Many, including the Waitangi Tribunal, say this will lead to the erosion of Māori rights. A statement by ActionStation Aotearoa says that the bill’s principles “do not at all reflect the meaning” of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Why is the bill so controversial?
The bill is strongly opposed by political parties in New Zealand on both the left and the right, and Maori people have criticised it on the basis that it undermines the treaty and its interpretation.

Gideon Porter, a Maori journalist from New Zealand, told Al Jazeera that most Maori, as well as historians and legal experts, agree that the bill is an “attempt to redefine decades of exhaustive research and negotiated understandings of what constitute ‘principles’ of the treaty”.

Porter added that those critical of the bill believe “the ACT Party within this coalition government is taking upon itself to try and engineer things so that Parliament gets to act as judge, jury and executioner”.

In the eyes of most Maori, he said, the ACT Party is “simply hiding its racism behind a facade of ‘we are all New Zealanders with equal rights’ mantra”.

The Waitangi Tribunal released a report on August 16 saying that it found the bill “breached the Treaty principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the … guarantee of rangatiratanga”.

Another report by the tribunal seen by The Guardian newspaper said: “If this bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty … in modern times.”

What process must the bill go through now?
For a bill to become law in New Zealand, it must go through three rounds in Parliament: first when it is introduced, then when MPs suggest amendments and finally, when they vote on the amended bill. Since the total number of MPs is 123, at least 62 votes are needed for a bill to pass, David MacDonald, a political science professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Al Jazeera.

Besides the six Māori Party seats, the New Zealand Parliament comprises 34 seats held by the Labour Party; 14 seats held by the Green Party of Aotearoa; 49 seats held by the National Party; 11 seats held by the ACT Party; and eight seats held by the New Zealand First Party.

“The National Party leaders including the PM and other cabinet ministers and the leaders of the other coalition party [New Zealand] First have all said they won’t support the bill beyond the committee stage. It is highly unlikely that the bill will receive support from any party other than ACT,” MacDonald said.

When the bill was heard for its first round in Parliament last week, Māori party lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up her copy of the legislation and led the haka.

Is the bill likely to pass?
The chances of the bill becoming law are “zero”, Porter said.

He said the ACT’s coalition partners had “adamantly promised” to vote down the bill in the next stage. Additionally, all the opposition parties will also vote against it.

“They only agreed to allow it to go this far as part of their ‘coalition agreement’ so they could govern,” Porter said.

New Zealand’s current coalition government was formed in November 2023 after an election that took place a month earlier. It comprises the National Party, ACT and New Zealand First.

While rightwing parties have not given a specific reason why they will oppose the bill, Hartendorp said New Zealand First and the New Zealand National Party would likely vote in line with public opinion, which largely opposes it.

Why are people protesting if the bill is doomed to fail?
The protests are not against the bill alone.

“This latest march is a protest against many coalition government anti-Māori initiatives,” Porter said.

Many believe that the conservative coalition government, which took office in November 2023, has taken measures to remove “race-based politics”. The Māori people are not happy with this and believe that it will undermine their rights.

These measures include removing a law that gave the Maori a say in environmental matters. The government also abolished the Maori Health Authority in February this year.

Despite the bill being highly likely to fail, many believe that just by allowing the bill to be tabled in Parliament, the coalition government has ignited dangerous social division.

For example, former conservative Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that just putting forth the bill is sowing division in New Zealand, and she warned of potential “civil war”.

Sarah Shamim is a freelance writer and assistant producer at Al Jazeera Media Network, where this article was first published.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

International media coverage of Aotearoa New Zealand’s national Hīkoi to Parliament has largely focused on the historic size of the turnout in Wellington yesterday and the wider contention between Māori and the Crown.

Some, including The New York Times, have also pointed out the recent swing right with the election of the coalition government as part of the reason for the unrest.

The Times article said New Zealand had veered “sharply right”, likening it to Donald Trump’s re-election.

“New Zealand bears little resemblance to the country recently led by Jacinda Ardern, whose brand of compassionate, progressive politics made her a global symbol of anti-Trump liberalism.”

The challenging of the rights of Māori was “driving a wedge into New Zealand society”, the article said.

Coverage in The Guardian explained that the Treaty Principles Bill was unlikely to pass.

“However, it has prompted widespread anger among the public, academics, lawyers and Māori rights groups who believe it is creating division, undermining the treaty, and damaging the relationship between Māori and ruling authorities,” it said.

‘Critical moment’
Turkey’s public broadcaster TRT World said New Zealand “faces a critical moment in its journey toward reconciling with its Indigenous population”.

🇳🇿 New Zealand MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke performed a haka in a powerful speech during her first appearance in parliament.

Maipi-Clarke is Aotearoa’s youngest MP since 1853 and is seen as representing the ‘kohanga reo’ generation of young Māori. pic.twitter.com/sWwbS1FsBI

— NoComment (@nocomment) January 5, 2024

While Al Jazeera agreed it was “a contentious bill redefining the country’s founding agreement between the British and the Indigenous Māori people”.

The Washington Post pointed out that the “bill is deeply unpopular, even among members of the ruling conservative coalition”.

“While the bill would not rewrite the treaty itself, it would essentially extend it equally to all New Zealanders, which critics say would effectively render the treaty worthless,” the article said.

The Hīkoi, and particularly the culmination of more than 42,000 people at Parliament, was covered in most of the mainstream international media outlets including Britain’s BBC and CNN in the United States, as well as wire agencies, including AFP, AP and Reuters.

Across the Ditch, the ABC headline called it a “flashpoint” on race relations. While the article went on to say it was “a critical moment in the fraught 180-year-old conversation about how New Zealand should honour the promises made to First Nations people when the country was colonised”.

Most of the articles also linked back to Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke’s haka in Parliament which also garnered significant international attention.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

A former New Zealand prime minister, Dame Jenny Shipley, has warned the ACT Party is “inviting civil war” with its attempt to define the principles of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi in law.

The party’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday, voted for by ruling coalition members ACT, New Zealand First and National.

National has said its MPs will vote against it at the second reading, after only backing it through the first as part of the coalition agreement with ACT.

Voting on the bill was interrupted when Te Pāti Māori’s Hauraki Waikato MP Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up a copy of the bill and launched into a haka, inspiring other opposition MPs and members of the public gallery to join in.

Dame Jenny, who led the National Party from 1997 until 2001 and was prime minister for two of those years, threw her support behind Maipi-Clarke.

“The Treaty, when it’s come under pressure from either side, our voices have been raised,” she told RNZ’s Saturday Morning.

“I was young enough to remember Bastion Point, and look, the Treaty has helped us navigate. When people have had to raise their voice, it’s brought us back to what it’s been — an enduring relationship where people then try to find their way forward.

“And I thought the voices of this week were completely and utterly appropriate, and whether they breach standing orders, I’ll put that aside.

“The voice of Māori, that reminds us that this was an agreement, a contract — and you do not rip up a contract and then just say, ‘Well, I’m happy to rewrite it on my terms, but you don’t count.’

“I would raise my voice. I’m proud that the National Party has said they will not be supporting this, because you cannot speak out of both sides of your mouth.

“And I think any voice that’s raised, and there are many people — pākeha and Māori who are not necessarily on this hikoi — who believe that a relationship is something you keep working at. You don’t just throw it in the bin and then try and rewrite it as it suits you.”

Her comments come after Prime Minister Christopher Luxon called the bill “simplistic” and “unhelpful”, and former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson — who negotiated more settlements than any other — said letting it pass its first reading would do “great damage” to National’s relationship with Māori.

The Treaty Principles Bill reading vote.    Video: RNZ News

Dame Jenny said past attempts to codify Treaty principles in law had failed.

“While there have been principles leaked into individual statutes, we have never attempted to — in a formal sense — put principles in or over top of the Treaty as a collective. And I caution New Zealand — the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.

“I would fight against it. Māori have every reason to fight against it.

“This is a relationship we committed to where we would try and find a way to govern forward. We would respect each other’s land and interests rights, and we would try and be citizens together — and actually, we are making outstanding progress, and this sort of malicious, politically motivated, fundraising-motivated attempt to politicise the Treaty in a new way should raise people’s voices, because it is not in New Zealand’s immediate interest.

“And you people should be careful what they wish for. If people polarise, we will finish up in a dangerous position. The Treaty is a gift to us to invite us to work together. And look, we’ve been highly successful in doing that, despite the odd ruction on the way.”

She said New Zealand could be proud of the redress it had made to Māori, “where we accepted we had just made a terrible mess on stolen land and misused the undertakings of the Treaty, and we as a people have tried to put that right”.

“I just despise people who want to use a treasure — which is what the Treaty is to me — and use it as a political tool that drives people to the left or the right, as opposed to inform us from our history and let it deliver a future that is actually who we are as New Zealanders . . .  I condemn David Seymour for his using this, asking the public for money to fuel a campaign that I think really is going to divide New Zealand in a way that I haven’t lived through in my adult life. There’s been flashpoints, but I view this incredibly seriously.”

‘Equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights’
In response, David Seymour said the bill actually sought to “solve” the problem of “treating New Zealanders based on their ethnicity”.

“Te Pāti Māori acted in complete disregard for the democratic system of which they are a part during the first reading of the bill, causing disruption, and leading to suspension of the House.

“The Treaty Principles Bill commits to protecting the rights of everyone, including Māori, and upholding Treaty settlements. It commits to give equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights to every single New Zealander.

“The challenge for people who oppose this bill is to explain why they are so opposed to those basic principles.”

On Thursday, following the passing of the bill’s first reading, he said he was looking forward to seeing what New Zealanders had to say about it during the six-month select committee process.

“The select committee process will finally democratise the debate over the Treaty which has until this point been dominated by a small number of judges, senior public servants, academics, and politicians.

“Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, 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, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.

“The principles of the Treaty are not going away. Either Parliament can define them, or the courts will continue to meddle in this area of critical political and constitutional importance.

“The purpose of the Treaty Principles Bill is for Parliament to define the principles of the Treaty, provide certainty and clarity, and promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements.”

He said the bill in no way would alter or amend the Treaty itself.

“I believe all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga — the right to self-determination. That all human beings are alike in dignity. The Treaty Principles Bill would give all New Zealanders equality before the law, so that we can go forward as one people with one set of rights.”

The Hīkoi today was in Hastings, on its way to Wellington, where it is expected to arrive on Monday.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

Te Pāti Māori’s extraordinary display of protest — interrupting the first vote on the Treaty Principles Bill — has highlighted the tension in Aotearoa New Zealand between Māori tikanga, or customs, and the rules of Parliament.

When called on to cast Te Pāti Māori’s vote, its MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke instead launched into a haka, ripping a copy of the legislation in half.

She was joined by other opposition MPs and onlookers, prompting Speaker Gerry Brownlee to temporarily suspend Parliament and clear out the public gallery.

Brownlee subsequently censured Maipi-Clarke, describing her conduct as “appallingly disrespectful” and “grossly disorderly”.

Maipi-Clarke was named and suspended, barring her from voting or entering the debating chamber for a 24-hour period. She also had her pay docked.

The Ngāti Toa haka performed in Parliament was the well-known “Ka mate, Ka mate,” which tells the story of chief Te Rauparaha who was being chased by enemies and sought shelter where he hid. Once his enemies left he came out into the light.

Ngāti Toa chief executive and rangatira Helmut Modlik told RNZ the haka was relevant to the debate. He said the bill had put Māori self-determination at risk – “ka mate, ka mate” – and Māori were reclaiming that – “ka ora, ka ora”.

Haka was not governed by rules or regulation, Modlik said. It could be used as a show of challenge, support or sorrow.

“In the modern setting, all of these possibilities are there for the use of haka, but as an expression of cultural preferences, cultural power, world view, ideas, sounds, language – it’s rather compelling.”

Modlik acknowledged that Parliament operated according to its own conventions but said the “House and its rules only exist because our chiefs said it could be here”.

“If you’re going to negate . . .  the constitutional and logical basis for your House being here . . . with your legislation, then that negates your right to claim it as your own to operate as you choose.”

He argued critics were being too sensitive, akin to “complaining about the grammar being used as people are crying that the house is on fire”.

“The firemen are complaining that they weren’t orderly enough,” Modlik said. “They didn’t use the right words.”

Robust response expected
Modlik said Seymour should expect a robust response to his own passionate performance and theatre: “That’s the Pandora’s Box he’s opening”.

Following the party’s protest yesterday, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told reporters “everyone should be proud to see [the haka] in its true context.”

“We love it when the All Blacks do it, but what about when the ‘blackies’ do it?” he said.

Today, speaking to those gathered for the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti in Rotorua, Waititi said the party used “every tool available to us to use in the debates in that House”.

“One of those tools are the Māori tools we take from our kete, which is haka, which is waiata, which is pōkeka — all of those things that our tīpuna have left us. Those are natural debating tools on the marae.”

What does Parliament’s rulebook have to say?
Parliament is governed by its own set of rules known as Standing Orders and Speakers’ Rulings. They endow the Speaker with the power and responsibility to “maintain order and decorum” in the House.

The rules set out the procedures to be followed during a debate and subsequent vote. MPs are banned from using “offensive or disorderly words” or making a “personal reflection” against another member.

MPs can also be found in contempt of Parliament if they obstruct or impede the House in the performance of its functions.

Examples of contempt include assaulting, threatening or obstructing an MP, or “misconducting oneself” in the House.

Under Standing Orders, Parliament’s proceedings can be temporarily suspended “in the case of any grave disorder arising in committee”.

The Speaker may order any member “whose conduct is highly disorderly” to leave the chamber. For example, Brownlee ejected Labour MP Willie Jackson when he refused to apologise for calling Seymour a liar.

The Speaker may also “name” any member “whose conduct is grossly disorderly” and then call for MPs to vote on their suspension, as occurred in the case of Maipi-Clarke.

Members of the public gallery can also be required to leave if they interrupt proceedings or “disturb or disrupt the House”.

‘Abusing tikanga of Parliament’
Seymour has previously criticised Te Pāti Māori for abusing the “the tikanga of Parliament,” and on Thursday he called for further consequences.

“The Speaker needs to make it clear that the people of New Zealand who elect people to this Parliament have a right for their representative to be heard, not drowned out by someone doing a haka or getting in their face making shooting gestures,” Seymour said.

Former Speaker Sir Lockwood Smith told RNZ the rules existed to allow rational and sensible debate on important matters.

“Parliament makes the laws that govern all our lives, and its performance and behaviour has to be commensurate with that responsibility.

“It is not just a stoush in a pub. It is the highest court in the land and its behaviour should reflect that.”

Sir Lockwood said he respected Māori custom, but there were ways that could be expressed within the rules. He said he was also saddened by “the venom directed personally” at Seymour.

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

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

An estimated 10,000 people have marched through Rotorua today as part of Hīkoi mō te Tiriti protesting against the controversial Treaty Principles Bill.

Due to the size of the group, Fenton Street was blocked temporarily as the Hīkoi went through, police said.

It is anticipated that this afternoon the main Hīkoi will travel via Taupō to Hastings, where participants will stay overnight.

Meanwhile, in Gisborne, a smaller hīkoi of around 80 people left Te Poho-O-Rāwiri Marae this morning heading south, accompanied by several vehicles.

There have been no problems reported at any of these locations.

Hīkoi activation events have now concluded for Te Waipounamu South Island ahead of their convoy to Parliament.

Tuesday, November 19 will mark day 10 of the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti and kotahitanga o Ngā Iwi ki Waitangi Park — everyone will meet at Waitangi Park on Wellington’s waterfont before walking to the steps of the parliamentary Beehive.

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

Hīkoi treaty bill protest heads south from Rotorua. Video: RNZ News

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

With the protest hīkoi from the Far North moving through Rotorua on its way to Wellington, it might be said ACT leader David Seymour has been granted his wish of generating an “important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements”.

Timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill yesterday — it passed with a vote of 68-55, the hīkoi and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand’s fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current government’s legislative style and speed, the country “is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety”.

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Māori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties’ refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger. Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option
While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population — either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum — should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided. And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia’s Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson’s Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Māori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing: “We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered.”

The Treaty and the constitution
ACT’s bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party — then part of a Labour-led coalition government — introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was “undermining race relations in New Zealand”. However, ACT’s current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and Parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT’s bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Māori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Māori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times. If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk
Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government. In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand’s international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Māori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

Dr Alexander Gillespie is professor of law, University of Waikato and Claire Breen is professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

As thousands take to the streets this week to “honour” the country’s 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, the largest daily newspaper New Zealand Herald says the massive event is “redefining activism”.

The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti has been underway since Sunday, with thousands of New Zealanders from all communities and walks of life traversing the more than 2000 km length of the country from Cape Reinga to Bluff and converging on the capital Wellington.

The marches are challenging the coalition government Act Party’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill, introduced last week by co-leader David Seymour.

The Bill had its first reading in Parliament today as a young first time opposition Te Pāti Māori MP, Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke, was suspended for leading a haka and ripping up a copy of the Bill disrupting the vote, and opposition Labour Party’s Māori Development spokesperson Willie Jackson was also “excused” from the chamber for calling Seymour a “liar” against parliamentary rules.

After a second attempt at voting, the three coalition parties won 68-55 with all three opposition parties voting against.

In its editorial today, hours before the debate and vote, The New Zealand Herald said supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, the force behind the Hīkoi, were seeking a community “reconnection” and described their kaupapa as an “activation, not activism; empowerment, not disruption; education, not protest”.

“Many of the supporters on the Hīkoi don’t consider themselves political activists. They are mums and dads, rangatahi, professionals, Pākehā, and Tauiwi (other non-Māori ethnicities),” The Herald said.

‘Loaded, colonial language’
“Mainstream media is often accused of using ‘loaded, colonial language’ in its headlines. Supporters of Toitū te Tiriti, however, see the movement not as a political protest but as a way to reconnect with the country’s shared history and reflect on New Zealand’s obligations under Te Tiriti.

“While some will support the initiative, many Pākehā New Zealanders are responding to it with unequivocal anger; others feel discomfort about suggestions of colonial guilt or inherited privilege stemming from historical injustices.”

The Herald said that politicians like Seymour advocated for a “multicultural” New Zealand, promising equal treatment for all cultures. While this vision sounded appealing, “it glosses over the partnership outlined in Te Tiriti”.

“Seymour argues he is fighting for respect for all, but when multiculturalism is wielded as a political tool, it can obscure indigenous rights and maintain colonial dominance. For many, it’s an unsettling ideology to contemplate,” the newspaper said.

“A truly multicultural society would recognise the unique status of tangata whenua, ensuring Māori have a voice in decision-making as the indigenous people.

“However, policies framed under ‘equal rights’ often silence Māori perspectives and undermine the principles of Te Tiriti.

“Seymour’s proposed Treaty Principles Bill prioritises Crown sovereignty, diminishing the role of hapū (sub-tribes) and excluding Māori from national decision-making. Is this the ‘equality’ we seek, or is it a rebranded form of colonial control?”

Heart of the issue
The heart of the issue, said The Herald, was how “equal” was interpreted in the context of affirmative action.

“Harvard philosopher Michael Sandel argues that true equality acknowledges historical injustices and demands action to correct them. In Aotearoa, addressing the legacy of colonisation is essential,” the paper said.

“Affirmative action is not about giving an unfair advantage; it’s about levelling the playing field so everyone has equal opportunities.

“Some politicians sidestep the real work needed to honour Te Tiriti by pushing for an ‘equal’ and ‘multicultural’ society. This approach disregards Aotearoa’s unique history, where tangata whenua hold a constitutionally recognised status.

“The goal is not to create division but to fulfil a commitment made more than 180 years ago and work towards a partnership based on mutual respect. We all have a role to play in this partnership.

“The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti is more than a march; it’s a movement rooted in education, healing, and building a shared future.

“It challenges us to look beyond superficial equality and embrace a partnership where all voices are heard and the mana (authority) of tangata whenua is upheld.”

The first reading of the bill was advanced in a failed attempt to distract from the impact of the national Hikoi.

RNZ reports that more than 40 King’s Counsel lawyers say the Bill seeks to “rewrite the Treaty itself” and have called on Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and the coalition government to “act responsibly now and abandon” the draft law.

Article by AsiaPacificReport.nz

RNZ News

Thousands of people are continuing their North Island hīkoi as the legislation they are protesting against, the Treaty Principles Bill, gets its first reading in Parliament today.

The hīkoi enters day four and headed off from Huntly, destined for Rotorua today, after it advanced through Auckland Tāmaki Makaurau yesterday.

Traffic was at a standstill in Kirikiriroa Hamilton and the hīkoi has filled the road from one side to the other.

Meanwhile, members of the King’s Counsel, some of New Zealand’s most senior legal minds, say the controversial 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.

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

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