The doomed Treaty Principles Bill passed its first reading in Parliament on Thursday thanks to tepid support from the Government and in spite of vehement resistance from the Opposition.
This debate was a blockbuster for those who enjoy the theatre of politics.
Modern democracies are fairly technocratic but the system itself developed from a form of ancient Greek populism, where citizens could listen to speeches and vote for the best one.
In an ideal world, these votes would be cast based on the strength of the argument, but in reality it was often decided by how entertainingly or persuasively it was delivered.
Famously, the Greeks voted to execute Socrates — someone who is fairly well-regarded today.
Act Party leader David Seymour has staked the success of the Bill on his ability to win a public argument, in the ancient Athenian style, and cause National to cave under the pressure.
If he doesn’t succeed in this quest, the consolation prize will be a red-hot wedge issue he can use to differentiate Act from its coalition rivals in the 2026 election.
However, the debate is somewhat unusual in that it asks fundamental questions about what makes New Zealand exist, and what its citizens owe to each other. This is quite different from the usual bickering over which tax settings have the best pros-and-cons lists.
Seymour also complains regularly about media bias shutting down the debate, and so I am keen to take the arguments offered on Thursday out for a fair spin.
184 years
But first, let’s do a speed-run through history. In 1840, the British agreed to protect Māori rights and lands in exchange for being allowed to establish a government in New Zealand.
There is debate over whether Māori ceded sovereignty but, in some ways, it doesn’t matter because the British Government violated the Treaty by seizing vast amounts of land through war, targeted laws, and settler expansion — and it became sovereign, if it wasn’t already.
Te Tiriti was largely ignored until the Māori Renaissance in the 1970s led to the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal, which then began the process of financial reparations and reestablishing the Treaty’s principles in law.
The courts and lawmakers chose to extract ‘principles’ from the Treaty as a way to overcome ambiguity between the two translations and so that it could still be applied in a political system which had evolved in breach of the Treaty.
Other, more extreme, options may have been to throw out the agreement altogether, or give Māori the right to self-govern (tino rangatiratanga) as promised in 1840.
A lot of the debate comes down to whether you believe modern New Zealand should be bound by the Treaty—which recognised certain Māori rights—or whether those rights were washed away in the wars and elections that followed.
Courts abhor a vacuum
Which brings us back to Thursday, where Seymour opened by arguing the principles had never been defined in law and the courts had filled the vacuum in unsuitable ways.
“They've variously arrived at the Crown having a duty to partner with Māori, to protect Māori self-determination, to consult and redress past wrongs. What all of these principles have in common is that they afford Māori different rights from other New Zealanders,” he said.
Lawyers had interpreted the Treaty as if it were a contract, instead of trying to come up with a strong constitutional basis for a Government.
“Seeing the Treaty as a "partnership between races", as the Court of Appeal once said, does not work as a constitutional foundation for a country”.
He wants the principles to be interpreted in a way that prevents any specific Māori involvement in the governance of the country — at least beyond the regular right to vote.
The new principles proposed in the Bill are: the government has the right to govern, Māori only have unique rights when recognised in a Treaty settlement, and that everyone is equal.
While these may sound uncontroversial, critics say this interpretation would strip Te Tiriti of its relevancy and completely deprive Māori of any self-determination whatsoever.
Willie Jackson, speaking on behalf of the Labour Party, made this argument in his rebuttal, claiming the Bill was an attempt to reimagine the Treaty as something more convenient.
“This bill seeks to give Māori rights and indigenous rights to everyone, and there's no doubt that Mr Seymour wants to totally change the Treaty as we know it,” he said.
It would redefine the relationship between Māori and the Crown, replacing the “true nature” of the agreement with “misinformation” sold as democracy and equality.
Jackson then called Seymour a “liar” and was thrown out of the debating chamber for unparliamentary behaviour. And that was just the beginning of the controversies.
Conscious cohabitation
Green Party co-leader Chloe Swarbrick picked up the debate. She said the “abridged history” of New Zealand was that the British Crown promised “cohabitation” but instead used violence to establish Parliament and its institutions.
“The legacy of that violence, oppression, theft and colonisation and the breach of Te Tiriti o Waitangi is represented in today's deeply unequal and unfair statistics in people's lives”.
“The power in this place, in this Parliament, was built on a legacy of deceit, dehumanisation, and domination, and today all 123 members of Parliament will vote to either further entrench that utterly shameful legacy or to be honest and to do something about it”.
She called for Parliament to hold a conscience vote so National Party MPs could vote with the Opposition and prevent the Bill going through a select committee process.
“Are you here to hold on to power at any cost or are you here to do the right thing? Because if you wear the mask for a little while, it becomes your face,” she warned them.
Her challenge may have stung a little, as many of those on the National Party benches do oppose the Bill and may well have voted against it — if given the opportunity.
Tama Potaka, the Government’s Minister for Māori Development, even implied in an earlier debate that he had privately tried to stop the Treaty Principles Bill in caucus and at Cabinet.
Revealing what happens in caucus or Cabinet meetings is generally a sackable offence, and so to even hint at it in a public Parliamentary debate seems significant.
Simplistic, if not stupid
It was Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith who laid out the National Party’s perspective on why it wouldn’t support the Bill beyond its first reading.
Up until Thursday, this position hadn’t been well articulated. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has fielded hundreds of questions on the Bill, but usually just says it is part of the coalition agreement and that he doesn’t support it — but without really explaining why.
Goldsmith said there was a tension between honouring the commitments made to Māori in the Treaty and having a modern democratic society which emphasises equal rights.
“This is a tension that can't just be glossed over or ignored. Our proposition is that, as a nation, we should be serious in our commitment to the first but, in doing so, should be careful never to lose sight of or drift too far from the second”.
While National agreed some court rulings had drifted too far, Goldsmith said it was inappropriate for Parliament to “set down its interpretation” with a simple majority.
“This is a crude way to handle a very delicate subject. With a wave of the wand, as it were, we would unwind more than 30 years of jurisprudence; winner takes all”.
Rawiri Waititi, co-leader of Te Pati Māori, made a colourful speech which focused more on the Party’s political mission than making an argument against the Bill itself.
One argument he did make was that Parliament lacked the authority to make these changes, because its power to impose laws comes from the Treaty itself.
“The only reason this Parliament exists in Aotearoa is because our tīpuna consented to it. The only people who can make changes in an agreement are the parties who signed it: the King of England and [the chiefs of the tribes of Aotearoa]”.
This set up one of the few funny lines in the heated debate: “Now, tell me, David Seymour, which one of those are you?”
Everything is constitutional
A version of this argument was also made by a group of senior lawyers, who wrote in a letter that the proposed bill would effectively “rewrite the Treaty”.
“Even if Parliament can legislate in this way (which is uncertain), it should not do so because it is not for the Government of the day to retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties,” they wrote.
New Zealand has an informal constitution based on various laws, including te Tiriti, but there is no mechanism to enforce it. This means Parliament has the power to pass any law it likes and the system relies on MPs choosing not to break constitutional norms.
In theory, a simple majority of politicians could vote to end elections and govern indefinitely.
Labour MP Duncan Webb gave examples of laws previously passed in the NZ Parliament that would likely violate the Bill of Rights or an enforceable constitution.
The Maori Prisoners Act suspended the right to a trial for Māori who were at Parihaka, the NZ Settlements Act confiscated land after the Tainui wars, and the Native Schools Act banned the use of te reo Māori and forced assimilation.
In the years since those ugly laws were passed and abolished, Parliament had recognised that it did not have an “unfettered mandate to violate the rights of others,” Webb said.
“But this bill demonstrates that some people still think that because Parliament is sovereign, because the power exists, there's a mandate to expropriate, rewrite, and revisit. They think their power is unfettered, unbridled, and unconstrained, but it's not”.
National MP James Meager, who chairs the Justice Committee and is Māori himself, got (almost) the last word in the debate, echoing the sentiments of Goldsmith’s speech.
“The select committee process will allow everyone who wants to make a submission and have their say. But to suggest that this bill would put an end to nearly two centuries of debate is not practical, nor is it realistic,” he said.
The actual last word went to Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke who, instead of declaring Te Pati Māori’s votes, ripped up a copy of the Bill and began a haka now heard around the world.
David Seymour wanted a debate and he sure as hell got one.
220 Comments
Please only comment on the substance of this review, and do so in a considered, respectful and civil way. Comments will remain 'open' so long as that is the case. We will not tolerate racist or misogynist comment, nor talking points parroting offshore culture wars. This is a New Zealand/Aotearoa issue, and commenting must respect that.
why cant we have an adult conversation on this to clarify where we all stand and for the future going forward for all races that live in NZ. There are more than 2 races that live here and you risk of alienating them as well. As a European I believe we should have all respect Māori culture as a wonderful culture but not to isolate other New Zealanders. We can only learn from the past not change it.A sensible debate could help us heal the divisions of the past and move us forward to be a united nation and benefit us all.
The British did a deal and then reneged on it - using violence, oppression and the rest of the colonisers' toolkit to take over the country, subjugate Māori, and get rich off the stolen land. Māori were then treated appallingly for generations.
This level of injustice and hurt is not redressed with a nice adult conversation where everyone is treated as 'equals'. If someone burgled your home, killed your family, and then moved in and put your bed in the shed, would you want to sit down and have a nice chat as 'equals' about how you share the house nicely and move forward as 'one family'? And, don't think of the violence as being in the distant past (eg Lake Alice).
The last 50 years of working up the treaty principles and completing settlements has been messy but it has moved us slowly through the long process of redress.
What Seymour is trying to do is get Govt to unilaterally decide that 'this is all nonsense, just honour the settlements and let's move forward as one'. It's naive, ignorant, and his intent is not unity, it is fracture, and, in particular, to reduce the power of iwi and Māori to stand in the way of the corporate interests he represents.
Weird how you managed to read that as my point. The redress process has been running for 50 years, it might run another 50 (or whatever). I don't think compensating descendants of the people that were dispossessed, or having iwi represented on boards making decisions about the lands that were stolen from them, is an 'eye-for-eye', do you?
You mean just like what they did to the Moriori people? Came to their homes, beheaded, subjugated, enslaved, beaten, cannibalised, and murdered them so they can settle down. How about everyone makes an apology so we can move forward and treat everybody as equals knowing everyone’s ancestors did terrible things.
What makes you think democracy treats everyone equally. I suspect you may think differently if you were a minority.
I think it’s best if Maori get an equal say on the big decisions, not just biggest population wins. Who knows, one day they may be the majority and you will be pleased to get an equal say instead of none.
Hell no, it's a democracy mate everyone gets an equal say. If you are in the minority, its just too bad. I'm afraid if Māori keep going down their current path they run the risk of a massive backlash at some point. They need to smarten up and realise that the treaty is no longer doing them any good. The average New Zealander has had enough, time to move on.
The majority didn’t vote for the Act party.
What are you scared of? Do you think European rules have worked well in NZ? Land ownership, planning rules, building code, etc have caused people to be living under bridges. A better blend of Maori and European could only make NZ better.
What evidence suggests that would make it better?
What would be better is if we relinquished the crown and became our own unified people; putting each other into separate boxes based on if you had any descendants from either side and given any form of priority on one another.
I'm not familiar with Moriori history but I'm sure there was no Treaty between the Moriori and Maori, it's a Treaty that's being discussed. Edited to add, I've since read the Moriori received an apology from the Crown when their Treaty claim was finally settled in 2020. Along with an apology the settlement included an account of their history and $18 million, so the Treaty allowed them some redress.
For those that would like some insight:
https://e-tangata.co.nz/reflections/moriori-still-setting-the-record-st…
The Moriori argument made by the anti-Maori racists is very similar to Trump's argument that immigrants were eating people's pets. It's designed to try to dehumanise Maori and make it seem OK to treat them in a sub-human way.
So many similarities with what Seymour is doing and what Trump and the tea party has done in the US.
- US Gun laws - NZ car laws
- US anti-immigration - NZ anti-Maori
- US anti-science - NZ evidence-free policy
I don't even think Seymour sees the similarities, he's too dumb.
No, it’s pointing out the logical inconsistencies in requiring to redress wrong-doings in the past. The point is that no matter what ethnicity you are, your ancestors have done terrible things at some point in the bloodline. Drawing an arbitrary line in history is logically inconsistent. Are you saying that the Moriori people did not have any of those things happen to them ?
No, he's pointing out that many who still believe the methods of colonisation were good and righteous, use the Maori vs Moriori example as a means to justify their own actions.
It's the "but he done it first" to defend one's own behaviour.
This issue is still largely in part due to the Doctrine of Discovery, that declared anyone not of your "race" as non-human. It's still embedded in much of the collective consciousness hence you will hear Trump call those south of the border as not human and garbage.
You're not comprehending the point I'm getting across. No one is using the wrong-doings of Maori against the Moriori people to justify the bad things white colonists did to the Maori. Most sensible people understand two wrongs don't make a right. The point I'm getting across is if both sides ancestors perpetrated terrible violence, why is it only one side that is constantly demanding repatriations, apologies, and special treatment? at what point do we acknowledge the actions carried out in the past were beyond the control of anyone living today, and we should all move on and just live as equals in society?
Strange comment “the Maori never did any wrong”, the fought amongst themselves, killed each other, ate each other, destroyed the Giant moa !
have a sick society of the top tier of Maoriare the only ones that benefit from treaty settlements, don’t care for there poor,continue to build business that benefit the few, neglect there own people it goes on and on , it is time to stop this hipocracy!
Your comment about Moriori was obviously emotive though. One side (Maori) can ask for reparation because of the Treaty of Waitangi, the Waitangi Tribunal considers claims that the Crown breached the Treaty, it's part of what they do and why the Waitangi Tribunal was established. Is there such a thing as all living as equals in society? If we take ethnicity out of it we still have ageism and sexism for example.
It's the only reason the topic ever comes up when discussing colonisation. "But the Maori did that to the Moriori".
What repatriations or apologies are the colonists demanding?
Have we actually acknowledged or apologised for the effects of colonisation? As seen here most still deny it has had a far wider impact.
It's not about being beyond the control of anyone living today. If we're unwilling to understand cause and effect, unwilling to see that it's connected to current economic, environmental, political and societal issues, we're not going to learn well enough to have better solutions going forward.
No society in the world is equal. Any efforts at making a society equal will only ever create more division and inequality. The best that can be achieved is equality of opportunity, where ultimately attitude will dictate outcomes. Within some boundaries no Maori alive today has had less opportunity than anyone else in society.
Differentiations can be because of quality of parenting, and where you are born, but the biggest one will be the effects of government policy. for example being born and raised in Patea is not a lot of help when the opportunities are in Auckland or Wellington. But other policies favour wealth and disproportionately impose costs on low income people.
The British did a deal and then reneged on it - using violence, oppression and the rest of the colonisers' toolkit to take over the country, subjugate Māori, and get rich off the stolen land. Māori were then treated appallingly for generations.
Lol, no sh*t.. it occurred countless number of times in human history.. doesn't mean our future generations' should be punished/paying for it, not just in terms of wealth but via enduring more racial division and increase in violent crime due to a particular race "feeling" entitled to what other people "have".. only everyone is treated as 'equals' when it comes to paying the settlement to a particular race, including all the Asians who had nothing to do with the "deal".. really lucrative forever gravy train for a select few though
Good one. I was about to make the same point but you beat me to it.
Being half Asian-half Pakeha (non-Brit) myself, I find the argument rather lazy that all non-Maoris are looters/pillagers that owe reparations to Maori. We're labelled as racists for trying to question the fairness of it all.
The Irish were starved. Europeans were drenched in war. My family were marginalised as they were poor poms. Sent to war. Sent to coal mines. My nana at the age of 14 was in a munitions factory making ammo for WW1.
Most of our ancestors had it tough. Maori are the only ones that havn't moved on.
There's moving on and there's healing the past so that one or many are not unconsciously carrying it forward and continuing the cycle.
Epigenetics suggests that generational grief/trauma is a real thing. One can see it playing out everywhere in the collective. What we see on the surface can easily be attributed to the residue of the past, the effects of colonisation, conquering nations, religious and racial division.
Does it apply to Jews? Or Ismailis who suffered a series of severe repressions first under local Sunni Muslim rulers and later under the antireligious policies of the Soviet Union. Or Singapore with its heritage of being conquered and colonised and divided by ethnicity and religion?
In NZ the average Maori is less well off (money, health, lifespan) than the average Pakeha but who is average - half of the Maori's I know are very healthy multi-millionaires. Besides half my family is PI and the average PI's health and wealth on average is much the same as Maori.
Yes it does. It can apply everywhere. I'm not it is the cause of everything.
The Israeli/Palestine conflict is a mixture of many. Israel still carries fear from the holocaust. Religious persecution etc. The sheer number of wars committed in the area adds up. People's losing their customs, their roots, can create all sorts of disconnect.
Many things can be embedded in the collective consciousness and carried forward.
Epigenetics: the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself.
You are describing memory of history - not DNA. I agree with you on loss of customs and roots. And Epigenetic effects are genuine too - ref the measured medical effects on children who are the 1st and 2nd generation descendants of Dutch who were starved during WW2. But two very different processes.
Is this not the case with all races and societies throughout history, where the Maori some benevolent society that did not use violence to get what they wanted? Have we not learnt from history if we need to treat people with respect no matter what their ancestors did. Have we not learnt that forcing a culture on a people is wrong?
While undoubtedly we there has be wrongs against Maori, and other cultures like the Chinese (Yet somehow they are not at the bottom of all the statistics) in New Zealand and across the world, there has also been many advantages that have been gained as well due to the colonization of New Zealand, like health care, education, housing, water, electricity.... all of these have vastly improved their quality of life. But if you simply cherry pick the negatives of course you will come up narrative that is bad.
Ultimately we live in a democracy and the people as a whole should decide what is right and wrong for the country as a whole appointed law makers and academics. They are no more qualified than anybody else. A brief examination of history will show you that the rulers of the past are quite capable of being unethical all in the name of what they have convinced themselves is right.
All I see one side saying we should talk and the other side saying no that would be offensive, shut up. If we want to truly be a democracy we need to have these discussions even though some people will get offended.
I personally want to live in a country where people and their ideas are judged by their merit not by who's sperm or egg they came from, if that makes me racist then so be it, however I believe not believing that is what makes a person truly racist. Justify it with what ever rational you want, say its simplistic but people have being justifying ill treatment of other groups of society probably since society began. The way I see it this is just another group this time Maori (and a small group at the top not all Maori they will continue to suffer like they always have) protecting their privilege.
As for questioning the Treaty why shouldn't we change historical documents, where people in the past somehow more ethical than we are now? The question is how should we change it? Through a democratic means or people in power dictating what they think, well for the vast majority of history it was the latter and that didn't end up fair at all. I think its a fallacy that just because you are more educated you are somehow more morally qualified, what you are is more capably coming up with and articulating rationalizations.
That's just it. I'm not hearing a debate from the non-ACT folk. Just vitriol. A debate would be nice. Also a debate that included references to the actual Bill in question rather than sweeping statements about intentions, broad accusations of racism and other ah hominem attacks.
or worse, keep leaving it up to the lawyers
"Robert MacCulloch. A native of New Zealand, Robert worked at the Reserve Bank of NZ, before he travelled to the UK to complete a PhD in Economics at Oxford University. He pursued research interests at London School of Economics and Princeton University, before joining Imperial College London Business School. Robert subsequently returned to his alma mater in NZ."
Robert MacCulloch holds the Matthew S. Abel Chair of Macroeconomics at Auckland University.
https://profiles.auckland.ac.nz/r-macculloch
Actually yes, I would trust a random X commenter much more than I would trust a random lawyer not to screw me over. I am not saying all lawyers are bad, my biased based on real factual evidence view of the world is on average lawyers are worse than X users. But if you have a scientific study to show your assertion that lawyers are better please share.
Ever way X is not representative sample of New Zealand's population just like lawyers are not. Like all social media only people with strong opinions either way use it, the vast majority of people remain silent.
So no body was actually suggesting we decide using X. So nice straw-man.
I think he's really is looking for a wedge issue for 2026 election to pick up working class white votes. He needs the "blue collar" vote like Trump. A world where the "Poor" vote right wing.
Welcome to the bullsh*t modern right-wing topsy turvy world, happen elsewhere - importantly in US. In four years US will resemble Venezuela.
I think you are on to it. For Jones and Peters this is all about being in power, I genuinely believe that once out of power and retired they will admit this, in fact I think they already have. For them the ends justify the means, same with ACT - there is a voting block there for the taking so why not take it. People do far worse for power and money and they will be back on the marae saying it was all a game.
The comments are quite refreshing, good for you Jfoe. Te Tiriti is between Maori and Crown - parliament is not the Crown. This bill is going to die in 6 months, virtually no MP supports it beyond Select Committee. But a few "Bad Actors" can further their interests out it.
The problem as I see it isnt whether Maori in 1840 ceded sovereignty (approx 100,000 Maori v 2000 settlers at the time) nor is there any serious dispute that they were robbed of much of their land in various ways, the question is how can the Principles of the Treaty (should agreement on what those principles are be established) be accommodated in a representative democracy?
The practicalities of which seem to me to be incompatible.
If Parliament is sovereign and its members are elected by popular vote then there is nothing to prevent any political grouping with a house majority from revoking any legislation, not to mention the issues of taxation , law and state provision of services should some form of autonomy be manufactured....and what form would that autonomy take?
Seymour has done one thing that is positive, he has forced us to consider these issues, unlike Labour who wanted to impose a predetermined 'solution' on the quiet without any understanding by the general population of the practicalities.....and that was unlikely to be successful.
It is difficult to base a 'constitution' on a document thats content is neither widely understood nor agreed upon....there is a lot of work to be done before we could reach such a point.
"The constitution of the United Kingdom comprises the written and unwritten arrangements that establish the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as a political body. Unlike in most countries, no official attempt has been made to codify such arrangements into a single document, thus it is known as an uncodified constitution. This enables the constitution to be easily changed as no provisions are formally entrenched.[2]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom
That it is complex is beyond doubt but if we are seeking to formalise a constitution then we best create one that the citizenry support, especially if it is to lose the flexibility that being informal provides....you will note the Parliamentary sovereignty of the uncodified UK constitution.
That is the work I speak of
Agree. The informality can be a strength. The key of for the institutions that the informality lies on need to adhere to the agreed but unwritten norms.
Maybe the solution is to have a ridiculously high bar for a written constitution to pass. For it to pass, 80% of the population must partake in the referendum and over 90% need to support.
Pretty much as the articles (no principles) of the original ToW then.
As Sir Apirana Ngata confirmed a century ago
https://ndhadeliver.natlib.govt.nz/webarchive/20210104000423/http://nze…
...before the self serving reinventions of the last 50 years
The Treaty Principles Bill has almost become a side issue here. The main issue now is that we have parties and groups who are not even prepared to enter into conversation if it doesn't suit them, and will in fact aggressively oppose.
How are we ever going to move forward if we can't even communicate and discuss things! To many have been incentivised to behave in such ways and this has driven us further down a path of division and uncertainty.
You aren’t married I assume? Some arguments are better not being had.
My limited knowledge of the treaty is that it is similar to the American constitution; the government can’t really change it and the court determines what it means. So why stir up hatred for no reason?
Act are opposed to wasteful spending, but this seems like the worst case of it.
It's exactly the same as the flag debate. A smokescreen.
But this smokescreen is a nasty one that seeks to achieve further racial & social division, while appealing to ignorance and bigotry.
Luxon has demonstrated that he is neither a leader, nor a negotiator. The National Party should be hanging their heads in shame and looking for a new head that isn't so keen on wasting taxpayer's money while diverting MPs time and attention from the jobs they should be doing.
Jimbo
You make a link between the Treaty and the US Constitution . . . . probably because both of which are now often considered founding documents.
Its worth noting that the US Constitution involved widespread consultation over a period of 5 years and 9 months and was discussed and written in a single language. The Treaty on the other hand was written in a matter of a few days by a small group of three or four people, and then translated by Henry Williams, an Englishman, overnight into a document for which there was no written language.
You compare the two documents; one that was widely discussed over five years, widely consulted upon over a long period and in one language but needing 27 amendments, with one that was discussed in just a matter of a few days amongst a very small group and involving two languages yet is considered sacrosanct to be now discussed . . . and the discussion is certainly far from cancelling the original document.
So, you don’t want open discussion as you have some unspecified people who are more knowledgeable than you and I. A pretty dangerous situation in a democracy if we simply can’t have open discussion because there are more knowledgeable people and there is not opportunity for them to present that. WOW!
Please list the people who are sufficiently knowledgeable to have an opinion on the subject. And indicate which are Maori, Pakeha, neither of those.
Would it make sense to put them into a second chamber rather like the old House of Lords (obviously with no inheritance).
The US government has to approve changes to the US constitution, not the courts.
It was specifically designed that way to make sure changes were subject to democratic process and were not the product of authoritarianism or activism.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_amendments_to_the_Constitution_of…
So you are controlled by your wife are you? And yes I am married for 20 years, some conversations are but are most important conversations are worth having. A strategy that people use to control you is to go emotional and therefor shut down any rational thought what soever. That is the exact same strategy the Maori Party is using.
The direction of New Zealand and what are the rights of its citizens are is one of the most important if not the most important conversations we should be having. To me much more important than a few extra dollars in tax.
Is according special rights and privileges to one group of humans over another group of humans based on ethnicity ever a good idea in a healthy society?
Personally, I’d prefer opportunities be made available to humans to get ahead to be based on disadvantage, such as poverty for example. Not ethnicity.
Granted, disadvantage affects Maori at a higher rate due to the effects of colinisation, as seen in other indigenous groups worldwide.
However providing preferential treatment to all Maori based on ethnicity rather than need is as ridiculous as providing superannuation to all pensioners, despite some pensioners being very, very wealthy.
Should we never question the treaty? Is that the genuine viewpoint of some here? Does the relentless arrow of time not in fact change the context of the argument?
Or are some people’s professional position perhaps simply threatened by such a conversation?
The American’s right to bear arms written into their constitution is being questioned and fiercely debated in the 21st century and it is justifiable given changed circumstances, is it not? Can we not in New Zealand debate actions taken in the past that may be questionable in today’s context?
Discussing such issues does not mean I wish any New Zealander - including Maori - to be further disadvantaged. On the contrary, I want my country and all its habitants to thrive.
I am however very concerned at the divisiveness, growing resentment due to privileges being granted based on race and the inability for a civil conversation to take place due to being hollered at and accused of racism.
"according special rights and privileges to one group of humans over another group of humans based on ethnicity ever a good idea in a healthy society?"
So, I don't think 'special rights and privileges' is the right way to frame it. The Treaty is essentially a contract. If you and I have a contract with each other, and the terms of that contract specifically that I owe you certain things, and I give those things to you but don't give them to your neighbour with whom I don't have a contract, it would seem odd to say that I am according you 'special rights and privileges'. It's not some kind of special privilege to expect to get the terms of a contract met. Everyone has that right. And groups -the kinds of groups that persist across time and are made up of different people at different times, like companies - also have that right. Iwi are essentially a bit like a company in that respect - a party to a contract that's not one individual person, but a group that persists across time and is made up of different people at different times.
Exactly! It's hilarious when people white Westerners (like myself) don't understand the treaty is a contract. Those same people would die on a hillside in order to honour and uphold contracts and the legal framework that underpins their enforcement. But as soon as it comes to this countries original contract... nah, we don't want to honour it. We will throw it out and replace it with a Western philosophy of fairness...
Laughably hypocritical.
The treaty is a 3 paragraph contract, that has had a bunch of people reinterpreting it throughout history, even though I don't think people 180 years later should have to bound that contract at least not one that cannot be changed over time. That is not what David Seymore is even saying, what he is saying is we need to have a democratic discussion of what the interpretation of that contract is.
You are putting words in peoples mouths by saying "people would die on a hillside in order to honour and uphold contracts" who are these people? I would actually say most people would like to see any contract that is unfair overturned. Would you support a contract with a person who sold themselves and their children into slavery, I should hope not? There are plenty of contracts that should be overturned based on fairness.
The law and courts overturns contracts all the time if they are deemed to be unfair. I actually think one of the big problems of society today is large companies force people into unfair contracts all the time because they really have no choice, I would like to see more of them overturned.
If I have hire some person for $1 a day to work just see how fast that contract would be overturned based fairness (or a law who's concept is fairness). If the principals are fair or not is another matter, that should be discussed.
That is not what David Seymore is even saying, what he is saying is we need to have a democratic discussion of what the interpretation of that contract is
Right, but this is a weird thing to say. It's not usually the case that when there is a dispute about a contract, we have a democratic discussion about what the correct interpretation is. A dispute about a contract is a legal dispute, so that's why we have the Waitangi Tribunal, whose purpose is to provide a legal process for investigating claims.
Also, it's not that strange for contracts to continue to hold over a long period of time. It would be weird for a contract to bind a future individual - I agree with that. But the treaty isn't a contract between individuals. It's a contract between the Crown and Iwi. It's a bit like if you started a company, and you signed a contract with another company. Then you die and your kids take over the company. The same happens with the other company. The contract between companies isn't just null and void because there are different individual people involved than the individual people who signed the contract in the first place.
The law and courts overturns contracts all the time if they are deemed to be unfair
That's right! That's what's happening and has for decades. But now, we want to "have a conversation" but Seymour gets to define the very terms of that conversation is bound within. That's not how reinterpreting something works. You don't say "Hey you sold your children into slavery and we want to over turn that contract, so we will start with saying that slavery is great and should continue, that's the boundaries that the discussion must continue within"
You get experts in the field, to interpret the legislation. That's not you, me, David Seymour and MOST CERTAINLY NOT the general public of NZ to decide in a referendum as it would simply pit white against brown and cause massive division. The experts in the field are the lawyers, academics, historians etc that form the Waitangi Tribunal. That process should simply continue.
Shipley is right, we head down that path, we are inviting civil war. That's not a country I want to be in.
I agree with much of your post.
However, you too indicate you really don't understand the Treaty either when you say, "However providing preferential treatment to all Maori ...."
The Treaty does no such thing.
(And people arguing that it does - as I expect any replying to this comment will argue - likewise will demonstrate what we really need is a "Treaty Principles Education Bill".)
I think Seymour's argument is that the courts apply the principles of the Treaty to give preference to Māori in some situations.
Going back to the point about contract law and intent - the intent of the Treaty was twofold:
1. Ensure the British government could gain control (and I believe the use of "kawanatanga", a transliteration of Governorship, was deliberate to ensure the rangatira signed - this was bad faith)
2. Reassure the rangatira that by signing the Treaty and giving the British government control, they were not going to be disadvantaged in any way, i.e. that they and their people would have an equal say, and be treated the same as the Britishers.
On the basis of 2, the rangatira agreed to 1. The Crown then reneged on the promises, stole land and treated Māori badly. The Treaty settlements process is aimed at acknowledging and providing redress for those breaches, to ensure point 2 is brought back to life.
Once the redress process is completed, the Treaty will have less significance than now - it will still be valid and important, but only when the actions of the Crown call into question point 2. In a liberal democracy where everyone has an equal say, breaching 2 is practically impossible. When was the last time the Crown stole land or suppressed Māori culture, for example? Bastion Point in the 1970s?
My reading of the Bill is that it wants to uphold the settlement process, and codify point 2 above. That seems fair to me.
> Is according special rights and privileges to one group of humans over another group of humans based on ethnicity ever a good idea in a healthy society?
You mean like how citizenship affords special rights and privileges to citizens of a country over everyone else in the world? Most countries think this is healthy.
OK, lets look at a scenario where Maori agree that they are OK with the Treaty being replaced by a piece of statute BUT on the condition that as part of that agreement to change the contract all private property rights were extinguished and all land was held in common as was custom before European's arrived.
Would you be comfortable with all private property rights being rescinded and turned over to the government.
Yes. It is a great idea. Singapore has most of its population living leasehold with the govt the land owner. Capitalism is great (just look where the alternative has been tried) but at heart it is supply and demand so only applies where supply can be increased to match demand. In other words all land should be communal.
I cant see what's wrong with Acts treaties principles bill, essentially they are proposing
- The Crown has the right to govern.
- New Zealanders' rights will be protected – including those of iwi.
- We all have equal rights.
Sounds better than the mess the courts / expensive lawyers have conjured up in the last 50 years. You cant run a country with different rules for different races. It wont work, has never worked in history. Quite the opposite.
We should all as a country be allowed to have a democratic vote on it.
The treaty was and is an agreement completed by 2 parties. If change is required then both parties need to agree. Seymour and his backers will say and do anything to get into, and remain in power. His creation of this division with in our country, has me concerned as to what his and his backers real motive is.
Which agreement? The English version or the version poorly translated into Maori? Hence the long overdue need for a Treaty Principles Act.
A great opportunity for Maori to further formalize their rights, upholding the Treaty's promises and removing any ambiguity/misinterpretation from both sides.
But the bill doesn't do this. Its very statement that everyone is treated equally before the law, rewrites the treaty, i.e. the contract, on its very first page. And it does so without the permission of one of the treaty participants.
If Seymour was reaaaally interested, then he would have reached out to the law makers and Maori tribes to come and form some sort of constitutional document that includes all of the rights of the treaty. But he didn't, instead he just used his limited power to try and cause division. He isn't stupid, he knew what this would do.
What does Article 3 of the Treaty say and mean Blobbles?
Most of this debate talks only about Articles 1 and 2. None of this debate can happen without considering Article 3.
I have heard some say the Treaty can't be renegotiated, and in the next breath they say that Article 3 must be dropped. Is that in itself a re-negotiation, as no changes can be made without agreement from both sides?
The treaty principles bill isn’t changing the treaty, it’s changing the dubious re interpretation of it over the past 50 years. Secondly, With scenes like the intimidating haka breaking out in NZ parliament and suspension, we are fast becoming a laughing stock around the world.
Can you explain how giving special benefits (eg Parliamentary seats, academic entry quota, local authorities powers, priority medical treatment) based on criteria such as race to any specific group doesn't reduce the rights of other citizens.
'When people get used to preferential treatment, equal treatment seems like discrimination.'
Thomas Sowell
Is this really an issue for you? Maori are at the bottom of pretty much any meaningful social development statistic you care to name. We want Maori into the workforce and out of the criminal justice system, we want positive role models. We don't complain about gender quotas in business. Maori need a helping hand up, they are generally rural based and access to tertiary education is by and large much harder as a result.
My family have been in NZ over 160 years, early generations lived & worked in rural areas. After leaving school at 16 & working ~15 years in factories alongside Maori, Pacifica & many other ethnicities, raising a family & buying a home: in my 30s I was the first to go to university (alongside Maori, Pacifica & many other ethnicities). The first time I received any Govt support was when I qualified for NZSuper.
Its nothing to do with race.
I get tired of being told things like Maori have a 'special' connection with the land. Or you don't understand because you're not Maori (i.e you need race blood to 'get it')
I do not wish to disrespect anyone's connection or beliefs, however for many NZ has our own spiritual places and connections.
This 'I'm special because I'm Maori' suggests non Maori are less so. Such comments are alienating, divisive, and offensive.
Wheel out all the academics you like, take over msm with a narrative, however the general populace is getting tired of it.
Also add rosuvastatin. A statin that Cardiologists requested access to (PHARMAC funding) at a national cardiac meeting (CSANZ) approx 7 yrs ago. IIRC it was one of 5 defined medicines. Access is easier for Maori and Pacific peoples by virtue of the Special Authority criteria.
Doctors are always eager to prescribe statins so I would have thought these drugs were easy to access for most people. Personally, I wouldn't take them unless I had high triglyceride levels. Herein lies a bit of a problem when you have different rules for different ethnicities when it comes to drugs. What if the medical establishment gets it wrong about a drug? It's better that a drug be prescribed for anyone who needs it. Of course, people can choose whether or not to take certain medicines.
It is a conundrum. I personally gravitate toward having different treatment regimes for different ethnicities as people are different for a multitude of reasons and certain problems cannot realistically be overcome through sheer willpower or applying libertarian principles. Many health issues stem from lifestyles shaped by history and we know lifestyles are common to certain ethnicities otherwise the term ethnicity wouldn't have much meaning. Yet such a path is fraught with danger. Road to hell, good intentions and all that..
Access to certain medicines and medical testing is occasionally based on ethnicity and is done so for good reason. My wife belongs to an ethnicity that is more prone to a disease so it makes sense to offer her testing at 40 whereas for the average Kiwi it is 50. This privilege merely gives her an equality of survival - a fair go.
Was that not the intent of prominent Maori in 1876 when they petitioned the crown to amend the Native Schools Act 1867?
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1876-I.2.2.6.4
We desire that "The Native Schools Act, 1867," should be amended to this effect:—Let there be two classes of schools. First,for all childrenknowing only their own Maoritongue,also having aknowledge of all Maori customs. These should be taught to read in Maori, to write in Maori, and arithmetic. Second, all children of two years old, when they are just able to speak, should be taught the English language, and all the knowledge which you the Europeans possess. If this plain and easy course be followed, our children will soon attain to the acquirements of the Europeans
And the entire colonization, formation of government, and settlement of NZ was based entirely on giving privileges, benefits, entitlements and power to one ethnicity. Now many believe that giving entitlement and privileges to another will take away their own privileges.
The pendulum swings until balance is found. In order to redress past imbalances the pendulum may have swung too far. Power imbalances abound everywhere. People/groups fighting to hold onto power and others fighting for more empowerment. There are those willing to see and those who don't want to see.
Of course they can stand but they can't vote so yes, I actually think that the Maori sets initially where actually a way of gerrymandering in favor non Maori, however since the introduction of MMP they are unnecessary and because of the 5% rule and allowing overflows where proportionality is broken they are now disproportionately favor Maori voters.
Here's Chris Finlayson KC talking about Maori special rights. https://youtu.be/Srlv21qAA_I?si=HBEsDMjZMA0i2mZ_ at 1:20.
I think he's winning in terms of being a lone voice standing strong in the face of threats, rage and hypocrisy. He's showing his mettle and I'm impressed. I don't agree with his economics. But he's right that all people should have equal rights, and that some shouldn't have special rights based on their race or any other aspect of their identity.
I'm a lefty that won't be voting left next time.
I'm with Jfoe on this one. The goal of Seymour is not unification, he wants to carve out a bigger section of the "triggered right" that is still seething from the last government. He's very clever.
I'm running out of political parties I don't intensely dislike. Time to abstain, I think.
I wonder how this may play out into the future, now this conversation has started where will it finish. Davids points to this with other political debates like this, that did not pass when first introduced to parliament and eventually overtime were reintroduced to the house and passed into law.
I wonder how will play out well into the future for Maori, their success commercially both Private and their tribal held assets, in our communities and nationally as leaders on the sports fields where they are over represented. Is something we should celebrate.
When this debate comes back to parliament in the future, I wonder as this success is recognised and celebrated if the preferential tax rates and privileges Maori enjoy will also become apart of the debate.
Maybe the protesters should be calling for a public referendum now on the current bill.
"Maybe the protesters should be calling for a public referendum now on the current bill."
A referendum that weakened the Treaty would remove one of the major challenges that the billionaires face in the eventual takeover of NZ.
Do we want to live in a country like America where billionaires openly control the government?
Firstly I dont really know why everyone is in a fuss about a bill that will end up in the rubbish bin . Secondly I actually thought NZers were actually making solid progressive moves with the treaty. I actually favor Maori having a say on local councils and in parliament because much of what is mentioned rounds off who we actually are as Kiwi's . I am glad we are not subject to the violence that Northern Ireland experienced nor the isolation of res life that many other indigenous persons experience. We have the world watching and should consider the validity of any bill before we let it slide through for further consideration . Bashing each other will get us nowhere...lol
But will it end up in the bin? From the latest Curia poll - https://thefacts.nz/21-voters-still-support-the-reworded-treaty-princip…
Realpolitik would suggest it's not going to go away, will become an ongoing issue, and if nothing else, ACT are persistent.
I'd agree with you about local Maori representation as necessary, provided it's democratically elected rather than appointees from political organisations. We have that situation in Dunedin with Iwi representatives with voting rights on council sub-committees.
Golem your situation in Dunedin with Iwi reps having voting rights is now wide spread and it very much undermines local democracy which isnt in great shape anyway.
and a number of the representatives have very vested interests in the outcome of votes but that vested interest is ofetn ignored in the interest of maintaining good relations with local tribes. Wellington's recent plan process is instructive as is Ngai Tahu representation on the regional council when they are a very large land owner and business operator in the South Island. If another large company - say Meridian or Infratil - sat on these committees the locals would rightly be complaining loudly
This arrangement also often ignores that many Maori in a region are not actually part of the local tribe so dont actually benefit from the arrangement but are used to make up the numbers when attempting to justify why such nondemocratic arrangements should be supported
Just another reason (undermining democracy) why the bill is very important
Why can we not just scrap the whole Treaty ? The white people here are living without it. There is one law already for New Zealanders, why not just scrap it and were are all viewed as equals ? Reminds me of the "Black Lives Matter" when someone said its "all lives matter" and they got upset.
LOL not even the same thing. Lets imagine the American Indians drew up something totally different all that time ago can you just imagine how well that would be working out right now ? There is only one equal mate and yes pretty much everyone in this country lives like Europeans do now because the other option would be still living in grass huts chucking spears at one another. Māori need to wake up and look about, none of this existed back when the Treaty was signed, stop making excuses and looking for someone else to blame. New Zealand is for everyone now, time to move on.
wow so uneducated, the maori had all sort of industry in the waikato , flour mills, farming ,shipping before they had all that confiscated by invading British troops. They had some very smart leaders and even invented trench warfare (tauranga) way before the first world war which the British did not learn from
there is no way NZ can afford to recompense for the breaking of the treaty but at least the settlements have gone some way to redress and some of the tribes are now becoming very well off and powerful (which scares a lot of people)
Maori farmers prospered, particularly in the Waikato, Bay of Plenty and around Auckland. In the 1850s and 1860s Auckland relied on produce grown and supplied by Maori farmers to survive. Waikato tribes grew wheat, potatoes, maize and kumara for local and overseas markets as well as owned and operated flour mills and shipping
This ACT law is feeding into myths and racism and is all about votes not what is good for the country,
The settler colonies: New Zealand - UK Parliament
Treaty of Waitangi
Following this advice in 1840 the consul in New Zealand, William Hobson, signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Maori chiefs, which assured them of the Crown's protection of their lands and rights. He then annexed the islands to Britain, in order to enforce Crown control over the British settlers there.
The treaty did not work and conflict between settlers and Maoris over land increased in the second half of the century.
To summarise your comment:
1. Treaty declaring equality; both sides prospered
2. Twenty years later the UK controlled govt representing a number of Pakeha landowners unilaterally decided equality was wrong and they could take land and wealth from Maori - and of course Maori suffered
3. Another hundred years passed and then that govt realised it had done wrong and not given everyone and specifically Maori a fair go. It also started a long term process to return what had been stolen and provide compensation.
4. 1975 lawyers (of which ethnicity?) decided the treaty didn't declare equality and that Maori needed a sloping playing field to balance past wrongs.
So currently we have some feeling aggrieved on both sides and leaders exploiting it - it is easier to gain power by stoking grievances than making proposals about how to finance a health service, subsidize public transport, provide protection from extreme weather events, etc.
It does seem to this recent arrival that it would be best to return to stage 1 because what we have now will increasingly build resentments whether ACT withdraw their bill or not.
I'm not up to answering the first question. In regards to tribal leaders being classified as war criminals today, the definition of a war criminal is a person who has violated international rules of wars, such as intentionally killing civilians. As such, I'd argue some British soldiers involved in the land wars in the Waikato could also be war criminals. As an example, Rangiaowhia in the Waikato was a place of refuge for women, children and the elderly. “Tainui has never forgotten things like the atrocities that were committed against their women and children at Rangiaowhia. Those memories have been carried on down through the generations. They’ve even been reflected in the names people are given. For example, a common name for many women in Tainui was Mamae, or pain, across many generations to carry the remembrance of those events." (Thanks sharetrader, your comment above has led me to be a bit more informed).
Leaving the interpretation of the treaty principles in the hands of the judiciary and the legal profession has, I think, created a perception that the principles have become a movable feast as they are endlessly reexamined by a technocracy that is at a remove from democratic process.
Without some kind of clarity and certainty around what those principles are, that process will continue and there is an anxiety that we will lose the ability to function, let alone prosper, in the face of uncertainty and changes being made in ways that conflict with representative democracy.
There has been a hostile, very personal response to what appears to be a quest for certainty, that is aimed at denying the legitimacy of any kind of discussion, rather than engaging with the issues raised.
It looks like a political class and technocracy defending their position.
It is not a perception that the principles are a moving feast it is the reality and the courts and a few civil servants have been at the forefront
For example
There are plenty of arguments that including Tikanga in NZ law is a very bad idea. Ditto the concept of Partnership.
For the civil service making law go read the information on the bill of rights on the Ministry of Justice website where self determination is a noted inclusion
Never mind the hidden Te Puapua report being slowly rolled out
This is also my perspective, at the most simple level.
I've long believed that truth is largely irrelevant in politics, all that matters is perception. I don't necessarily like that, in the way that I don't necessarily like ageing but there's no point in fighting the immutable laws of the universe.
For many Kiwis the perception - whether this matches the reality - is that the Treaty (or at least the interpretation thereof in terms of how it impacts day-to-day life, legal structures etc) has become the "moving feast' you describe, with the Treaty's principles being able to be contorted to achieve any kind of outcome.
There is the perception of a 'cabal' of typically Pakeha elites in academia, politics, law, public service management etc who appear to be in cahoots with Maori interests.
This, as you rightly point out, causes anxiety amongst a great many of those who don't stand to benefit (non-Maori, not in a position to benefit from the 'industry' that surrounds the Treaty and its interpretation)
I think most people who support the basic principle of the Treaty Principles bill - whether they like Seymour/ACT or the exact wording of it - simply want to understand:
- What does the 'end state' of redressing the wrongs of the past look like?
- What is an openly debated/decided set of rules for how society will function within the context of the Treaty (as opposed to the aforementioned perception that the Treaty's principles can constantly be re-interpreted to mean whatever various seemingly vested interests want it to mean)
Exactly.
Until that perception is addressed and eliminated (and this problem will not be solved by ridiculing anybody who airs it, or behaving in a threatening manner) the problem will just fester away and even though the bill will fail because National won't support it - unless Luxon happens to be a lot more Machiavellian than he lets on and is keeping it up his sleeve if needed as polling seems to indicate it is well-supported - the issue will not go away and I suspect Seymour is more interested in using it as a crutch to build future support.
I don't know if I really support Seymour and his bill the way it is written, but the principle of it - that we need to have a clear set of rules that aren't able to be changed, not subject to the whimsical interpretations of a bunch of people who seem incentivized to interpret a certain way - seems reasonable to me if we are interested in moving NZ society forward.
Or it needs to be out in the open that, in fact, in order to redress the wrongs of the past and make NZ society better the Treaty can and will be constantly re-interpreted however the perceived elite (Maori or not) like and if you're not happy about it, then pack your bags or otherwise live with the consequences.
That would actually be preferable to the current status quo which comes across to the everyday Joe (who doesn't stand to gain anything but in fact perceives the risk of loss) of being a slowly boiled frog in the pot who is told - despite his perceptions of boiling - that nothing untoward is happening.
"
In 1840, the British agreed to protect Māori rights and lands in exchange for being allowed to establish a government in New Zealand.
There is debate over whether Māori ceded sovereignty but, in some ways, it doesn’t matter because the British Government violated the Treaty by seizing vast amounts of land through war, targeted laws, and settler expansion — and it became sovereign, if it wasn’t already.
Te Tiriti was largely ignored until ... in the 1970s".
So figure that out and we may make some progress.
Just out of curiosity, how was life for Maori in the decades leading up to "Te Tiriti was largely ignored until ... in the 1970s". Did people live in better harmony before the treaty was brought to front and center in the 70s? Can anybody reveal this for interests sake?
I was born in Hawkes Bay, towards the coast many Maori live in poverty, Maori worked on farms, they did not own them. Ballots and after war Parkeha controlled the land. I attended a rural town high school, 800 role, yet only 33 in my 7th form, most left early, only 4 Maori in my 7th form.
On the surface I think their was little vocal noise (no social media) but underneath IMHO Maori had a tough deal.
The way out was a good education and valuing it.
Pita Sharples went to the same primary school as I did and secondary school and spoke at my leaving.
Maori business was shearing gangs not commerce.
Read into these views what you will.
More non Maori worked on farms than owned them too.
More non Maori are at the bottom of the socio group than at the top.
The land grab may have favoured a few, but certainly did not favour the bulk of us.
This generalisation is what is wrong here.
But hey...lets make it a race issue and not a tax or other policy issue.
A discussion worth listening to. (45 mins)
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/mapuna/audio/2018962920/maori…
I heard this in 2000 remember ? we were going to turn the page way back then but its still dragging on and if anything its getting worse. I don't remember any of this stuff in the 70's and 80's, people just got on with life, now everyone is bitching and moaning that some how they are missing out and I'm not talking about just the Māori's.
the biggest claim and area northland have not settled, and they were one of the wealthiest of areas before they had their land and businesses confiscated, now they are one of the poorest areas of NZ it is a Long way from being settled as they have been offered cents on the dollar, and they now have younger more educated leaders at the table so are less likely to bend over and take it
As a white European, I want our culture to have a special place in NZ too. If we remove all race and culture from law, what happens if another race becomes the majority? Would we be happy with a NZ that only speaks Mandarin for example?
Imagine if English was no longer the official language of England. Would you say “fair enough majority wins”, or do you think some form of culture and identity should be enshrined in a constitution?
If prominent white Europeans submitted a petition to ban the teaching of English in schools to under 2's, with the intent to assimilate with the Chinese speaking Mandarin?
Because that's essentially what Maori did to themselves in 1876. Sure, it's tragic, but let's not misdirect blame.
https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/parliamentary/AJHR1876-I.2.2.6.4
The last thing a constitution needs to do is enshrine any kind of fixed end point like cultural identity.
Durable constitutions are a means to an end of facilitating a society's just functioning, while also creating a just path for evolution that provides stability by avoiding privileging a notional past, special interests, or ignoring the wishes of a majority, without whose support it will fail.
And, in a hundred years, what would happen if the majority spoken-at-home language was Hindi, Mandarin or Spanish? As societies we have to adapt to realities, not desires or nostalgia, to survive.
One of the things that still staggers me when I hear people talk about 'the Treaty', and all that has come after it, is how little they actually know about it.
The ACT Party seems to be addressing this ignorance with something so 'simple' that all Kiwis will understand it. The issue, of course, is that something that simple leaves huge gaps due to the total absence of detail and/or process. It would be an appalling bit of legislation. As all legislation written for a 5 year old always is.
Now - if they ACT Party had introduced a similarly named bill - let's call it the "Treaty Principles Education Bill" - we'd not be wasting time with this.
(Just as an aside - I encourage people to keep up with what the 3-headed monster is really doing behind this smokescreen. "Unseemly" would be a mild description. "Corrupt" could be another.)
The simple thing would be to scrap it and put the whole thing in the bin, not try and rewrite bits of it or try to modernise it. For some reason Māori don't think they can live without it, probably because its an exclusive club looking for an opportunity for the next free government handout.
"Some purchased ..." One should note that most Maori at that time couldn't comprehend how a person could 'own' land. So many "purchases" could be argued as null and void as one party had no idea what the 'sale and purchase' contract meant. No different to what happened to the American Indians and many other ethnic groups worldwide.
What Maori did differently was collectively agree to a over-arching 'contract'. That collective agreement has prevented them getting right royally stiffed. (They just got stiffed in a lesser way.) And now they can use that collective agreement redress wrongs. And that process is not much different to how 'mericans use their constitution. Clever them.
So then it was never "their" land to begin with. They were guardians or custodians of the land, and were relieved of their duties when land entered into private ownership.
If we're going to go down the track of Maori comprehension, then one could make a strong argument that the Treaty should also become null and void.
Don't underestimate past Maori. They were a sophisticated society not dramatically different to Europeans at first contact - the big difference was technology. In PNG you can meet people whose grandparents were alive when the modern world arrived in the 1950s. PNG has 800 languages and understanding who has control of which piece of land in embedded in all of them (except for a miniscule number of hunter gatherers, if any remain). The PNG govt does buy land to build hospitals, schools and roads.
How could Maori have had those musket wars if they weren't totally clear about ownership of land.
This bill was never going to go through. Everyone knows that. A lot will be taking note of David Seymour’s stance on the Treaty of Waitangi. I sense next election ACT will get more votes based off this. I believe it’s time to move on as a nation. Equal rights for all.
Seymour cannot lose, because the intention is to have the discussion.
I will submit to the select committee on the lines as above. "...The new principles proposed in the Bill are: the government has the right to govern, Māori only have unique rights when recognised in a Treaty settlement, and that everyone is equal...."
We must be equal, but we don't have to be the same.
I have been thinking of the NZ First position. " There are no principles". Which actually honours the treaty.
This all does seem rather complicated.
Maybe the best idea is to just acknowledge the Treaty is not perfect and just all agree to cancel it.
All land and sovereignty reverts to the people who can trace their decendence to the people who were here before the European's arrived and let them set up the type of government they want. Start fresh.
Democracy in action.
Nope you don't start a fresh by going back hundreds of years, that's what is causing all the current problems. You have a decent debate without being called a racist the second you don't side with the Māori view and have the likes of a referendum on the subject, draw a line and move into the future with one people, one law. I'm pretty sure I know which way it would go if everyone took a vote on it.
Surely you go back to the date the contract in dispute was signed. If the Treaty is void then all subsequent agreements that were based on the faulty contract were also void. Standard approach isn't it?
I feel the original people are being very patient with all the illegal immigrants that have arrived since the Treaty was signed. Especially as all the immigrants have actually literally eaten all the seafood.
The treaty is not a constitution. The principles of the ToW are mentioned in The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 wherein it refers to the principles of the treaty. There is no schedule, list or definitions of the principles of the treaty.
Because there are no definitions or list of the principles I view it as grist for the lawyer class and snouts in the trough of the grievance industry as principles may then be established by case law. Principles, if any, should preferably be codified. I wonder if those KCs who signed a document about the proposed Bill make a great deal of money if the Bill is not furthered in years to come.
Land confiscation by the Crown. This confiscation is little different from one Maori tribe confiscating another Maori tribe's lands by war and is very likely to have continued between Maori with no ToW. At least there has been some redress through the Waitangi Tribunal.
As far as I'm concerned there is no co-governence or power sharing implied. Parliament can change the law and Act's (the political party) Bill starts the process off. It's been nearly 50 years since the original Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. There have of course been amendments over time.
I'd suggest other than DS, Winston and possibly Shane Jones no other MP, including any Minister of Maori Affairs has read the Act in the last five years. I also strongly suspect there is a lack of knowledge by ministers of any Acts under their portfolio. They rely too heavily on the civil service for advice.
I consider NZ's founding document to be The charter of the New Zealand Company, the treaty was a hastily written and signed attempt to stop a potential Maori genocide at the hand of settlers. Despite all the breaches, the treaty has fulfilled its purpose, Maori people and culture is mostly preserved, some history is lost, some land is held in legal quagmires, but overall it has served it's purpose, even if redress was belated.
Updating Dan.
1. Sovereignty was clearly agreed.https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/dr-lawrie-knight-fact-checking…
2. The Treaty was not ignored. We have had the government as described in the Treaty for 180 years. Done a passable job in difficult circumstances even if we squabble about that a bit. Prevented the Maori citizens from exterminating each other. Etc
Hard to know if he's "winning". Fair to say he's got everyone's attention. Camps will form. Think division of society COVID -19 style, rinse the repeat!. Once again the MSM has picked it's side, interviews ex-polis ( who have made a small fortune facilitating ToW claims) and the contrary arguments shall be deemed spawn of racists. Ahhh...it will be a great demonstration of democracy regardless.
Firstly I'm disappointed in the article. I found it to be shallow and perhaps self serving.
I have listened to David Seymour explain why he wants this bill. He does want the debate, but does not want to divide, although I think he understands that the emotional response will cause division.
Historically The British offered Maori a Treaty that contained concepts that it is likely they did not understand because they were not a part of their culture (sovereignty). The Tinorangatirotanga concept is in my view more aligned to the concept of Warlords. But the concept is being misused today politically.
Maori claim it as a right to set up their own nation, but at the time Maori did not have what amounted to a nation. It has been identified that Maori signed the Treaty under the promises made as a security pact against marauding neighbours, but the 'Tinorangatiratanga' concept at that time, could in many respects be viewed as roughly equivalent to a municipal authority today. I would add that in my view 'Tinorangatiratanga' starts with the individual, not some self appointed 'boss' of the people. And today every single individual in this country has the rights of self determination within the bounds of the laws of this country.
Dame Tariana Turia once said "democracy has not served Maori well". That comment can be interpreted many ways, but in what i thought she meant, I would suggest democracy has never served anyone in the middle and lower income brackets well, and that includes most Maori.
In the end though I believe DS simply wants to have a debate that will help define a way forward, to define what 'democracy' means for NZ and provide a solid basis for a constitution. Good luck to him.
I would suggest democracy has never served anyone in the middle and lower income brackets well
I disagree. When the common man got the vote in the UK, the labour movement did very well out of it. The 40 hour working week? Democracy. Women's rights? Democracy. The Treaty settlements process? Democracy.
In part you are correct, but look at the overall impacts of socio-economic policy in NZ? Governments in NZ seem to have a locked in attitude toward low wages, and work to keep them there. One result is a drain of our best and brightest and those most willing to work to Aussie and beyond. A side effect seems to be to create an 'elite' stratification in the country of people who bubble to the top, especially in public service. These people are not necessarily capable at doing their job, but there is no doubt they are good at playing politics and promoting themselves. But the workers are all held back. Race is not a significant aspect of this. Governments today have done little to nothing to address the costs of living, tax cuts are accompanied with increases in government charges, ordinary people in NZ are held back economically at almost every turn. Luxon keeps talking about getting the cost of living under control, but do you see anything that he is doing that will literally reduce the drain from people's wallets? Besides the 40 hour week is almost been tossed into touch by NZ labour laws today. How is that a good thing?
Technically correct answer although you started your analysis one step too late in order to get to it. If you instead ask the question, how was it that the common man got democracy in Great Britain in the first place? The answer is of course, massive societal pressure and mass public movements applying leverage to the very top rungs of the British hierarchy. Without that same societal momentum, democracy delivers little more than but what the marketers, media spinmeisters and corporate PR want. Which is why democracy has delivered precious little to the voting public in at least a generation.
You cannot cause "Division" with an open debate, there is already division and that's the problem and its caused by the Treaty or should I say the way the Māori perceive it and try and take advantage of it. We are just letting this drag on and on for no beneficial reason, it need an end date.
Our self appointed "elites" don't think that
Now We Know how NZ's economy became broken: The Judiciary wrote a Communist-style Constitution without Consultation; without People Knowing.
https://www.downtoearth.kiwi/post/now-we-know-how-nz-s-economy-got-brok…
Without judging the merits of the linked post, the authors can also be described as 'elites'. Academics in ivory towers, or staff at Parliament. The smear 'elites' is used with abandon, just as an insult, no longer used to mean anything important. Anyone with an individual view qualifies, including those who sling the epithet. Arguments would be made more tellingly if the term was retired. It is not 'elite' to have a view different from yours.
but is it the same rules for everyone or do the certain parts of our society get favourable treatment,
a classic case was pike river, the directors got of Scot free and the CEO paid a fine, that one was super fishy, somehow a government SOE (was instructed to) that was bankrupt brought the mine and tried to seal it up if not for the families of the workers they would have got away with it
look up some others and if you think discounts are high for gang members they are nothing in compassion for business owners that hurt or kill workers
Does the issue of everyone being not equal raise the question of how not equal each individual is?
After a few centuries of inter-breading with each other it's getting very difficult to determine who should benefit from reparations let alone assign blame to whoever's ancestors caused the the harm.
If you extrapolate this out ad nauseam is there any point even drawing a distinction?
i don't understand his main argument that everyone should be treated equally when that is not the case now in NZ society and i am not talking about maori treatment but everyday kiwis, if you are a business owner you get more advantages than a wage worker, if you are landlord you get better treatment from banks than a FHB, and better tax treatment by our government than an ordinary home owner, if you are on a benefit , a super benefit recipient is treated better than a unemployed benefit recipient. and so on i wont list more otherwise could fill up the page
NZ society is not equal has never been equal for a long time so to claim another part of society is trying to claim a benefit and become special ignores the already uneven society we live in
he is just playing on the old why should they get more to get votes, very cynical
The only people who can make changes in an agreement are the parties who signed it: the King of England and [the chiefs of the tribes of Aotearoa]”.
This set up one of the few funny lines in the heated debate: “Now, tell me, David Seymour, which one of those are you?”
very strong argument indeed, and I buy it.
though it is a very interesting question, for people who born after the treaty, who are neither the crown nor Maori tribes, who lived and still living in this country, who are we? what are we? why a treaty signed hundred years ago defines who we are?
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.