 |
| Record Numbers: The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, which began at the tip of the North, and the tail of the South, on 11 November, culminated outside Parliament on Tuesday, 19 November 2024, in one of the largest demonstrations in New Zealand’s political history. |
ACCORDING TO TE ARA, the Ministry of Culture and Heritage’s Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, there were 15,000 in 2004. Protesters, that is. Gathered in front of Parliament to demonstrate their opposition to the then Labour Government’s foreshore and seabed legislation.
Twenty years later, on Tuesday, 19 November 2024, the number was 42,000 – a truly vast crowd spilling out of Parliament Grounds and into the surrounding streets. This makes the Hīkoi mō te Tiriti, which began at the tip of the North, and the tail of the South, nine days earlier, on 11 November, one of the largest demonstrations in New Zealand’s political history.
On the surface, David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill, seems too puny a thing to have provoked such an extraordinary outpouring of opposition. After all, no party represented in the House of Representatives – apart from Act – is committed to supporting the Bill beyond its Second Reading debate.
Seymour’s proposed legislation is a dead man walking. It will not be enacted during the current parliamentary term. Those determined to prevent the Treaty Principles Bill from becoming law – thereby precipitating a binding referendum on its content – have already won.
How, then, is it possible that a Bill with just six months left to live, has inspired 42,000 mostly Māori New Zealanders to gather outside the parliamentary complex to demand its instant demise? If they’ve already won – why are they still fighting?
They are still fighting because they know that David Seymour is right. His bill might be killed at its Second Reading, but the issues he has raised will not die. He has placed a question on the parliamentary table. A question which a great many more than 35,000 New Zealanders would like to hear answered:
Is this country to be forever constrained by the content of an agreement entered into 184 years ago, by individuals long since deceased, binding entities that have long since disappeared, in order to resolve issues that have long since been decided?
Another way of framing that question is to ask:
Should the New Zealand that was built after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, and very largely in spite of it – i.e. the New Zealand of today – be radically refashioned, constitutionally, administratively, politically, economically, and culturally, in accordance with the alleged understandings and intentions of te Tiriti’s Nineteenth Century Māori signatories?
But that question immediately raises another – and this one is much more dangerous.
With the benefit of hindsight, do the Māori of today regret the decision of their ancestors to sign the Treaty, or, at least, do they lament that their tīpuna did not make clearer what they expected to get by entering into a formal relationship with one of the Nineteenth Century’s most powerful states?
Which, in turn, raises another.
Is that what has really been going on these past 50 years: have Māori, alongside their Pakeha allies in the judiciary, the universities, and the public service, been quietly revising the Treaty’s meaning so that it better reflects, and serves, the needs of Māori living in the Twenty-First Century?
It is precisely to prevent these sorts of questions being asked – let alone answered – that Māori are so determined to “Kill the Bill”. It also explains why sending Seymour’s Bill to the Justice Select Committee has been so energetically resisted by so many Treaty “defenders”: everyone from a curious clutch of Christian clergy, to a concerned collection of King’s Counsel. The very last thing they, and the organisers of Tuesday’s extremely impressive hikoi, want, is for the meaning and purpose of the Treaty of Waitangi to be openly debated for months at a time.
David Seymour’s great sin has been to offer an alternative to this covert effort to change the constitution of New Zealand by changing the Treaty’s historical meaning. Those who argue that the Treaty Principles Bill is a blatant attempt to re-write the Treaty are quite right. What they omit to say, however, is that Seymour is only doing openly what Māori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly, in legal chambers, common-rooms, and public service offices for the past 50 years.
The critical difference, of course, is that Seymour was proposing to give the rest of us a vote on his version.
Leaving us with one, final, question:
Is 42,000 enough to stop him?
This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 22 November 2024.
33 comments:
Pertinent questions. I suspect that if the mass of Maori were not in their current state of economic dispossession, the Treaty would be of less relevance. As things stand, altering the Treaty is seen as adding insult to injury, removing the status of being 'partner with the crown'. I can't see the socioeconomic dispossession of Maori being turned around by Te Pati Maori; working class concerns are not their focus. Add in the virtual demise of the union movement and we have growing Maori /Pakeha worker discontent with little apparent prospect of unity. Dark clouds are gathering.
There is a lot going on when trying to analyse peoples feelings toward the Bill and the treaty in general. To answer Chris's question on whether the large protest will be enough to change anything, well in itself no although numbers switching to the Maori electorate are growing. The majority of Pakeha most likely can't see much wrong with the proposed Bill even if they won't say so publicly. There will be several different groups of Maori thinking. Those who have accepted New Zealand the way it is and are making the most of it. There will be those who don't really understand but believe Maori are being diddled out of something. Those who do understand and know that the Bill could mean the end to some of their rights and privilege's, and those who see this as threatening any chance of self determination. None of those who oppose the Bill want to live under current laws as they are, where all NZrs have the same rights and privilege's. Strange isn't it. What the protesters and those opposing the Bill are not focused on is that without any change to the supposed Treaty Principals, the Coalition is already changing the way Maori have had separate input into our laws and institutions. From the
National Indigenous Times.
NZ Right-Wing coalition rolls back Māori rights, sparking Treaty debate
Joseph Guenzler - September 20, 2024
news:
New Zealand's right-wing coalition government has repealed or reversed around a dozen policies supporting Māori rights.
Since taking office in November, it scrapped laws giving Māori input on environmental issues and is repealing another aimed at maintaining cultural connections for Māori children in state care.
The Māori Health Authority has been abolished, and Māori language use in public services reduced.
The government's next target is the reinterpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, raising concerns it could undo decades of hard-won Māori rights.
----------------------------------
Luxon is happy to let Seymour take the hits on the Bill but the collective Coalition is changing the separate input Maori have on certain issues anyway. Because some of what any government initiates won't be acceptable to one group or another, it makes Seymours Bill or something like it even more necessary. There will need to be commonsense discussion on certain issues, and common courtesy given to the Maori perspective, but ultimately we should all be governed under the same laws. How vehemently Maori oppose the way NZ is governed will ultimately hinge on statistical evidence showing how well or otherwise Maori are doing as compared to the rest of us. Regardless of who is in command, it is in their best interests to make sure Maori and other minorities get a fair slice of the cake. Then having the same rules for all may be more palatable.
There are two fundamental problems' with Seymour's Bill.
The first is its content. Seymour's three principles are essentially his interpretation of each of the Articles of the Treaty. And as the KC's point out, they are not actually accurate interpretations, especially Principle Two.
The second problem is the one alluded to in this post by our host. Seymour's Bill is a terrible way to start a discussion on the meaning and application of the Treaty. Surely such a discussion would need to be a more thoughtful and more collaborative effort, if it was to have consensus, not just on a majoritarian approach, but a consensus of both parties to the Treaty.
In my view Seymours's approach has set such an approach back for quite a considerable time. However, in fifteen years time we have the bicentennial of the Treaty. Maybe in the years running up to the bicentennial such a discussion can take place. It would require 5 years or so. So starting in 2035, a decade from now, New Zealanders might be ready for such a discussion.
You don't need a weather man to know which way the wind blows. Numbers can be calculated reasonably accurately from the aerial photos. People can make up there own minds as to how many attended the protest.
The people will ultimately make up there own minds with regard the legitimacy of David Seymour and his backers attempt to rewrite history.
But then to paraphrase what John Key once said: history is yesterday, a brighter future begins when National is elected.......Yeah Right!
No it is not sufficient. It a tiny fraction of the population. The 99%, that's near enough for the purposes of this response, are fed up with victim, grievance industry gravy train that needs to be parked up.
Opportunities are available to all in our counrty but if you do value or take advantage of them dont plead victim. The families that do take the opportunities available are enjoying productive rewarding lives largely unseen or heard from.
The ‘mass of Maori’ are not in a state of dispossession. The majority of us are doing fine thanks
The starting point is that it is a bilateral treaty. One party cannot unilaterally change the Treaty, only break the Treaty. Therefore, it is moot for those questions to be posed, unless unilateral withdrawal is the suggestion. It should be noted: Early in his premiership, Chris Luxon made a few statements which suggested that the rights of Tauiwi are those of the right of occupation. I presume a smartly dressed, straight of of Uni, advisor had suggested this. More sensible advisors obvious got hold of him, and that language disappeared. Such a constitutional coup would mire his government in legal, political an social chaos.
The Treaty is the way forward rather than the imposition Luxon tip-toed around. That is not to say that te Iwi Maori do not recognize that occupation is a reality, they just work through it via te Tiriti by way of partnership.
I note the use of language, "forever constrained" suggests that a Treaty relationship is a constraint. No examples on what, when and why it is a constraint. Whether this is constitutionally, like the Australian upper house, or legally is unclear. Or whether it is like those pesky environmental laws. It does seem odd that partnership is a constraint for a government that sees development as a public - private partnership, or off-loads essential services to sub-governmental authorities such as local councils.
More language, "alleged understandings and intentions of te Tiriti’s Nineteenth Century Māori signatories". The very reason you have language, cultural, historical and legal experts is to come to an understanding of intention. The Nga Puhi report that sovereignty was not conceded was not made bereft of institutional knowledge, it was established to a threshold.
Here is some more, " their tīpuna did not make clearer..." Their Tipuna did not write the text of te tiriti. Again, the above expertise has looked at Maori understanding at the time and since. The conclusion is that Maori have been consistent. Further, it is the understanding of the ceding party that holds sway in international law. Remember R v Symonds in 1847, the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that native title could not be extinguished without the consent of Indigenous peoples.
Another one, "quietly revising the Treaty’s meaning". This is raised on many occasions, the 'revision'. The obvious question is revised from what? Bad history? Maori journals have been consistent, New Zealand historians have an overwhelming consensus. Poor law? Prendergast never was guiding law. The last 50 years has developed jurisprudence, some tested to the Privy Council, later our own Supreme Court and international bodies. Implementation of law is not revision. Parliament? Again, 50 years of engagement and development on Treaty issues. Taking someone at 16 in 1975 when the Tribunal Act was passed, only 14.9% of New Zealanders are 65 and older. Given the immigration to NZ, and that the percentage includes Maori, take those that have followed and supported Treaty development, and those that have no interest, and those with the understanding of the Treaty that is being seen as revised are a very small group. Of course, parents influence children and there are those that wish to hold on to views despite proof, but the idea that something is being revised doesn't stand up.
I am not going to get into the debate as to the size of the protest outside Parliament. The police have said 42,000, unless more expertise is going to produce evidence otherwise, I go with that. But what is important is that from Bluff to Kaitaia, people joined the hikoi for part, or lined the streets with support. They rallied at regional centers. It is noted that KCs and Clerics put their names to support. Indeed, few unions or NGOs in NZ are not showing support.
"Seymour was proposing to give the rest of us a vote on his version". Maori did not sign 'his version', a Treaty does not exist if one party unilaterally breaks it. That was and is the protest.
Brilliant, as always. Thanks.
The Elephant in the Room is the Waitangi Tribunal..since most of Te Tiriti Claims have been processed and ...The Jobs Done... then its past its use by day .
Interesting article from Law News on the KC's letter:
- They have elevated the New Zealand courts’ interpretation of Parliament’s references to the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation as an independent source of law rather than interpretative law that ultimately derives its validity and source from Parliament’s expressed will in enactments.
- They assert that the New Zealand Parliament’s sovereign right could depend on its conformity with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi or the treaty itself. Because the courts have treated the treaty as part of the fabric of the constitution, the argument is that somehow the treaty operates like that of the Constitution of the United States.
Whether intended or not that last is where you eventually you end up in these discussions if you wish to compete with Parliamentary Sovereignty.
I have some "fundamental problems" Wayne, with some of the above.
Re. Seymour's supposed inaccurate interpretations of the actual treaty. Isn't this one of the inherent blockages everyone is facing? That is, there are a myriad number of "interpretations" being promulgated depending on different protagonists' positions. Listening to Seymour and looking at the principles, he methodically articulates and seeks specific clarification of the treaty relevant to our present and the future. However, I haven't heard anyone provide precise arguments against his principles. By contrast, there have only been incoherent, often strident, accusatory ad hominin attacks.
To your second point, I daresay Seymour was extremely "thoughtful" in his "approach." I am incredulous that striving for "consensus of both parties to the Treaty" would ever come close to fruition given how polarised and implacable people are. Your idea to wait a decade from now to begin treaty discussions suggests that we will all wait patiently and then enter debates without rancour. Whether we like it or not Wayne, the time is now. The last government's ideology expressed in He Puapua, etc, the judiciary's, academia and Waitangi Tribunal edicts have produced profound disquiet with a significant portion of the electorate which has spawned Seymour's bill.
I am despondent that we will overcome the anger and vitriol that is currently swirling around our nation but I sure as hell rather have it out now than wait five to ten years in the vain hope/expectation it will all be sorted then.
Chris Trotter
I don't know what happened with you and TDB since your articles no longer appear there. But your writing makes for so much more pleasant reading, and provokes real thinking! I can only guess that it got too extreme and, lets be straight, TDB is now a hard left echo chamber claiming to best the politcial forum in the country. What crap. The questions you pose would never be asked by TDB or their followers who represent the aggressive hard left...ie the hikoi profile. And no, 42,000 will not stop the search for the answers. 200 years later, Kiwis do not want to live in the flax weaving past. Except those who make millions from the claims industry, they're loving it. Funny that, they love to wear Armani suits and western culture
cowboy hats. After the recent US election result, I expect the gaslighting left block to get smashed in 2026. You can bet on it. In kiwi speak...we've had a gutsful!!!
Hi Chris. I forgot to write my name re. Reply to Wayne Mapp. Could you please insert it? Thanks. Mark Simpson
Wayne
Love this debate!
Why are they not accurate interpretations? Were you there with a video camera when it all happened? What does 'accurate' mean in the context of some 200 year old badly documented agreement? Your accurate or my accurate? The only that matters is what it means to people now...99% would say "diddly squat, have mortgage to pay and I want a house to live in". Would we be better off writing an brand new constitution now?
Perhaps the bill was needed to force the debate. For 50 years the debate has been one sided and held behind closed doors. There has been none of the collaboration that you seem to ask for, yet seem happy to not have. Decisions have been made by unelected officials, mainly because not politician was brave enough to face up to their responsibility.
If things had been left as they were, there would never be a county wide debate. Just a final solution handed down, some time in the future. Although what that would be is up in the air for the time being. For all the noise, those wanting to shut down debate seem unwilling to articulate how far they want to go. It would seem that the more given, the more demanded.
Wow I never realised there was so many with their hands in the Cookie Jar.
Back online and ready to rumble
https://thespinoff.co.nz/politics/30-09-2024/the-real-reason-behind-acts-push-to-redefine-the-treaty-principles
"The Treaty principles have proved a significant roadblock to both corporatisation and privatisation in the past and present a clear threat to any plans of future development of public assets to the private sector".
The Treaty is a clear obstacle to ACT's goal of even more privatisation and theft of the commons.
A very good reason for all Kiwi's to oppose ACT's sly attempts at further thefts.
The term "economic dispossession" sounds like someone has stolen someone's wealth. Is that what is happening or is the reality a lot more complex?
Perhaps the reliance on the theory that my failure to flourish is the consequence of someone else's success is a very bad idea to begin with - especially for the wannabe victims themselves.
I think people really need to wake up politically or it's only gets worse. The next step in agitating Maoridom is "co-governance". They care not that this will not work and it never will, because it is but a small stepping stone to defeating Willie's tyranny of democracy. The next step of course is racial takeover with anyone not maori, subservient and on a hiding to nothing should they remain in this land. And again, that's fine by the agitators.
It's insanely destructive to this country but when one thinks in terms of pure hatred as TPM demonstrates on a daily basis, then the spiteful infantiles that they are could not care less. So be it. When one practices activism, it's a one hit wonder, actually building things is the exact opposite of what such people can achieve.
The entire rationale of that protest was based on lies. But as always, the ends justifies the means.
Currently we have a very weak Prime Minister and you could ring fence most of National into that category. It's how these invertebrates respond will speak to the future of this country. Hence voters need to wake up, urgently!
"a consensus of both parties to the Treaty"
The Crown and who? Who speaks for the Maori people?
The Maori Party - the ethno-nationalist separatists claiming genetic superiority and their activist sympathisers?
Since the large scale abandonment of tribal rule there is no one and no one thing with the authority to reach any sort of consensus with; the pretenders don't speak for Maori.
The Treaty itself is not without some very serious "fundamental problems" of its own, Wayne. It was developed in a time, for a situation, and for entities, that no longer exist in reality. "The Crown" is the government in theory but not in practice, the chiefs likewise; anachronistic , powerless and defunct with no real authority over the (so called) Maori community. The regular Maoris are (at least) legally equal participants in political, civil and economic life; they're increasingly impossible to even define.
Best to simply regard the Treaty as what it is: an agreement that's long passed it's use by date.
Sorry, off topic but topical.
Piers and Jordan on the US election, Trump, Putin, the loss of a loved family member, the Bible and the divine and much more. 50 minutes.
https://youtu.be/c_rhcGUTs8E
Wayne - my understanding is that is Parliamentary staff that drafted the bill, changing what Mr Seymour originally had. With regards the KCs, how many KCs are there in NZ, so what proportion signed the letter? There were other eminent legal minds who gave a contrary opinion. And on that, I gather you believe it is judges and lawyers, not parliament, which should write the country's laws. That is a strange definition of the sovereignty of Parliament and democracy.
If there is a problem, I gather you will be making a submission detailing what is wrong and how it should be changed. Or will you just adopt the KC approach?
Ever wonder why Dr Mapp a centrist conservative and myself,,a left social democratic, seem to be broadly agreeing on these issues?
Wayne had a reputation of working through issues with those across the aisle, whether in consultation or select committee. He listens, evaluates and often seeks independent expertise. A respect of process and information provided.
With issues such as the interpretation of documents, you look to legal advice. Cultural understanding you look to those with acknowledged expertise. When looking at the historical understanding, you turn to historians with peer review and with both expertise and knowledge of the concensus on the discipline.
When it comes to te tiriti, these sources have been actively engaged for over half a century. Te tiriti has been before the courts, before Parliament and the United Nations. The different disciplines translating and bringing a cultural and historical understanding of the signatories have developed a consensus.
I know of few other areas that Bush lawyers and bush historians get together and discard cultural knowledge and language experts.
It may well be the need to control Maori include imposing their "reckons" over process and fact.
The "article " is an option piece with the appropriate disclaimer from the Law News journal.
Anon,
You are not "having it out now." The bill is gone in 6 months. The existing judicial interpretation, notably Cook's interpretation, of the principles will continue to apply.
You obviously like Seymour's interpretation of Article 2 by arguing that there have "only been incoherent attacks". Well, that is just plain wrong. There have been numerous well argued statements why Seymour's interpretation of Article 2 is wrong. The KC's letter, Finlayson, Graham among others. You mightn't like what they say, but they are not incoherent.
Seymour is wrong in his interpretation of Article 2 because he utterly ignores the Maori text. "Te Tino rangatiratanga" clearly reserves some element of self governance. "Treasures" (translation of reo text) covers more than "lands, forests and fisheries" as set out in the English text. Hence the reason why language and culture have statutory protection.
In short the Article 2 protections is the quid pro quo of the deal that Maori struck in return for giving up governance in Article 1. Article 2 does give iwi, rights that other groups don't have. But that was the price for the Crown gaining sovereignty. Individual Maori don't get these additional rights, they belong to iwi as the collective. Hence the reason why settlements are with iwi.
No, I won't make a submission. I take the view the Select Committee process is not really for ex MP's.
Opinion piece. Autocorrect is not my friend
David, your question as to who represents Maori is interesting only if Maori did not have a consensus view on te tiriti. While it is the hapu leaders that signed, all those of self identification and descent may make a claim. It was the mid-19th century Crown courts that extended the Treaty to cover non-signatory hapu.
If there was a breakdown in the Maori consensus on te tiriti there would have to be a coalition of Iwi authorities and urban interest to agree and negotiate with the Crown as the other partner signatory. This would be similar to pan Maori that negotiated the Fisheries Settlement.
The various hapu and Iwi authorities are democratic. As the Crown has evolved, so has the organization vested in Maori representation. However, as I stated, Maori have a consistent and consensus view on te tiriti. I know of no representative Maori authority outside of this.
I have given this a serious response because misinformation thrives in a vacuum.
Mmmmm ... thought provoking comments here.
My layman's knowledge of the subject is quite distinct from " the KC's' and the Academics" ... who defacto seem to monopolize public opinion on the subject.
Anyhow ... MY view is that we do ... via wide consultation... seriously work jointly ... both Maori and the " Rest of Us" on agreeing "The Principles" of a 2024 version of the Treaty.
Not impossible but likely to involve many compromises of extremist views from both sides of the polarized... opposing? sides.
The outcome of this must be put to a referendum starting with the key question ",Do you agree the Treaty has relevance today and if so should it deliver special rights to Maori?"... list these.
Then leave it to Parliament to make the legislation to give effect to a multi racial consensus.
Good process makes good law makes a good society.
"Jobs Done"
The tribunal will never accept that, they seem to relish dreaming up new grievances. Apparently the McDonalds resturant planned for Wanaka is in breach of the Waitangi Treaty.
Make it stop!
The problem with the the Treaty is that it is racist. What was progressive ten years after the abolition of slavery is not fit for purpose 50 years after the civil rights movement.
That Maori should have differing rights than non-Maori based on race is wrong and these wrongs are built into the legal fabric of our country.
For instance: the race based representation in parliament, the separate laws for things like land and the creation of trusts.
Or in a more personal case being sent from WINZ to the marae and then offered credit card repayment, or at AU and being offered a free education with both those offers retracted because of race.
If we apply the same scrutiny to Maoridom in government as has been applied to the pakeha then it becomes very clear we have a massive structural racism problem.
As for solutions? Granting everyone the additional rights of Maori would expose the imbalance. Investigating why Maori are poor when they have a massive asset base would be nice.
But most of all realising that people do bad things for good reasons. This conflict has arisen because people caring about their countrymen has outweighed their suspicion of misuse. As has happened in so many areas, when we remove the checks and balances, the scrutiny and the oversight we allow bad actors to game the process.
There is nothing inherently wrong with Maori, pakeha or anyone else but there are people positioned to take advantage in every culture.
Post a Comment