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

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

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

• READ MORE: Why the Treaty Principles Bill had to go down
• Isaac Herzog is accused of inciting genocide in Gaza. He shouldn’t be welcomed to Australia
• Other Gaza genocide reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“That is the story of Palestine.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

COMMENTARY: By Laurens Ikinia in Jakarta

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other West Papua articles at Asia Pacific Report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Other RNZ Te Ao Māori reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: New Zealand and Gaza: Confronting and not confronting the unspeakable
• Other Israel’s war on Gaza reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: The Treaty Principles Bill : Here’s what’s in it
• The Regulatory Standards Bill: What you need to know
• What you need to know about Māori wards
• Māori ward councillors prepare for election and referendum

The ayes were 11, and the noes 112.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Eyes on local elections – ActionStation says the mahi continues
Community advocacy group ActionStation’s director Kassie Hartendorp, who helped spearhead campaigns like “Together for Te Tiriti”, said her team was feeling really positive.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Read an explainer on the Waitangi Tribunal from an interview with Dr Carwyn Jones, the kaihautū of Te Whare Whakatupu Mātauranga at Te Wānanga o Raukawa
• Other Te Tiriti reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Republished with permission from Te Ao Māori News.

New Zealand’s leading daily newspaper has joined the debate about the haka that stunned Parliament and the nation last week, defending the youngest MP for her actions, saying she is a “product of her forebears” and “shining a light” on the new national conversation about the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

That haka has been criticised by some conservative politicians and civic leaders as “appalling behaviour” and led to Te Pāti Māori’s 22-year-old Hana-Rāwhiti Maipi-Clarke being “named” by the Speaker and suspended from the House for 24 hours.

However, among many have rallied to her support across the nation, with The New Zealand Herald declaring in an editorial on Tuesday that her haka “shines the light on a new conversation growing louder daily and describing where many Māori are at politically”.

• READ MORE: ‘I ripped that in half and chucked it away’ – Hana-Rāwhiti delivers speech after world-shaking haka
• Why NZ is protesting over colonial-era treaty bill – a global perspective
• The biggest difference between Hīkoi mō te Tiriti and past hīkoi: More support from non-Māori
• Other national Hīkoi reports

In light of the haka performed in Parliament, The Herald said, it was “important to understand what was on show” 184 years after the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the British Crown and more than 40 Māori chiefs as the founding document for New Zealand.

The haka protest came as thousands joined a massive nine-day Te Hīkoi mō te Tiriti that marched the 1600km length of the country from north and south ending at Parliament in an impressive show of solidarity against the unpopular bill.

“Culturally, haka is the ability to express thoughts and views in a way that provides clarity with the thoughts of those who deliver it. Haka can be delivered and invoked in many different ways and many different times,” said The Herald.

“It can be delivered at the beginning of a kaupapa (cause) — like the All Blacks’ pre-match haka — or delivered near the end as a tangi when a tūpāpaku (body) is being taken to its final destination.”

The newspaper said that when Maipi-Clarke broke into that haka in Parliament, it was her way of expressing her “absolute disgust and loathing of David Seymour’s Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill”.

Unapologetically Māori
“Toitū Te Tiriti, the kōhanga reo generation and unapologetically Māori whānau are intertwined. Their whakapapa is the same,” The Herald said.

“Toitū Te Tiriti says Te Tiriti will endure no matter what. The first of the kōhanga reo generation – the babies brought up in kōhanga reo over 40 years ago, like Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi – and casting their leadership across te ao Māori.

“They have been in the workforce for 20+ years, using te reo Māori and mātauranga Māori (Māori intelligence) as their north compass.

“Maipi-Clarke is part of all three groups. She is a product of her forebears.

“Maipi-Clarke looks at the world through a kaupapa Māori lens. The things which drive her are Māori-centric, first and foremost. That is who she is and what defines her. The new Māori Queen, Nga wai hono i te po, is of the same ilk.

“Unapologetically Māori is a statement that serves as a declaration to the world about who Maipi-Clarke and those of her generation are, their truth and how to act from a holistic Māori world view.”

‘Their very identity threatened’
The newspaper said Maipi-Clarke, her Te Pāti Māori colleagues and other politicians in the House “reacted when they felt their very identity was threatened”.

“They acted the only way they believed was appropriate, with class and with mana.”

The Herald said Maipi-Clarke, like many Māori and non-Māori, were angry with the progression of this bill.

“She responded to it as she was taught by her predecessors and peers with a haka,” the paper said.

“That’s the way Māori of the kōhanga reo generation were brought up to voice their concerns.”

BACKGROUNDER: By Sarah Shamim

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Bill would ‘render the treaty worthless’ – world reacts to national Hīkoi
• ‘What’s good for Māori is good for everyone’ – Hīkoi ends with peaceful protest
• Hīkoi day 9: Massive crowd joins as Treaty Principles Bill protest reaches Parliament
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Treaty Principles Bill

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

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

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

• READ MORE: ‘What’s good for Māori is good for everyone’ – Hīkoi ends with peaceful protest
• Hīkoi day 9: Massive crowd joins as Treaty Principles Bill protest reaches Parliament
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— NoComment (@nocomment) January 5, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE:  NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill haka highlights tensions between Māori tikanga and rules of Parliament
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill is already straining social cohesion – a referendum could be worse
• NZ’s Hīkoi challenging controversial draft bill ‘redefines activism’, says Herald
• Labour’s Willie Jackson ejected from House for calling David Seymour a liar during Treaty Principles Bill reading
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Treaty Principles Bill reading vote.    Video: RNZ News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Parliament introduced the concept of the Treaty principles into law in 1975 but did not define them. As a result, the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been able to develop principles that have been used to justify actions that are contrary to the principle of equal rights. Those actions include co-governance in the delivery of public services, ethnic quotas in public institutions, and consultation based on background.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill is already straining social cohesion – a referendum could be worse
• NZ’s Hīkoi challenging controversial draft bill ‘redefines activism’, says Herald
• Labour’s Willie Jackson ejected from House for calling David Seymour a liar during Treaty Principles Bill reading
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka
• RNZ LIVE: Hīkoi news blog – Day five
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

Te Pāti Māori about to record their vote.   Video: RNZ/Parliament

‘Ka mate, ka mate’ – when is it appropriate to perform haka?
The Ngāti Toa haka performed in Parliament was the well-known “Ka mate, Ka mate,” which tells the story of chief Te Rauparaha who was being chased by enemies and sought shelter where he hid. Once his enemies left he came out into the light.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill is already straining social cohesion – a referendum could be worse
• NZ’s Hīkoi challenging controversial draft bill ‘redefines activism’, says Herald
• Labour’s Willie Jackson ejected from House for calling David Seymour a liar during Treaty Principles Bill reading
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka
• RNZ LIVE: Hīkoi news blog
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: NZ’s Hīkoi challenging controversial draft bill ‘redefines activism’, says Herald
• Labour’s Willie Jackson ejected from House for calling David Seymour a liar during Treaty Principles Bill reading
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In early November, the Tribunal added:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE:  Labour’s Willie Jackson ejected from House for calling David Seymour a liar during Treaty Principles Bill reading
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill passes first reading after Māori MP evicted over haka
• Senior NZ lawyers call for Treaty Principles Bill to be abandoned 
• Hikoi day four – From Huntly towards Rotorua
• Live hīkoi coverage on RNZ news blog
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RNZ News

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

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

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

• READ MORE:  Senior NZ lawyers call for Treaty Principles Bill to be abandoned
• Live hīkoi coverage on RNZ news blog
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Live hīkoi coverage on RNZ news blog
• Other Hīkoi reports

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the misty peaks of Cape Reinga to the rain-soaked streets of Kawakawa, Aotearoa New Zealand’s national hīkoi mō Te Tiriti rolled through the north and arrived in Whangārei.

Since setting off this morning numbers have swelled from a couple of hundred to well over 1000 people, demonstrating their opposition to the coalition government’s controversial Treaty Principles Bill and other policies impacting on Māori.

Hundreds gathered for a misty covered dawn karakia at Te Rerenga Wairua, the very top of the North Island, after meeting at the nearby town of Te Kāo the night before.

• READ MORE: Meeting with Seymour ‘pointless’, say protest hīkoi organisers
• NZ’s Treaty Principles Bill protest hīkoi begins in Far North
• Other Toitū te Tiriti Hīkoi reports
• Follow RNZ’s live updates here

Among them was veteran Māori rights activist and former MP Hone Harawira. He says the hīkoi is about protesting against a “blitzkreig of oppression” from the government and uplifting Māori.

Harawira praised organisers of the hīkoi and set out his own hopes for the march.

“It’s been a great start to the day . . .  to come here to Te Rerenga Wairua with people from all around the country and just join together, have a karakia, have some waiata and start to move on. We’re ready to go and Wellington is waiting — we can’t keep them waiting.

“One of our kuia said it best last night. The last hīkoi built a party — the Māori Party — [but] let’s make this hīkoi build a nation. Let us focus on that,” Harawira said.

Margie Thomson and her partner James travelled from Auckland to join the hīkoi.

She said as a Pākeha, she was gutted by some of the government policies toward Māori and wanted to show support.

“The spirit of the people here is really profound . . . if people could feel they would really see the reality of the kāupapa here — the togetherness. This is really something, there is a really strong Māori movement and you really feel it.”

By lunchtime the hīkoi had reached Kaiatia where numbers swelled to well over 1000 people. The main street had to be closed to traffic while supporters filled the streets with flags, waiata and haka.

The hīkoi arrived in Whangārei this evening after covering a distance of around 280 km.

Kākā Porowini marae in central Whangārei was hosting some of the supporters and its chair, Taipari Munro, said they were prepared to care for the masses

“Hapu are able to pull those sorts of things together. But of course it will build as the hīkoi travels south.

“The various marae and places where people will be hosted, will all be under preparation now.”

Three marae have been made available for people to stay at in Whangārei and some kai will also be provided, he said.

Meanwhile, the Māori Law Society has set up a phone number to provide free legal assistance to marchers taking part in the hīkoi.

Spokesperson Echo Haronga said Māori lawyers wanted to support the hīkoi in their own way.

“This helpline is a demonstration of our manaakitanga as Māori legal professionals wanting to tautoko those people who are on the hīkoi. If a question arises for them, they’re not quite sure how handle it during the hīkoi then they know they can call this number they can speak to a Māori lawyer.”

Haronga stressed that she did not anticipate any issues or disturbances with the police and the helpline was open to any questions or concerns not just police and criminal enquiries.

“It’s not actually limited to people causing a ruckus and being in trouble with the police, it also could be someone who has a question . . . and they wouldn’t know otherwise where to go to, you can also call us for that if it’s in relation to hīkoi business.”

Hīkoi supporters will stay in Whangārei for the night before travelling to Dargaville and Auckland’s North Shore tomorrow.

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

The New Zealand Herald and its publisher are failing to follow a golden rule: Engage with readers when they question your actions.

The Herald is currently confronted by two controversies. The first is its decision to use artificial intelligence to write editorials. The second is its decision to publish a highly divisive advertising wrap-around paid for by the lobby group Hobson’s Pledge.

In neither case has the newspaper or its owner NZME offered an explanation that justifies its decisions. Indeed, it has given little insight into what its decision-making processes were on either matter.

• READ MORE: AI-created editorials: What in HAL’s name was The Herald thinking?
• Hobson’s Pledge front page ad is propaganda disguised as news — Shilo Kino

Following RNZ’s revelations over The Herald’s use of iterative AI to write editorials, The Herald’s reaction was to simply say it did not apply sufficient “journalistic rigour” and that it would be calling a meeting of all editorial staff to discuss AI policy.

This commentary last week posed a series of questions relating to the processes that went into the publication of those editorials. If they were answered at the staff meeting, neither I nor The Herald’s other readers are any the wiser.

Staff were left in absolutely no doubt that what went on at that meeting was confidential and Herald staff I have spoken to have scrupulously observed that obligation not to disclose what occurred. NZME declined to comment to other media that enquired about the meeting (the fact it was taking place had been publicly disclosed).

Instead, several days later the company used its customary conduit, editor-at-large Shayne Currie’s Media Insider column, to ensure the narrative remained positive.

Review of protocols
Currie disclosed some of what was discussed at the meeting (I guess he had a waiver on confidentiality) and said The Herald “will review and further tighten artificial intelligence protocols”. He did not, however disclose the mood of the newsroom in reaction to the news that editorials had been written by AI, choosing instead to merely report editor-in-chief Murray Kirkness “addressing concerns from staff”.

Kirkness apparently told the meeting critical issues were “the level of human oversight, that the publication was transparent with readers, and that policies were continually reviewed and updated”.

None of that told readers how or why the editorials came to be robotically written in the first place, nor why the publication had failed to be transparent with readers. It certainly did not reveal whether the editor-in-chief had been taken to task by staff who, in private correspondence before the meeting, had expressed their dismay.

The Herald’s current statement on its use of artificial intelligence includes no requirement for public disclosure of its use on any story. The only requirement for disclosure is when AI generated images are used on features or opinion pieces: “When we do this, we will acknowledge this in the image caption or credit.”

I get the impression all other use of AI by The Herald is covered by its general statement that, yes, it does employ artificial intelligence. That disclosure is in a statement that you will find at the very bottom of The Herald website. You’ll find it here.

Initially I went looking for it on the mobile app, then the app on my iPad. I gave up. I assume it’s there somewhere.

NZME is doing the right thing by reviewing its policy, but it should not wait until that review is completed — and the current AI statement on the website presumably replaced — before offering adequate explanations and assurances to its readers.

Fundamental principles
There are fundamental principles here that do not require prolonged analysis. Editorials are the opinion of the newspaper — not iterative content — and must be written by designated staff overseen by the most senior editor on duty. Transparency is paramount and stories created by artificial intelligence should carry a disclosure, just as stories from non-Herald sources carry a credit line.

Stuff’s Code of Practice is clear: “Any content (written, visual or audio) generated or substantially generated using generative AI will be transparently labelled outlining the nature of AI use, including the tool used.” It should be clear, too, to The Herald and its readers.

Assurances can and should be given now.

The Hobson’s Pledge advertisement that wrapped last Wednesday’s Herald is a different issue but, again, one the publisher has not handled well. It followed a government announcement that it disagrees with the Court of Appeal’s interpretation in a case defining the customary interests of iwi in the eastern Bay of Plenty, and it intends to change the Marine and Coastal Areas Act to set the bar higher for claims. The advertisement painted a picture of wholesale Māori “ownership” of the foreshore if the law did not change.

The Herald was immediately condemned for publishing the wrap-around, with Māori journalists expressing “profound shock and dismay”, Te Pāti Māori saying it “will no longer engage” with the newspaper, and social media posts calling for boycott.

The response from NZME was a statement that the company was “keenly aware of its obligations as a publisher and broadcaster, including in respect of legislation and Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) codes”.

“Advertising responsibility sits with NZME’s commercial team and is separate to NZ Herald editorial.

“The content is a paid ad from an independent advertiser and is clearly labelled as so.

“There are thousands of ads placed across our platforms every week and publishing an ad is in no way NZME’s endorsement of the advertised message, products, services or other.

“We’re reviewing our processes and policies around advocacy advertising.”

Answer to obvious questions?
All true (although in my day as editor I had responsibility for all published content), but that does not answer some obvious questions, the most important of which is whether it passed tests devised to deal with the thorny issue of advocacy advertising.

Last night The Herald announced — again through Shayne Currie — that it had rejected a second advocacy advertisement that Hobson’s Pledge had tried to place with the newspaper. As to why, it again said no more than “we are reviewing our policies and processes”. There was no expression of the reasons, in the meantime, the ad had been rejected.

The right to free expression is guaranteed by the Bill of Rights Act. That right, however, is not unlimited and judgment needs to be exercised in determining the boundaries in individual cases.

The Advertising Standards Authority has acknowledged advocacy advertising presents some of the greatest challenges facing its complaints procedures. Before they reach the complaints stage (and the Hobson’s Pledge advertisement is apparently the subject of a number already), the same challenges face the publications asked to publish them.

For that reason, the ASA has issued a fulsome guidance note on advocacy advertising. You can read the guidance here.

This was a wrap-around of The Herald, meaning that, although it was clearly labelled as a paid advertisement, it sat directly beneath the paper’s own masthead, which is more significant than if it had been carried on an inside page. The connection with the masthead means even greater care needs to be taken by the publisher in determining whether to accept the advertisement for publication or not.

The question NZME has yet to answer is whether it subjected the material to all of the tests set out in the ASA guidance note. If it did so and all the tests were passed by the first advertisement, there is a compelling free speech argument for its publication.

Disclosure statement
A decision to publish in such circumstances would benefit immensely from a disclosure statement from the editor (the custodian of the masthead) attesting to all of the steps that had been taken in judging fitness for publication. Similarly, readers should be informed whether the same tests had been applied in rejecting a second advertisement and how it differed from the one judged fit for publication.

The guidance note sets out a list of points against which an advocacy advertisement should be weighed:

• It must be clearly identified as an advertisement
• It must clearly state the identity and position of the advertiser
• Opinion must be clearly distinguishable from factual information
• Factual information must be able to be substantiated
• Any combination of opinion and fact must be justifiable
• It must not contain anything that is indecent, or exploitative, or degrading or likely to cause harm, or serious or widespread offence, or give rise to hostility, contempt, abuse, or ridicule
• Heed must be taken of the likely consumer takeout of the advertisement (in other words, whether there is there a contextual justification)

The guidelines also deal with the weight given to academic studies, the status of the organisation placing the advocacy advertisement, and the use of such advertising by official bodies.

I am making no judgement on the Hobson’s Pledge advertisements. If the first had been subjected to those tests by The Herald and had satisfactorily passed each of them, NZME could (and should) have informed readers of the fact.

If the advertisement had failed any of the tests, the company would have had legitimate and defensible reasons for rejecting it. It presumably has those solid grounds for rejecting the second advertisement.

Obviously contentious
The published wrap-around’s subject matter was so obviously contentious that The Herald should have gone to some lengths in the same edition to explain its decision to run it. Assuming the application of the ASA guidelines determined that it could be published, readers should have been informed of that fact.

Instead, they were given a bland statement of NZME’s awareness of standards, and little more in the announcement of the rejection of the second.

Given the likelihood of adverse reaction from some quarters to publication, the first advertisement should also have been a statement from the publisher justifying publication, perhaps as a matter of free expression in which all sides of an issue should be allowed to be aired because, in the words of John Milton’s Areopagitica, “in a free and open encounter” truth would prevail.

Similarly, last night it should have explained why the second iteration should not be subjected to that “free and open encounter”. In doing so, it might have invoked Stanley Fish’s essay There’s no such thing as free speech, and it’s a good thing, too in which he discusses the way in which free speech is, in fact, a space we carve out. It acknowledges that some forms of speech “will be heard as (quite literally) intolerable” and sit outside that space.

Dr Gavin Ellis holds a PhD in political studies. He is a media consultant and researcher. A former editor-in-chief of The New Zealand Herald, he has a background in journalism and communications — covering both editorial and management roles — that spans more than half a century. Dr Ellis publishes the website knightlyviews.com where this commentary was first published and it is republished by Asia Pacific Report with permission.

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Waitangi Day 2024: Dawn service turns to unity, love and togetherness
• Other Waitangi Day reports
• How the day unfolded with RNZ’s live blog

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

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

Watch a livestream of this morning’s ceremony:

The Waitangi dawn Service. Video: RNZ News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thousands of people gathered before dawn in the Bay of Islands today to commemorate Aotearoa New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi amid heightened tensions between the coalition government and Māori.

Waitangi Trust chair Pita Tipene welcomed everyone and said the massive crowds were vastly different from when the country was stuck in the grip of the covid-19 pandemic.

“Several years ago when this commemoration and therefore this dawn service was not held because of the pressures of covid, I nonetheless came here with my mokopuna,” he said.

• READ MORE: Other Waitangi Day reports
• RNZ live news blog and listen to the RNZ broadcast with Mihingarangi Forbes and Julian Wilcox

“We were the only ones here, so when I look out at the throng of people it’s very different to that morning when we sat here on the maho and I was forced to give karakia myself.”

Tipene said moving forward as a nation means we were also moving forward as individuals “learning from each other”.

“When we learn to live with each other and our personal circumstances, I think we can all move forward too.”

Alistair Reese told the crowds Henry Williams, an Anglican priest who translated the English draft of the Treaty in Māori and explained its provisions to Māori leaders, told the chiefs that the Treaty was “Queen Victoria’s act of love to you”.

Reese said the Treaty was understood by many as a “sacrificial union”.

“It is an ethic that seeks the best outcome for the other and to paraphrase the apostle Paul, love is patient, love is kind, love does not dishonour others and love never fails,” he said.

“So if the Treaty was an act of love by Victoria to Māori, by extension it needs also to be an act of love by our government to Māori.”

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon shared a Bible reading from 1 Corinthians 12:12-27 about working as one body.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins said the Treaty was the country’s guide to navigating the challenges in partnership.

“Te Tiriti binds us together as we work towards a fairer Aotearoa, in which all of our people can flourish and prosper, [it] inspires us to be kind, to be compassionate, to be grateful and to do good.”

Departing Greens co-leader James Shaw chose a popular quote about love and Tina Turner’s “what’s love got to do with it” was also quoted in the speeches.

‘We’ve got a lot of work to do’ – Luxon

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon told RNZ’s Waitangi Day programme he wanted a country that was unified but respected differences too.

“I actually think that’s what’s amazing about Waitangi … where else on Earth would you see everyone, with all the diverse sets of opinions and views … actually all choose to come together and express those views in one place. I can’t think of any country that does it, I think it’s very unique and special.”

He said he had been inspired.

He visited a settlement on Friday with “Third World housing in a First World country”.

Luxon said the solution to housing was easing the consenting process, partnering up with iwi, and getting the money to the community to provide housing.

“When you look at the issues across Māoridom . . .  we’ve got a lot of work to do.”

Speaking about increased attention on ACT and New Zealand First, Luxon said that was the reality of MMP.

“New Zealand First, ACT and National are all very united on getting houses built for Māori up and down this country, so that’s where we have great commonality.”

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Waitangi Day 2024: All the speeches and action from the Treaty Grounds on February 5
• In pictures: Government face raucous challenge at Waitangi
• Tame Iti brings Haki Ātea to Waitangi

Waitangi highlights. Video: RNZ News

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here are some of the best moments caught on camera.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When it comes to grappling with the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, one of the commonest responses is that it is a matter of interpretation. It seems to be a perfectly fair reaction, except that historical interpretation generally requires adherence to rules of evidence.

It is not a licence to make any claims whatsoever about the Treaty, and then to assert their truth by appealing to the authority of personal interpretation.

Yet since the 1970s New Zealanders have been faced with the paradoxical situation of a growing body of Treaty scholarship that has led to less consensus about its meaning and purpose.

• READ MORE: History and myth: why the Treaty of Waitangi remains such a ‘bloody difficult subject’
• Learning to live with the ‘messy, complicated history’ of how Aotearoa New Zealand was colonised
• Explainer: the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi

It is therefore worthwhile to investigate some of the more common misconceptions about the Treaty that have accrued over recent decades.

This will not lead to a definitive interpretation of the Treaty. But it might remove a few obstacles currently in the way of understanding it better.

The government has been warned to “be careful” with its policies affecting Māori at the National Iwi Chairs Forum (NICF) on Friday.https://t.co/8SskRWTxGo

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

1. The Treaty or Te Tiriti?
A common view persists that the English and Māori versions of the Treaty are fundamentally at odds with each other, especially over the central issue of sovereignty.

But research over the past two decades on British colonial policy prior to 1840 has revealed that Britain wanted a treaty to enable it to extend its jurisdiction to its subjects living in New Zealand.

It had no intention to govern Māori or usurp Māori sovereignty. On this critical point, the two versions are essentially in agreement.

2. The Treaty is not a contract
The principle of contra proferentem — appropriated from contract law — refers to ambiguous provisions that can be interpreted in a way that works against the drafter of the contract.

However, there are several problems in applying this principle to the Treaty. Firstly, treaties are different legal instruments from contracts. This explains why there are correspondingly few examples of this principle being used in international law for interpreting treaties.

Secondly, as there are no major material differences between the English and Māori versions of the Treaty when it comes to Māori retaining sovereignty, there is no need to apply such a principle.

And thirdly, under international law, treaties are not to be interpreted in an adversarial manner, but in good faith (the principle of pacta sunt servanda). Thus, rather than the parties fighting over the Treaty’s meaning, the requirement is for them to work with rather than against each other.

Nearly 400 people have marched down the main street of Kaitāia in a show of support for Te Tiriti o Waitangi.https://t.co/3BGtm8BMbw

— RNZ Te Ao Māori (@RNZTeAoMaori) February 2, 2024

3. Relationships evolve over time
No rangatira (chief) ceded sovereignty over their own people through the Treaty. Nor was that Britain’s intention — hence Britain’s recognition in August 1839 of hapū (kinship group) sovereignty and the guarantee in the Treaty that rangatiratanga (the powers of the chiefs) would be protected.

Britain simply wanted jurisdiction over its own subjects in the colony. This is what is known as an “originalist” interpretation — one that follows the Treaty’s meaning as it was understood in 1840.

This has several limitations: it precludes the emergence of Treaty principles; it wrongly presumes that all involved at the time of the Treaty’s signing had an identical view on its meaning; and, crucially, it ignores all subsequent historical developments.

Treaty relationships evolve over time in numerous ways. Originalist interpretations fail to take that into account.

4. Questions of motive
British motives for the Treaty were made explicit in 1839, yet in the following 185 years false motives have entered into the historical bloodstream, where they have continued circulating.

What Britain wanted was the right to apply its laws to its people living in New Zealand. It also intended to “civilise” Māori (through creating the short-lived Office of Protector of Aborigines) and protect Māori land from unethical purchases (the pre-emption provision in Article Two of the Treaty).

And Britain wanted to afford Māori the same rights as British subjects in cases where one group’s actions impinged on the other’s (as in the 1842 Maketū case, involving the conviction for murder and execution of a young Māori man).

The Treaty was not a response to a French threat to New Zealand. And it was not an attempt to conquer Māori, nor to deceive them through subterfuge.

5. Myths of a ‘real’ Treaty and 4th article
Over the past two decades, some have alleged there is a “real” Treaty — the so-called “Littlewood Treaty” – that has been concealed because it contains a different set of provisions. Such conspiratorial claims are easily dispelled.

The text of the Littlewood Treaty is known and it is merely a handwritten copy of the actual Treaty. And, most obviously, it cannot be regarded as a treaty on the basis that no one signed it.

Another popular myth is that there is a fourth article of the Treaty, which purportedly guarantees religious freedom. This article does not appear in either the Māori or English texts of the Treaty, and there is no evidence the signatories regarded it as a provision of the agreement.

It is a suggestion that emerged in the 1990s, but lacks any evidential or legal basis.

Finally, there is the argument that the Treaty supports the democratic process. In fact, the Treaty ushered in a non-representative regime in the colony. It was the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act that gave the country a democratic government – a statute that incidentally made no reference to the Treaty’s provisions.

This list is not exhaustive. But in dispensing with areas of poor interpretation, we can improve the chances of a more informed and productive discussion about the Treaty.

Dr Paul Moon is professor of history, Auckland University of Technology. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Why redefining the Treaty principles would undermine real political equality in NZ
• The kīngitanga movement: 160 years of Māori monarchy
• Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— Kelvin Morgan (@kelvin_morganNZ) January 20, 2024

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Te Tiriti supports this democratic process.

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

New Zealand Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has been warned that Māori will not sit by without a fight if the government attempts to meddle with te Tiriti o Waitangi.

As politicians of all stripes have flocked to Rātana near Whanganui, it was a rare chance for Māori to address politicians directly on the pae — something that holds extra weight this year, because the annual celebrations come so soon after last weekend’s national hui.

Among those in attendance were Labour and Green MPs, Prime Minister Luxon, Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters, and Fisheries Minister Shane Jones, while Te Pāti Māori were welcomed on Tuesday. ACT did not have a representative there.

• READ MORE: Former Pacific minister ‘lights fire of spirit’ supporting Māori at unity hui
• Rātana 2024 celebrations in pictures – RNZ

Rāhui Papa, a representative of the Kiingitanga and Waikato-Tainui, said they were watching the rhetoric coming out of the Beehive very closely.

“Quite frankly, te iwi Māori — and the hui at Turangawaewae confirmed, the hui here at Rātana has confirmed — that if there is any measure of meddling with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, Māori will not sit idly by.

“The message is: The Tiriti o Waitangi is sacrosanct in the view of te ao Māori. We truly believe that the only treaty in town is the one that was written in the indigenous language.”

Amid a climate of concern over the Treaty Principles legislation, Luxon is calling for calm over a bill he himself has said feels divisive.

Government ‘will honour the Treaty’
“The government has no plans and never has had plans to amend or revise the Treaty, or the Treaty settlements that we have all worked so hard together to achieve.

“The government will honour the Treaty.”

His speech to the Rātana faithful largely a speech to all Māori — and focusing on his favourite word: outcomes.

“Ours will be a government with goals for better healthcare, better school achievement, and less welfare dependency.

“When I talk about wanting better outcomes, I’m not talking about giving out hand-outs to close the gaps. I want to improve the opportunities so that people who are prepared to get to work and work hard, can make the most of their opportunities and get ahead.”

Ratana representative Kamaka Manuel told the government that promise of better outcomes was hard to believe.

“What we do see is the first part of the word ‘outcomes’ — or like ‘Māori out’ — and we’re left with the last part: ‘how come’.”

Māori outcomes ‘gone backwards’
He once again reiterated his claim that outcomes for Māori had gone backwards under Labour, and that National had “no intention and no commitment” to take ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill beyond a first reading.

There may be no commitment or intention at this point to do so, but Luxon has repeatedly refused to categorically rule out further support for it.

“It’s consistent with our coalition agreements, we have said and I don’t know how to be any clearer about it, there is no commitment to support it beyond the first reading.”

He was asked by reporters if he would say National would clearly say they would not support it further, but Luxon again said there was “no intention, no commitment”.

For a day full of politicians, Rātana is not supposed to be overtly political.

Deputy Prime Minister Peters acknowledged that — but still gave a political speech anyway — lashing out at Labour to pockets of heckling.

“These people will promise you a bridge where there is no river . . . I want to ask you this question: what’s their record?.”

impromptu standup
In an impromptu standup with reporters, NZ First’s Shane Jones said a review of the Waitangi Tribunal would need to address whether its powers should remain intact.

“An institution that’s been around for 50 years should not expect to continue on uncritically for another set of decades without being reviewed.”

Spurred on by speeches from the morehu, Labour’s Willie Jackson said it had made the opposition parties more united than ever.

“What they were saying the whaikōrero was that there was one enemy . . . and the enemy was the government, and so they wanted us to all . . . to come together as a group — Greens, Pāti Māori, Labour.”

Labour leader Chris Hipkins, in his first public appearance of the year, spent all of a minute talking about Labour’s deep connection to Rātana — and then went on the attack.

“The role of us as political leaders is to light that path forward, it’s not to exploit the fear that comes from uncertainty.”

Hipkins said the current government’s approach was emboldening racism, which he later clarified related to things like the Treaty Principles Bill.

Policies ‘enable racism’
“I don’t think those are things that a responsible government should do.

“The policies of this current government encourage, foster, and enable racism in New Zealand and we should call that out for what it is.”

This time last year, Hipkins was speaking as prime minister. He now admitted — from the benefit of hindsight — the last government didn’t get it all right.

“One of the things that we didn’t get right was that making sure we were bringing non-Māori New Zealanders along with us on that journey.”

There was a notable absentee — the ACT Party, whose Treaty Principles Bill National has agreed to support to Select Committee, but no further.

“We know there could have been some trepidation like last week at Turangawaewae where we only had a couple from the three-headed taniwha government that we have in New Zealand today,” Rāhui Papa said.

‘Dishonour’ to Māori world
Greens’ co-leader Marama Davidson told reporters that ACT’s no-show at Rātana was a display of “absolute ignorance” and a dishonour to the Māori world.

“It dismisses the mana and the importance of Ratana, of Wiremu Pōtiki Ratana, and te ao Māori and their political voice.”

But David Seymour was brushing off the criticism.

“There was a time when they didn’t manage to invite me and now they seem to be complaining that they’ve invited me but I haven’t come. I guess one day the stars will align.”

Seymour has never attended Rātana festivities, describing it as a “religious event”, but he will be attending Waitangi next month.

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

RNZ News

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

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

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

• READ MORE:  More than 10,000 turn out for NZ’s national Hui-ā-Iwi at Tūrangawaewae
• NZ government confirms leaked document was a ministry Treaty Principles bill memo
• Luxon defends decision not to attend nationwide hui
• RNZ live news feed

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

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

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

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

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

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

Party leader David Seymour defended the bill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Waikato Tainui estimate at least 10,000 people have been welcomed onto Tūrangawaewae marae to participate in an Aotearoa New Zealand national hui called by Kiingi Tuuheitia.

Kiingi Tuuheitia extended the invite last month after iwi leaders highlighted the need for a unified response to coalition government policy impacting Māori and the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

The iwi say it is the largest contingent of people they have welcomed since the tangi of Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu in 2006.

• READ MORE: NZ government confirms leaked document was a ministry Treaty Principles bill memo
• John Campbell: I saw peace, joy and 10,000 people uniting to say ‘no’
• Luxon defends decision not to attend nationwide hui
• RNZ live news feed

A flood of people during the pōwhiri saw groups dispersed to the riverside and a series of overflow marquees all fitted with large screens, water, seating and shade.

Iwi representatives from across the country have spoken on the pae with some composing waiata and haka specifically related to the coalition government and the hui.

Taiha Molyneux, RNZ’s Māori news editor writes that this is the first of a series of national Hui A Iwi touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come.

Kiingitanga chief-of-staff Ngira Simmonds said Ngāruawāhia was buzzing with activity.

“It’s quite logistical magic to pull this off, and there are several marae involved in not only the hui itself, but the night before.

“Seven of our marae will be hosting some of the iwi that will be coming from a long distance, so it’s a big undertaking.”

Simmonds said: “This hui will probably be a touch point and a reference for Māori for many many years to come, we will all be able to say that at this time in this place we all agreed to this, and what we all know is there is power in kotahitanga.”

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

In his maiden speech to Parliament in 2020, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi told his fellow MPs:

You know what it feels like to have a pebble in your shoe? That will be my job here. A constant, annoying to those holding onto the colonial ways, a reminder and change agent for the recognition of our kahu Māori.

Three years later, most would agree that he and fellow co-leader Debbie Ngarewa-Packer have been just that — visible, critical, combative, prepared to be controversial.

The question in 2023, however, is how does the party build on its current platform, grow its base, and become more than a pebble in the shoe of mainstream politics?

Recent polls suggest Te Pāti Māori could win four seats in Parliament in October. But its future doesn’t necessarily lie in formally joining either a government coalition or opposition bloc, even if this were an option.

The National Party has already ruled out working with the party in government. And Te Pāti Māori has indicated partnership with either major party is not a priority.

Such are the challenges for a political party based on kaupapa Māori (incorporating the knowledge, skills, attitudes and values of Māori society) in a Westminster-style parliamentary system.

Focusing on Māori values
These tensions have existed since 2004, when then-Labour MP Tariana Turia and co-leader Pita Sharples established Te Pāti Māori in protest against Labour’s Foreshore and Seabed Act.

Under that law, overturned in 2011, the Crown was made owner of much of New Zealand’s coastline. Turia and others argued the government was confiscating land and ignoring Māori customary ownership rights.

As a kaupapa Māori party, Te Pāti Māori bases its policies and constitution on tikanga (Māori values), while advocating for mana motuhake and tino rangatiratanga. That is, Māori self-determination and sovereignty, as defined by the Māori version of te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

A tikanga-based constitution has helped shape policies advocating for Māori rights. But it has also, at times, sat at odds with the rules of Parliament.

Waititi, for example, called pledging allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II “distasteful”. He also refused to wear a tie, breaching parliamentary dress codes.

Between left and right
Over the years, the party’s Māori-centred policies have enabled its leaders to move between left and right wing alliances.

Under the original leadership of Turia and Sharples, Te Pāti Māori joined with the centre-right National Party to form governments in 2008, 2011 and 2014. This was a change from traditional Māori voting patterns that had long favoured Labour.

During it’s time in coalition with National, Te Pāti Māori helped influence a number of important decisions. This included finally signing the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, the development of Whanau Ora (a Māori health initiative emphasising family and community as decision makers), and repealing the Foreshore and Seabed Act.

However, internal fighting over the decision to align with National led to the resignation of the Te Tai Tokerau MP at the time, Hone Harawira. Harawira later formed the Mana Party.

The relationship with National proved unsustainable when Labour won back all the Māori electorates at the 2017 election. Notably, Labour’s Tāmati Coffey beat te Pāti Māori co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell in the Waiariki electorate.

Rebuilding Te Pāti Māori
Waiariki was front and centre again in the 2020 election, where despite Labour’s general dominance across the Māori electorates, new Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi reclaimed the seat. The party also managed to win enough of the party vote to bring co-leader Ngarewa-Packer into Parliament with him.

Sitting in opposition this time, the current party leaders have been vocal across a range of issues. The party has called for the banning of seabed mining, removing taxes for low-income earners, higher taxes on wealth, and lowering the superannuation age for Māori.

It hasn’t all been smooth sailing. Some policies, such as 2020’s “Whānau Build” have caused discomfort. Aimed largely at addressing the housing crisis, Whānau Build identified immigration as the root of Māori homelessness.

It was a sentiment more often associated with the extreme right, and the party has since apologised for that part of the policy.

Contesting more seats in 2023
Those bumps and missteps notwithstanding, recent polls show just how competitive Te Pāti Māori has become in the Māori electorates.

Ex-Labour MP Meka Whaitiri — an experienced politician who has held the Ikaroa-Rāwhiti electorate since 2013 but left to join Te Pāti Māori this year — is in a tight race to regain her seat against new Labour candidate Cushla Tangaere-Manuel.

Co-leader Ngarewa-Packer is also running a close race against Labour candidate Soraya Peke-Mason for the Te Tai Hauāuru electorate — a Labour stronghold.

But Te Pāti Māori has also shifted from its previous focus on the Māori electorates, with Merepeka Raukawa-Tait standing in the Rotorua general electorate.

The Māori Electoral Option legislation, which came into effect this year, now allows Māori voters to change more easily between electoral rolls. In future, Te Pāti Māori may find it can best to serve Māori by standing candidates in general electorates.

Broader social change across Aotearoa New Zealand has also likely been an important contributor to the success of Te Pāti Māori, with greater understanding of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, tikanga and te reo Māori among voters.

Indeed, the current party vision of an “Aotearoa Hou” (New Aotearoa), includes reference to tangata tiriti, a phrase being popularised to refer to non-Māori who seek to honour partnerships based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

According to the most recent polling, Te Pāti Māori may not be the deciding factor in who gets to form the next government come October.

But the party’s resilience and growth after it’s electoral disappointments in 2017 and 2020 show an ability to rebuild. In doing so, it is carving out it’s place in New Zealand’s political landscape.

And if Te Pāti Māori is not the kingmaker in 2023, it is still on the path to influence — and potentially decide — elections in the not-too-distant future.

Annie Te One is lecturer in Māori Studies at Te Herenga Waka — Victoria University of Wellington. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins and National leader Christopher Luxon have faced off in a fast-paced but unspectacular debate in the Aotearoa New Zealand general election campaign with co-governance and gangs among the issues producing the liveliest exchanges.

It was the first time the two leaders had squared off against each other outside Parliament and at times the mood was tense during last night’s debate.

Luxon, in particular, appeared frustrated when Hipkins interjected, while the Labour leader appeared to be enjoying himself a bit more.

• READ MORE: Other NZ election 2023 reports

However, with Labour behind in the polls, Hipkins was unable to deliver anything telling enough to put Luxon off his stride.

He did manage some amusing lines, however, such as “We have a proven track record of reducing our emissions . . . it’s not just a bunch of slogans”, “building EV stations is like building petrol stations”, and when asked what was his worst quality he responded with a smile: “I need to delegate more”.

Afterwards both leaders professed themselves happy with how they performed, however, commentators on TV1 were less enthusiastic, with former MP Tau Henare saying there was no excitement and Hipkins had been “too mild”.

Former Labour leader David Cunliffe believed Hipkins had allowed Luxon too much of a free run and the National party leader made the most of it. Both declared the debate a tie.

Wide-ranging debate
The debate was wide-ranging, covering health, housing, crime and gangs, climate change and the economy. 1News political editor Jessica Mutch-McKay kept it moving at a fast clip and co-governance, especially in health, led to some intense debate.

The leaders were both asked if Māori and Pacific people should get priority when it came to the health waitlist. Luxon said need should come first ahead of ethnicity, while Hipkins said Māori and Pacific people having priority was a positive due to their poor health outcomes when compared to the rest of the population.

Hipkins said other parties were using the issue to “race-bait”, to which Luxon interjected “rubbish”.

Luxon said he felt the definition of co-governance had been expanded since the last time National was in government and the public had not been given adequate explanations of what it entailed.

Hipkins said co-governance meant shared decision-making over natural resources which had been successful. He believed Māori and government working together benefited New Zealand.

Luxon said he supported it for Treaty of Waitangi settlements but not for national public services and repeated his party’s intention of axing the Māori Health Authority.

“The Māori Health Authority isn’t having two separate systems,” Hipkins said.

Luxon challenged in Māori health
He challenged Luxon on why he would keep Māori health providers if he did not want two systems of health. Luxon said he wanted to “turbo-charge” community organisations but it would be as part of one health system.

Hipkins said the health system was dealing with systemic issues and it would take time to build capacity to fix them.

But Luxon said every single health indicator had worsened under Labour — although Hipkins countered that by saying falling smoking rates were one example of effective action.

He said he did not feel safe in downtown Auckland and believed many New Zealanders felt the same.

Under Labour the prison population had been reduced by 30 percent — which might have been acceptable if the crime rate had gone down by the same amount — but in fact it had risen sharply, Luxon said.

On gangs he claimed: “We have nine gang members for every 10 police officers in this country.

“We’re going to make sure we ban gang patches in public places, we give police dispersal and powers to break them up from planning criminal activity, we get tough on the illegal guns that they have and we make being a gang member an aggravating factor in sentencing.”

Consequences for young offenders
He also promised there would be consequences for serious young offenders.

Hipkins said the escalation in gang activity was unacceptable and acknowledged that more New Zealanders were feeling unsafe. However, he advocated working with young offenders to turn their lives around which would reduce crime.

On boot camps, told that an expert had said 83 percent of young people who went through them re-offend, Luxon said National would make them “more effective”.

“We need targeted interventions in these young people’s lives. I’m not prepared to write them off.”

When Hipkins tried to intervene and say how boot camps did not get results, Luxon hit back saying Labour had had six years to get it right.

Hipkins said Labour had changed the law so police could be tougher on gang convoys, such as the recent one that closed down parts of Ōpōtiki over a tangi.

Insults fly on housing
Luxon slammed Labour’s record on housing while Hipkins said National’s plan was to offer incentives to landlords whereas Labour was focused on getting people into homes.

Hipkins said there were more “mega landlords” these days and that was not right.

“Will you guarantee your tax breaks for landlords will get passed on to tenants?” Hipkins asked Luxon.

Luxon avoided a direct answer so the Labour leader answered on his behalf, saying “We’ll take that as a no.”

Both leaders stated they supported building more state houses — although Hipkins was critical of how state houses had been sold off the last time National was in government.

Hipkins admitted KiwiBuild had been an “unrealistic promise” but since then Labour had created momentum in house supply which needed to be continued.

Afterwards both leaders were relaxed. Hipkins was reluctant to score himself, saying the voters would decide, but when pressed again opted for an eight.

Luxon said he had enjoyed it and hoped viewers did also while also choosing an eight.

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

After a 12-year fight, mana whenua will get a seat at the table after the Western Bay of Plenty District Council has voted to establish Māori wards at the next election.

Applause then waiata rang out from the packed public gallery as the councillors voted nine to three in favour of Māori wards yesterday.

Speaking after the meeting, mayor James Denyer said it was a “momentous day, particularly for mana whenua”.

• READ MORE: Other Māori wards reports

“This is about making the right decision, not making the popular decision.”

Mana whenua have long advocated for Māori wards in the district. In 2011 the council decided not to establish one and in 2017 the council opted to have a Māori ward, but it was subject to a poll requested by the public.

It was voted down in the poll with 78 percent of the respondents opposed. Just over 40 percent of eligible voters took part.

During the meeting’s public forum, Mabel Wharekawa-Burt said the poll was not an actual reflection of what the community was feeling.

‘Open your minds’
“My job today is to influence you to open your minds a little bit further, not to change your opinions,” she said.

Wharekawa-Burt, of Katikati, worked with the electoral commission for 14 years and urged the councillors to “take a chance”.

“We’re [Māori] not a threat. I’m bound and obligated to make good decisions for my grandchildren.

“Take a chance on me by unequivocally supporting the establishment of Māori wards and I’ll make sure you’re safe,” Wharekawa-Burt (Ngāi Te Rangi and Ngāti Ranginui) said.

Katikati — Waihī Beach Residents and Ratepayers Association chairperson Keith Hay opposed their establishment and said the decision affected all of the community and referred to the previous poll.

“To knowingly override these views without community consultation is arrogant.

“If you vote to introduce Māori wards today, voters’ views are being overwritten,” said Hay, in his opinion.

The council opted not to consult with the community because under the Local Electoral Act 2001 there were no obligations to consult with any person before passing a resolution to establish Māori wards.

‘Spectrum of community views’
WBOPDC strategic kaupapa Māori manager Chris Nepia’s report to council said: “Council already has a good understanding of the spectrum of community views on the establishment of Māori wards through previous processes.”

Tapuika Iwi Authority chief executive Andy Gowland-Douglas said it was “really important mana whenua were represented at the decision making table” and added “significant value”.

Former mayor Gary Webber, who was on the council for 12 years, said it was the third time he had been involved in the decision.

“It is time to do what is tika, what is right. Please don’t say no and be an outlier in the statistics.”

Deputy mayor John Scrimgeour moved the motion. He said it was a legislative requirement and important the council met this.

“Māori have continued to be entirely consistent in their request for Māori wards.

“They wanted to vote for someone that they could identify with and help them represent their interests.”

Not fairly represented
First term councillor Andy Wichers said he had heard from the community that Māori don’t feel they are fairly and effectively represented as individuals and as communities.

“The simple question was this, could Māori wards achieve a fairer and more effective representation? And the answer was yes, and I could not find an argument against it.”

Councillor Rodney Joyce said: “Partnership is deeply and rightly entrenched into our constitutional arrangements.

“Having guaranteed Māori members will help us be a better council.

“This is not a zero sum game where one treaty partner wins at the expense of the other. We can work together to make better decisions, bringing different perspectives.”

He did, however, want there to be consultation with the community.

“We should consult widely on this and seek to bring our community along with us in this decision.”

‘Incredibly rushed’
Tracey Coxhead said as a first time councillor she felt “incredibly rushed in this process” and “not informed enough” to make the right decision.

She too wanted community consultation.

Also opposed was councillor Allan Sole — he said he was part Māori but chose not to be on the Māori electoral roll.

“I believe that we have got to be people that look and work towards having a more harmonious whole community, not looking after factions.

He said, in his view, if people felt they were unequal he would “almost consider [it] patronising that somebody makes a special place for you”.

“I believe that to protect those special places is totally wrong and not beneficial to the decision making and future of our district and our country.”

Sole also questioned the Treaty of Waitangi: “We also ought to let the people look at it [the Treaty] and say perhaps . . .  this actual document, a great piece of our history, may not be fit for purpose today.”

‘Same rights and privileges’
Kaimai ward councillor Margaret Murray-Benge said: “I believe strongly that, as the Treaty of Waitangi made clear that 180 years ago, all New Zealanders had the same rights and privileges.

“Creating racial division between us by creating racially separate based wards is fundamentally wrong.”

Councillor James Dally was visibly emotional as he spoke and referenced the 2021 decision by the local government minister to remove the ability for the public to request a poll on the creation of Māori wards.

He said the number of councils with Māori wards went from three to 34 and there were 66 councillors elected to represent Māori communities at last year’s local government elections.

“Hopefully in time the separatist or racist narrative will become a thing of the past.”

Denyer said: “It’s clear to me that Māori representation at council is deficient and it is no longer a radical or unknown option.”

He said Māori wards “work quite well” for the 35 councils that have them.

‘About honouring commitments’
Scrimgeour concluded: “I want to emphasise this is not about establishing a race-based constituency. It’s about honouring commitments that we made under the Treaty of Waitangi.”

Speaking after the meeting, Wharekawa-Burt said: “It felt glorious.

“I’m ecstatic for my grandchildren. I just wanted the right to make my own choice.”

Te Kāhui Mana o Tauranga Moana forum chairperson Reon Tuanau said it had been a long time coming and he had been involved since 2011.

Asked if he had any words for those that were fearful of Māori wards, Tuanau referred to the whakataukī.

“Nā to rourou, nā taku rourou, ka ora ai te tāngata. With your basket and my basket put into the same basket people will thrive.”

Western Bay of Plenty is the 36th council to establish Māori wards. Only those on the Māori electoral roll can vote in that ward.

How the Māori ward will be made up will be considered as part of the district representation review next year.

The review looks at what form the wards and community boards should take and how many elected members there should be, to best represent the district’s population. It will be subject to public consultation.

How they voted:
For: James Denyer, John Scrimgeour, Grant Dally, Anne Henry, Rodney Joyce, Murray Grainger, Andy Wichers, Richard Crawford, Don Thwaites.

Against: Margaret Murray-Benge, Allan Sole, Tracey Coxhead.

Alisha Evans is SunLive local democracy reporter. Local Democracy Reporting is Public Interest Journalism funded through NZ On Air. It is published by Asia Pacific Report in collaboration.

Tui Rererangi Walsh O’Sullivan, 4 July 1940 — 20 May 2023

Kia ora koutau katoa. Kia ora mo o koutou haerenga i te ahiahi nei. Kia ora mo o koutou aroha, o koutou karakia mo Tui i te wa o tona harenga ki te rangi.

I whanau mai a Tui, kei Kaitaia, hei uri o Te Rarawa, i te tau kotahi mano, iwa rau, wha tekau.

Tui was born in Kaitaia in 1940 — exactly 100 years after her great-great grandfather, Te Riipi, signed the Treaty of Waitangi. She was descended, too, from a Scotsman, John Borrowdale who named his boat Half Caste — after his children. Such was the mystery of race, life and family in 19th century Northland.

• READ MORE: Tui O’Sullivan: Lifetime of devotion to Māori and Pacific student success

Tui was the last born child of Jack and Maata Walsh, and sister of John, Pat, Rose and Michael. Maata was Te Rarawa, from Pukepoto. Tui lies alongside her at Rangihoukaha Urupa in Pukepoto. She was named Tui Rererangi, the flying bird in the sky, in honour of her uncle Billy Busby — a World War II fighter pilot.

Maata died when Tui was two years old. She and Rose and their brothers were raised by their father, Jack Walsh, his mother Maud and his sister Lil. Maud was born in Townsville. Her father was a lacemaker from Nottingham who emigrated, with his wife, firstly to Australia and then to the far North of New Zealand.

Jack was born in Houhora and died when Tui was 23. Jack’s father emigrated from Limerick.
Early in the next century, the writer Frank McCourt described Limerick, just as it had been in Timothy Walsh’s time, “It was, of course, a miserable childhood: the happy childhood is hardly worth your while. Worse than the ordinary miserable childhood is the miserable Irish childhood, and worse yet is the miserable Irish Catholic childhood.”

It was a better world these people sought, in and with, Te Rarawa.

Tui’s story — almost 83 years — spans a time of rapid social, political and technological development in New Zealand and the world. Her contribution was transformative for the many, many, people she encountered in her professional, social and family lives.

Tui’s schooling began at Ahipara Native School. Transcending the government’s official purpose of the Native School, of “lead[ing] the lad to be a good farmer and the girl to be a good farmer’s wife” — Tui left primary school with a Ngarimu VC and 28th Maori Battalion Scholarship to St Mary’s College in Ponsonby.

Some of her friends from St Mary’s are here today, and her granddaughter, named in her honour, started at the school this year.

Disrupting social orthodoxy was Tui’s life. On leaving school, she enrolled at the University of Auckland, completing a degree in English and anthropology part-time over the next 20 years. During these years she trained as a primary school teacher, working in Auckland, Wellington, Cambridge, Athens and London.

In the past week, we took a phone call from somebody Tui had taught at Kelburn Normal School in the 1960s. Such was Tui’s impact.

I was born in Hamilton in 1970. Deirdre in Cambridge in 1973. We moved to Northcote Point in 1975 and, in 1977, Tui became the first woman and the first Māori appointed to a permanent position at what was then the Auckland Technical Institute. I remember her telling me she was going for a job interview and coming into this Church to pray that she would be successful. Deirdre and I did our primary schooling here at St Mary’s.

Being a working single parent in the 1970s and 80s was hard work. It didn’t reflect social norms, but the Auckland University of Technology, as it’s become, provided Tui, Deirdre and me with security and a home – a home that has been Tui’s since 1978.

At AUT, she developed the first Women on Campus group. She helped establish the newspaper Password, a publication introducing new English speakers to New Zealand society and culture.

She taught courses on the Treaty of Waitangi when the treaty was a subversive idea. She contributed to the change in social and political thought that has brought the treaty — that her tupuna signed — to greater public influence. The justice it promises was a major theme in Tui’s working life.

Tui was interested in justice more broadly, inspired by her Catholic faith, love of people and profound compassion. These values stood out in the memories of Tui that people shared during her tangihanga earlier in the week at Te Uri o Hina Marae.

On Twitter, like them all, a social media that Tui never mastered, a former student, some 40 years later, recalled “the sage advice” given to a “young fella from Kawerau”. As Tui remembered, for a Māori kid from the country, moving to town can be moving to a different world.

In a media interview on her retirement, she said: “Coming from a town where you didn’t know names, but everyone was Aunty or Uncle, Auckland was by far a change of scenery”.
In Auckland, Tui knew everybody. Always the last to leave a social function, and always the first to help people in need.

Tui helped establish the university’s marae in 1997. She would delight in sharing the marae with students and colleagues. Just as she delighted in her family — especially her grandchildren, Lucy, Xavier, Joey, Tui and Delphi.

She remembered Sarah Therese. Her grandchildren tell of their special times with her, and her deep interest in their lives. Last year, Deirdre and Malcolm and their children moved from Wellington to be close by. Joey and I came from Canberra for the year.

We talked and helped as we could. My job was to buy the smokes. I remember saying one day, “I’m going to the supermarket, what would you like for dinner” — “a packet of cigarettes and a bottle of wine”. That was Tui’s diet and she loved it. And it was only in the last few months that she stopped going out.

At the wake for her brother John’s wife, Maka, in November, she was still going at three in the morning. I worried that three bottles of wine mightn’t have been the best idea at that stage in life, but she was well enough to do it, and loved the company of her family as we loved being with her.

In December, she took Joey and Tui to mark their birthdays at the revolving restaurant at the Sky Tower, where she also joined in the celebration of Lucy’s 18th birthday a couple of months ago. Delphi liked to take her out for a pancake. She loved Xavier’s fishing and rugby stories.

Over the last year, she wasn’t well enough to watch her grandchildren’s sport as she would have liked, take them to the beach as she used to love, or attend important events in our lives. But she did what she could right until the end.

My last conversation with her, the day before she died, was slow and tired but cogent and interesting. We discussed the politics of the day, as we often did. She asked after Joey and Lucy, and after Cara — always concerned that they were doing well. She didn’t speak for long, which was out of character, but gave no reason to think that this would be the last time we spoke.

Her copy of my book, Indigeneity, Culture and the UN Sustainable Development Goals,  published last month, is still in the post. She didn’t know that it was dedicated to her and that I had explained, in the acknowledgements, that the reasons needed more words than the book itself.

That was supposed to have been for her to read, and for her to learn, that the dedication was also from her grandchildren. She was the immediate and unanimous choice when I asked them, “to whom should I dedicate this book”.

No reira, ka nui te mihi ki tena ki tena o koutou. Kia ora mo o koutou manaaki me te aroha.

Kia ora huihui tatau katoa!

Dr Dominic O’Sullivan, Tui’s son and professor of political science at Charles Sturt University, delivered this eulogy at her memorial mass at St Mary’s Catholic Church, Northcote, on 27 May 2023. It is republished here with the whanau’s permission. Tui O’Sullivan was also a foundation Advisory Board member of the Pacific Media Centre in 2007 and was a feisty advocate for the centre and its research publication, Pacific Journalism Review, until she retired in 2018.

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: Australians should be wary of scare stories comparing the Voice with New Zealand’s Waitangi Tribunal
• Sam Frost knows nothing about segregation: white settlers co-opting terms used to oppress

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Former New Zealand prime minister Jacinda Ardern has used her valedictory speech to Parliament to ask the House to take the politics out of climate change.

In her speech, Ardern said when she became prime minister she knew she wanted climate change to be “front and centre”.

“I called it our nuclear moment — I believed it then and I believe it still now.

• READ MORE: Jacinda Ardern’s legacy for NZ: Unique covid-19 strategy ‘saved many lives’
• Ex-PM Ardern named Christchurch Call envoy against online violence
• Other Jacinda Ardern articles

“We have seen first hand the reality of our changing environment … when crisis has landed in front of us I have seen the best of this place.”

Ardern said one of the only things she wanted to ask on her departure was for the House to take the politics out of climate change.

Her government had worked to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi by crossing the bridge more often, she said.

That included the creation of the Māori Crown portfolio, growth of te reo Māori, the establishment of the Māori Health Authority and the creation of Matariki — the first national Māori holiday, she said.

‘Not always easy’
“The path we travel as a nation will not always be linear and it won’t always be easy, but I’m glad I was in part of a government that took on the hilly bits.”

One of the hardest things about covid-19 was the unknowns, Ardern said.

“A valedictory is not the time to summarise a pandemic, no one has the time for that type of group therapy.”

Former prime minister Jacinda Ardern’s valedictory speech today. Video: Parliament

Ardern said she remained forever grateful that science was “on our side” and that she was surrounded by wonderful smart compassionate people trying to do the right thing.

She said they did not always get it right but “we went in as a nation with a goal to look after one another and we did”.

Other things, such as a sense of security, were lost along the way and so much of the information swirling around during the pandemic was false, Ardern said.

Ardern described how she tried and failed to convince a protester that they were relying on totally false information.

She said she could not single-handedly pull someone out of a rabbit hole but that perhaps collectively “we could stop them from falling into it in the first place”.

“Debate is critical to a healthy democracy but conspiracy is its nemesis.”

Struggled over mosque attacks
Ardern said she still struggled to talk about the mosque attacks in Christchurch on 15 March 2019, but the Muslim community had humbled her beyond words.

She said she was unsure what the response of one of the survivors of the attack would be when she met him in the immediate aftermath.

“What came next is one of the most profound memories I have of that period, he thanked us. Here was someone who had been through one of the most horrific experiences I could imagine and he thanked New Zealand and expressed gratitude for his home.”

The most significant task for us as a nation was “to live up to the expectations that those experienced it have of us, to deserve their thanks”.

Ardern became emotional at the end of her valedictory speech describing herself as sensitive, somewhat negative, and “a crier and a hugger”.

But said she “would rather be criticised for being a hugger than being heartless”.

She closed her speech telling the House that she hoped she had demonstrated anyone could be a leader.

‘You can lead, just like me’
“You can be anxious, sensitive, kind and wear your heart on your sleeve, you can be a mother or not, you can be an ex-Mormon or not, you can be a nerd, a crier, a hugger — you can be all of these things and not only can you be here, you can lead, just like me.”

Ardern received a standing ovation at the end of her speech, before hugging Finance Minister Grant Robertson (who had been her deputy) and then Deputy Prime Minister Carmel Sepuloni.

Yesterday, it was announced the former prime minister was taking on two new roles: A voluntary position as Special Envoy for the Christchurch Call and trustee of Prince William’s Earthshot Prize.

Ardern resigned in January saying she no longer had “enough in the tank” to lead the country.

Former prime minister Helen Clark said Ardern would be remembered largely as the prime minister whose pandemic-era policies saved thousands of Kiwis’ lives.

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

As part of its aspiration to be “Tiriti-led”, the University of Otago has embarked on a consultation process to re-brand. The proposed change involves a new logo and a new, deeply symbolic Māori name: Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka.

Universities occasionally change logos, names and marketing strategies. All New Zealand institutions have added te reo Māori to their original titles, often opting for a literal translation — “Te Whare Wānanga” — to describe their status as a university. But Otago is taking it a step further.

Metaphorically, “whakaihu” refers to the university’s place as the country’s oldest university, as well as its Māori students often being the first to graduate from their whanau and communities. And it symbolically includes everyone on the “waka”.

• READ MORE: Explainer: the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi
• Colonial ideas have kept NZ and Australia in a rut of policy failure. We need policy by Indigenous people, for the people
• Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how

That is exactly what a university is supposed to be, of course — a place for everyone. A place where people are free to think and develop ideas, even contested or unpopular ones.

As the Education and Training Act 2020 says, universities must operate as the “critic and conscience of society”.

But being “Tiriti-led” is not as straightforward. It throws into sharp relief where universities sit in relation to the Crown under te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi. This, in turn, raises quite fundamental questions about what a university is in the first place.

The University has collaborated with mana whenua to create a proposed new visual identity including a new Māori name and tohu (symbol), to sit along the official University of Otago name, which we believe represent where we have come from and where we’re going. pic.twitter.com/mZ86NPOzE2

— University of Otago (@otago) March 15, 2023

What is te Tiriti, what is a university?
Essentially, te Tiriti o Waitangi was the Māori language agreement in 1840 between Māori hapu and the British Crown which set out the terms of British settlement. Britain could establish government over its own people, hapu would retain authority over their own affairs.

Māori would enjoy the “rights and privileges” of British subjects, a legal status which continues to evolve as New Zealand citizenship. The Treaty of Waitangi is an English language version of the agreement with different and less favourable emphases for Māori.

By wanting to become “Tiriti-led”, Otago has decided it is part of the Crown party to this agreement. This makes Kai Tahu, as mana whenua (people of the land), the university’s “principal Tiriti partner”.

By contrast, when Massey University says it’s Tiriti-led, it doesn’t explicitly say it’s part of the Crown. Auckland University of Technology’s vice-chancellor has said his university is Tiriti-led, but there’s no definition to be easily found on the public record.

Styling a relationship in this way is significant — but not necessarily in ways that keep faith with te Tiriti o Waitangi, or with the essential purposes of a university.

Universities are owned and principally funded by the Crown. But their obligation to independent scholarship means they cannot be part of the Crown in the same way as a government department.

Universities don not take direction from ministers in the same way, and their staff are not public servants. They are not part of the executive branch of government.

Together with their students and graduates, academics are the university — a community of scholars obliged to contribute to the discovery and sharing of knowledge, but not obliged to serve the government of the day.

Us and them
Parliament and the executive (government ministers) together decide what te Tiriti means to the Crown side of the relationship. Public servants offer advice, but ultimately take ministers’ instructions on giving effect to whatever is the Crown’s Tiriti policy.

Academics, however, can take a different view. They are not bound by what the Crown side of the agreement thinks. And, as developments in te Tiriti policy show, academic independence makes a difference.

In 1877, New Zealand’s Supreme Court found the Treaty was legally a “simple nullity” because it had not been incorporated into domestic law. It wasn’t the public servant’s role to object, at least not in public. That kind of intellectual freedom belongs elsewhere. Explicitly, it’s one of the reasons universities exist.

Academics — Māori and others — have contributed significantly to developments in te Tiriti policy since 1877, especially in more recent years. Their contributions have often contested prevailing political thought. Universities have given Māori academics — and through them, Māori communities — the kind of voice unavailable to public servants working for the Crown partner.

Partnership is one of the “Treaty principles”, developed legally and politically as an interpretive guide to the agreement. But partnership creates a “them” and “us” binary.

In my book, Sharing the Sovereign: recognition, treaties and the state, I show how this binary encourages people to think of the Crown as exclusively Pākehā. Any institution that is not solely Māori is an institution that belongs to “them”.

This reinforces Māori separation from the university as an institution that should belong to all of us — and to each of us in our own ways.

Academics are not public servants
If an institution represents one side of a partnership, that institution cannot be a “place for everyone”. A Māori student or staff member should be able to say, “I belong here as much as anybody else, with the same rights, opportunities and obligations to contribute to the institution’s culture, values and purpose.”

That includes the right to study and teach te Tiriti with an independence that is not available to public servants.

In 2020, I helped develop “Critical Tiriti Analysis”, a policy evaluation method that could be used to assess public policy consistency with te Tiriti. While anecdotally it seems now to be widely used across the public service, it’s not something likely to have been written by a public servant.

The Crown is a cautious Tiriti partner.

Thoroughness and objectivity — but not political caution — guide academic contributions to policy debate. Such contributions are different in style and purpose from the kind of policy making that it is the duty of the public service to undertake.

Universities are not the Crown in the same sense, and this is why they are not Tiriti partners.

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

New Zealand Prime Minister Chris Hipkins has described today’s Waitangi Day dawn service as moving and says he welcomes the shift away from a focus on politics.

Hundreds of people gathered before dawn to commemorate 183 years since Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed.

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘We should allow good honest conversation’ – PM Chris Hipkins
• ‘I didn’t mean to say the treaty is an experiment’ – Christopher Luxon
• Live: Hundreds gather for Waitangi Day commemorations
• Waitangi Day 2023 in pictures
• What the party leaders said at Waitangi

Hipkins said the national day had a greater focus on reflection and celebration than years ago.

The criticism that politicians had come to Waitangi in the past and used Māori as a way to increase their votes was a fair one, he said.

Hipkins said he saw his role as lighting the path forwards and not playing in the uncertain space where politicians could create fear and division.

“I think Māori have often been used as a way for politicians to whip up votes in other parts of the population and that’s something that I find abhorrent.”

Trend for less politics
Asked to compare this year’s Waitangi commemorations to previous years, Hipkins said in the last five years there had been a trend for less politics on Waitangi Day.

“I think there’s been a trend in the last five and a half years or so . . . for a bit less politics on Waitangi Day and a bit more reflection and a bit more commemoration and a little bit more celebration and I really welcome that.”

Hipkins said he first attended Waitangi commemorations at Waitangi about 15 years ago and overall he had always found it “to be a pretty positive experience”.

As prime minister his role was “to try and preserve a sense of unity and common purpose,” Hipkins said.

“It’s easy to create division when it comes to race relations and we’ve seen that in the past; governments have tried to to avoid that, it tends to have come from those who are not in government who are trying to get into government and I think that’s most unfortunate.”

National Party leader Christopher Luxon said New Zealand was an intelligent country that could engage in proper debates.

“I think what I’ve seen in reaction to some of our positions, say on co-governance, is you end up with some lazy sort of baseless accusations of racism frankly,” he said.

“Because that’s not what I’m doing, I’m having a conversation to say I’m interested in the ends of advancing all Māori and all non-Māori . . .  the means by which I do that may be different.”

The fact that National does not support co-governance of public services should not be misinterpreted as the party lacking ambition or aspirations for Māori in New Zealand, he said.

Open discussion needed
A lot of New Zealanders were scared to talk about the treaty and our history, we needed good honest relations to take place, Hipkins said.

“We have to create sort of safe spaces for people to say what they think. I think we get into dangerous territory when people stop saying what they think because they’re worried what the response to that might be and then you just perpetuate misunderstanding.

“I think when you create an environment where people can say what they think and other people can challenge that and people don’t have to feel offended or confronted by that.”

The signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi was a bold vision, Hipkins said.

“If we go to the spirit of what they were trying to accomplish, I think they were trying to accomplish an ability for us all to live here together, to all prosper together without conflict.”

The goal of the treaty was to try to avoid the conquest and conflict that occurred during settlement of some other countries during the mid-1800s, he said.

The history of Aotearoa shows this attempt was somewhat limited and conquest and conflict still followed, Hipkins said.

But the goal was a very noble one and the ongoing importance of the treaty recognises that it was a goal that was worth striving for, Hipkins said.

“I think when people say he aha te mea nui o te ao, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata, when I was here with my mokopuna last year and we were the only ones here due to covid, and we had our own karakia.”

“Funnily enough, it was a similar bleak sort of a morning.

“You just can’t beat having so many people, a throng of people, hearing different voices, hearing the diversity, but feeling the unity that everybody is seeking.”

History was also made this today with the delivery of the first Muslim prayer at the dawn service, from Labour MP Ibrahim Omer.

“We look at Te Tiriti of Waitangi as being between Māori and European or Pākehā, but we really need to be thinking much, much more of the other ethnicities in our country that make up a multicultural tapestry of our nation,” he said.

“How we view it is that we have tangata whenua, or people of the land, and tangata Tiriti, which is the broad application of all people who have come here over time.”

Luxon defends ‘little experiment’ statement
Luxon spoke at Waitangi yesterday, but missed the dawn service today, instead opting to go to an event at the Takapuna Boat Club in Auckland.

One part of Luxon’s speech yesterday caused some controversy: “We started on the 6th of February 1840 as a little experiment, and look at us now — the 21st century success story able to tackle the challenges that come our way.”

Today, Luxon clarified that he did not mean to say that the treaty was an experiment.

“What we’ve done here in New Zealand is incredibly special, I mean if you think about the goodwill of those people who were here negotiating that treaty, it was unprecedented in many ways.”

Looking at what happened in other countries and how they have developed over time the treaty that had been done in New Zealand was incredibly special, he said.

“So it was a brave experiment to set up a treaty as a foundation for a whole new country, that didn’t happen if you think about it pre-1840 around the world.”

The intention was great, but the Crown did not honour its obligations and that was what a lot of New Zealand’s modern history had been about in terms of trying to deal with that issue, Luxon said.

Treaty settlements, Ngāpuhi and rangatiratanga
Asked about the concept of rangatiratanga, or the right of Māori to rule themselves, Hipkins said he was comfortable with the notion of “by Māori for Māori”.

In education there had been significant expansion of things like kura kaupapa Māori and in health some progress was being made in a by Māori for Māori approach, he said.

“I think the government can be a better partner, we can have a better relationship, we can work together better when it comes to all things Māori.”

Hipkins said the Ngāpuhi settlement was likely to be one of the most complex and difficult to achieve, but it was important to continue to approach it “with good faith and good will”.

“We’ve still got a process that we’re going through, what I can provide assurance about though is that the Crown will approach that with good faith and we want to get a settlement, so that’s a pretty good starting point.”

Luxon defended National’s goal that all treaty settlements should be completed by 2030.

Having a deadline made a government focus on getting that job done, he said.

“Treaty settlements are full and final, I mean the individual settlements are full and final, not to be opened up and discussed again.”

He acknowledged that everyone had a lot of work to do in terms of digesting the latest Waitangi Tribunal report on the Ngāpuhi claim.

On rangatiratanga, Luxon said there was one sovereign state here in New Zealand and it was the government.

Equity and equal opportunity
Equity and equal opportunity were two concepts that politicians needed to spend more time talking about, Hipkins said.

“Equal opportunity doesn’t guarantee an equal outcome, but equal opportunity also in itself isn’t necessarily equity because if you’re starting from a very different place then the opportunity in front of you might be the same, but your ability to take up that opportunity might be vastly different.”

For example, a child who starts school and already has a good base of education will be ahead of a child starting school with no education base, Hipkins said.

So treating them exactly the same in the classroom is not equity, although it might be equal opportunity, he said.

To try and address this in the education sector the government had just changed the way schools were funded to allow targeted additional funding to schools with equity challenges, and the same would be done for early childhood centres, he said.

National rejects co-governance of public services
Luxon said National was very supportive of co-management arrangements and it had led to better outcomes.

“But when it comes to the provision of national public services, from a government that’s accountable to all New Zealanders, and those services are designed to deliver to people in need, we think the better way is to have a single system of delivery.”

But there could be innovation within that system to ensure services were being delivered to those communities that needed it, he said.

Luxon said he was focused on outcomes which were targeted on the basis of need which could be delivered through many organisations which would do a much better job than central government would.

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

The heated (and often confused) debate about “co-governance” in Aotearoa New Zealand inevitably leads back to its source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But, as its long-contested meanings demonstrate, very little in the Treaty of Waitangi is straightforward.

Two versions of the 1840 document were written, one in English and one in te reo Māori.

About 540 Māori, including 13 women, had put their names or moko to the document. All but 39 signed the Māori text.

• READ MORE: A growing number of non-Māori New Zealanders are embracing learning te reo – but there’s more to it than language
• Putting te Tiriti at the centre of Aotearoa New Zealand’s public policy can strengthen democracy – here’s how
• The Crown is Māori too – citizenship, sovereignty and the Treaty of Waitangi

But the differences in the translations were so significant that there has been debate ever since about what much of this agreement actually meant, especially Articles 1 and 2.

Article 3, on the other hand, attracts less controversy — which is interesting, because it was and is critical to debates such as the one swirling around co-governance. In effect, Article 3 acted as a mechanism by which the fundamental rights and privileges of British citizenship would be afforded Māori.

The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other.

Although there were many British laws, practices and principles in existence by this time, four particularly stand out.

Participation
The ideal was that laws reflected the community (or a portion of it at least) and were made with the participation and consent of citizens. This was a long-standing principle, in that law and governance could not be something arbitrary or controlled absolutely by one person.

There had been efforts to control royal abuses of power since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the establishment of a “common council of the kingdom”, by which high-ranking community leaders could be summoned to discuss important matters.

Later, the 1688 Bill of Rights required free and frequent parliaments which would contain the right of free speech within them (parliamentary privilege in today’s terms). This meant representatives could speak without fear. Monarchs could no longer suspend laws on a whim, levy taxes at their pleasure, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without the permission of Parliament.

The anomaly that only about 5 percent of British citizens (wealthy and entitled men) could actually vote for members of Parliament was not resolved until legal reform in the early 1830s. This began the expansion of the political franchise and the widening of control over Parliament.

Individual rights
All were deemed equal in the eyes of the law, and the delivery of justice with integrity could be expected. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated:

No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.

Clause 40 added: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner’s detention, thus preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.

The Bill of Rights prohibited excessive penalties, cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of fines or penalties before convictions. It also guaranteed the right for all citizens to petition, where they could complain or seek help from the authorities, without fear of punishment.

Tolerance and a free press
After the Reformation, religious tolerance among British subjects took centuries to develop. The 1701 Toleration Act allowed some tolerance of the public practising of different religions, although the monarch could never be Catholic. But it was not until 1829 that Catholics — and some other faiths — could even be elected to Parliament in Britain.

The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”.

Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.

Public debate and the role of a free press was another important privilege. Although British laws governing libel, blasphemy and sedition were continued after 1688, there was a clear trend toward expanding liberty, allowing both booksellers and newspapers to proliferate.

This helped build the modern belief in the Fourth Estate, and that the media would act as a positive influence on decision makers.

Forward together
Despite the fine sounding language of Article 3 and all the expectations that went with it, the reality was that for many decades after 1840, the promised rights and privileges did not arrive for everyone.

The governor, followed by the early stages of representative government, ruled with a near absolute power that crushed dissent. The law itself was often used to target the rights and privileges of Māori, with some of the darkest examples occurring during and after the New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa.

Equality for most was largely a chimera, tolerance was elusive, and the press did not act as a brake on atrocious decision making.

Thankfully, the world is different today. Positive change has happened through successive generations of Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.

There have been official apologies, compensation and redress, although only a portion of what was alienated has been returned.

As we move forward and look for new ways to work together to achieve equal and equitable partnership based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is important to remember the relevance of Article 3 and what it continues to offer in a modern context.

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

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern says her Aotearoa New Zealand government will not back down on advancing Māori issues, even if National frames co-governance as central to the 2023 general election.

“You’ve got to be able to sleep at night, knowing that you’ve done your best and you’ve done what you’ve believed is right,” Ardern told TeAoMaori.news

The Māori Health Authority, Three Waters and Māori seats on councils were achievements Ardern said the government was proud of.

• READ MORE: Other NZ co-governance reports

Ardern said she was “comfortable” the government was doing its best to fulfil obligations under the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

“We haven’t been perfect. But I am comfortable with what we’ve tried to do to make sure that we are fulfilling our obligations as the Crown, that we’re fulfilling our Treaty obligations.”

Ardern said the Government was proud of the 6.8 per cent Māoriunemployment rate,although she conceded homeless families living in motels still needed tackling.

“I don’t want anyone living in a motel. I want someone in a warm, dry, safe environment. But I also don’t want people living in cars. And so this has been a transition for us while we build more public housing, and we are,” she said.

Mandate protests
Reflecting on 2022, Ardern conceded it was another tough year, singling out the vaccination mandate protests on Parliament grounds as her biggest challenge.

Ardern said the protests were upsetting for many in Aotearoa who saw vaccination as key to reopening the country.

“For New Zealand, I think it deeply affected people,” Ardern said.

There were moments she thought about talking to the protesters but a previous attempt during a government walkabout with vaccinators that was scuppered by protesters prevented that.

“I did stop and try and have a conversation with the people there. And what became clear to me is that the starting point for that conversation was so different for me, and then that was very hard to cut through,” Ardern said.

“I had a practice in the past of talking to protesters in fact. I remember very early on the DPS [the PM security team] having to learn, that was part of the way that I was going to do the job.”

UN declaration
Ardern was asked about comments from Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson that he would be pumping the brakes on co-governance initiatives set out by the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP), signed by the National government in 2010, because several recommendations would not fly with certain Cabinet members.

“Why is it someone in Cabinet is ‘not comfortable’ with co-governance? And should someone be in the Cabinet if they’re not comfortable with co-governance?” Ardern was asked.

“What he’s talking about are some of the thoughts and debate around the UN declaration, the next stages of ensuring that we are doing our bit, as yes, the National government signed us up and then did nothing, and left us to figure out ‘how do we fulfil our obligations?’

“What he’s [Jackson] talking about is through that process, there’s been a lot of ideas. Some of them, we can confidently say, New Zealand already does, othersare challenging. So he’s broadly discussing the next steps.”

Ardern said that as she looked ahead to this year’s election, she had no interest in fighting it on race, saying she would campaign on the government’s record.

“When there’s change… people will sometimes be confronted by that, and it’s our job to try and bring people with us, but that will sometimes be challenging,” Ardern said.

“Our record is growing Māori housing. Our record is growing Māori employment opportunities. Now our record is growing the Māori economy. I will happily campaign on our record.”

Republished from Whakaata Māori. First published in The New Zealand Herald.

Last month The Daily Blog offered its New Year infamous news media gongs — and blasts — for 2022. In this extract, editor and publisher Martyn Bradbury names the mainstream media “blind spots”.

Graham Adams over at The Platform made the argument this year that the failure of mainstream media to engage with the debates occurring online is a threat to democracy.

With trust in New Zealand media at an all time low, I wondered what is the list of topics that you simply are NOT allowed to discuss on NZ mainstream media.

Here is my list of 17 topics over 30 years in New Zealand media:

1. Palestine: You cannot talk about the brutal occupation of Palestine by Israel in NZ media. It’s just not allowed, any discussion has to be framed as “Poor Israelis being terrorised by evil angry Muslims”. There is never focus on the brutal occupation and when it ever does emerge in the media it’s always insinuated that any criticism is anti-Semitism.
2. Child Poverty NEVER adult poverty: We only talk about child poverty because they deserve our pity. Adults in poverty can go screw themselves. Despite numbering around 800,000, adults in poverty are there because they “choose” to be there. The most important myth of neoliberalism is that your success is all your own, as is your failure. If an adult is in poverty, neoliberal cultural mythology states that is all on them and we have no obligation to help. That’s why we only ever talk endlessly about children in poverty because the vast majority of hard-hearted New Zealanders want to blame adults in poverty on them so we can pretend to be egalitarian without actually having to implement any policy.
3. The Neoliberal NZ experiment: You are never allowed to question the de-unionised work force that amputated wages, you can never question selling off our assets, you can never criticise the growth über alles mentality, you are never allowed to attack the free market outcomes and you can’t step back and evaluate the 35-year neoliberal experiment in New Zealand because you remind the wage slaves of the horror of it all.
4. Class: You cannot point out that the demarcation line in a capitalist democracy like New Zealand is the 1 percent richest plus their 9 percent enablers vs the 90 percent rest of us. Oh, you can wank on and on about your identity and your feelings about your identity in a never ending intersectionist diversity pronoun word salad, but you can’t point out that it’s really the 90 percent us vs the 10 percent them class break down because that would be effective and we can’t have effective on mainstream media when feelings are the currency to audience solidarity in an ever diminishing pie of attention.
5. Immigration: It must always be framed as positive. It can never be argued that it is a cheap and lazy growth model that pushes down wages and places domestic poor in competition with International student language school scams and exploited migrant workers. Any criticism of Immigration makes you a xenophobe and because the Middle Classes like travelling and have global skills for sale, they see any criticism of migrants as an attack on their economic privileges.
6. Hypertourism: We are never allowed to ask “how many is too many, you greedies”. The tourism industry that doesn’t give a shit about us locals, live for the 4 million tourists who visit annually. We are not allowed to ask why that amount of air travel is sustainable, we are not allowed to ask why selling Red Bull and V at tourist stops is somehow an economic miracle and we are certainly not allowed to question why these tourists aren’t directly being taxed meaningfully for the infrastructure they clog.
7. Dairy as a Sunset Industry: We are never allowed to point out that the millisecond the manufactured food industry can make synthetic milk powder, they will dump us as a base ingredient and the entire dairy industry overnight will collapse. With synthetic milks and meats here within a decade, it is time to radically cull herds, focus on only organic and free range sustainable herds and move away from mass production dairy forever. No one is allowed to mention the iceberg that is looming up in front of the Fonteera Titanic.
8. B-E-L-I-E-V-E victims: It’s like How to Kill a MockingBird was never written. People making serious allegations should be taken seriously, not B-E-L-I-E-V-E-D. That’s a tad fanatical Christian for me. It’s led to a change in our sexual assault laws where the Greens and Labour removed the only defence to rape so as to get more convictions, which when you think about it, is cult like and terrifying. Gerrymandering the law to ensure conviction isn’t justice, but in the current B-E-L-I-E-V-E victims culture it sure is and anyone saying otherwise is probably a rape apologist who should be put in prison immediately.
9. The Trans debate: This debate is so toxic and anyone asking any question gets immediately decried as transphobic. I’ve seen nuclear reactor meltdowns that are less radioactive than this debate. I’m so terrified I’m not going to say anything other than “please don’t hurt my family” for even mentioning it.
10. It’s never climate change for this catastrophic weather event: Catastrophic weather event after catastrophic weather event but it’s never connected to global warming! It’s like the weather is changing cataclysmically around us but because it’s not 100 percent sure that that cigarette you are smoking right now is the one that causes that lump inside you to become cancer, so we can’t connect this catastrophic weather event with a climate warming model that states clearly that we will see more and more catastrophic weather events.
11. Scoops: No New Zealand media will never acknowledge another media’s scoop in spite of a united front being able to generate more exposure and better journalism.
12. Te Reo fanaticism: You are not allowed to point out that barely 5 percent of the population speak Te Reo and that everyone who militantly fires up about it being an “official language” never seem that antagonistic about the lack of sign language use. Look, my daughter goes to a Māori immersion class and when she speaks Te Reo it makes me cry joyfully and I feel more connected to NZ than any other single moment. But endlessly ramming it down people’s throats seems woke language policing rather than a shared cultural treasure. You can still be an OK human being and not speak Te Reo.
13. Māori land confiscation: Māori suffered losing 95 percent of their land in less than a century, they were almost decimated by disease and technology brought via colonisation, they endured the 1863 Settlements Act, they survived blatant lies and falsehoods devised to create the pretext for confiscation, and saw violence in the Waikato. Māori have lived throughout that entire experience and still get told to be grateful because Pākehā brought blankets, tobacco and “technology”.
14. The Disabled: Almost 25 percent of New Zealand is disabled, yet for such a staggeringly huge number of people, their interests get little mention in the mainstream media.
15. Corporate Iwi: You can’t bring up that that the corporate model used for Iwi to negotiate settlements is outrageous and has created a Māori capitalist elite who are as venal as Pākehā capitalists.
16. Police worship: One of the most embarrassing parts about living in New Zealand is the disgusting manner in which so many acquiesce to the police. It’s never the cop’s fault when they shoot someone, it’s never the cop’s fault when they chase people to their death, it’s never the cop’s fault for planting evidence, it’s never the cops fault for using interrogation methods that bully false confessions out of vulnerable people. I think there is a settler cultural chip on our shoulders that always asks the mounted constabulary to bash those scary Māori at the edge of town because we are frightened of what goes bump in the night. We willingly give police total desecration to kill and maim and frame as long as long as they keep us safe. It’s sickening.
17. House prices will increase FOREVER! Too many middle class folk are now property speculators and they must see their values climb to afford the extra credit cards the bank sends them. We can never talk about house prices coming down. They must never fall. Screw the homeless, scre the generations locked out of home ownership and screw the working poor. Buying a house is only for the children of the middle classes now. Screw everyone else. Boomer cradle to the grave subsidisations that didn’t extend to any other generation. Free Ben and Jerry Ice Cream for every Boomer forever! ME! ME! ME!

You’ll also note that because so many media are dependent on real estate advertising, there’s never been a better time to buy!

• Pacific Media Watch notes that the the brutal Indonesian military occupation of West Papua, a half century of colonisation, and violations of human rights ought to be cited on this list too.

Martyn “Bomber” Bradbury is a New Zealand media commentator, former radio and TV host, and former executive producer of Alt TV — a now-defunct alternative music and culture channel. He is publisher of The Daily Blog and writes blogs at Tumeke! and TDB. Republished with permission.

The death of Queen Elizabeth II brings to an end a long, complex and remarkable chapter in the history of Aotearoa New Zealand’s evolution from colony to independent, bicultural and multicultural nation.

Throughout that period, however, New Zealanders have generally admired and even loved the monarch herself, even if the institution she represented lay at the centre of a vexed, often traumatic, reckoning with the colonial past.

If there was a highpoint in New Zealand royalism, it was witnessed during the first visit by the young Queen and Duke of Edinburgh between December 23 1953 and January 30 1954. 

• READ MORE: Queen Elizabeth II live news: King Charles mourns death of mother
• RNZ live updates: Queen Elizabeth II dies – world reacts
• Pacific Royal Tour 1953 – Pacific Journalism Review
• Queen Elizabeth II: the end of the ‘new Elizabethan age’
• What would King Charles mean for the monarchy, Australia and the republican movement?
• Prince Charles: the conventions that will stop him from meddling as King

An estimated three in every four people turned out to see the royal couple in what historian Jock Phillips has called “the most elaborate and most whole-hearted public occasion in New Zealand history”.

After decades of economic depression and war, Elizabeth’s June 1953 coronation heralded an optimistic postwar atmosphere. Following the conquest of Mount Everest by Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay — claimed as a jewel in the new Queen’s crown — the royal tour was the perfect moment for New Zealand to celebrate.

The Queen’s presence also fulfilled the long anticipated wish that a reigning British monarch would visit. War, then bad health, had previously dashed hopes for a tour by George VI.

Elizabeth II made a huge impression. She appeared as a youthful, radiant, even magical queen, one dedicated to serving her people.

She charmed an older generation and embedded herself in the memories of the children who lined up to see her. They would all grow up to be, one way or another, “royal watchers”, aware of her reign and its milestones, keeping up with the lives of her children, their spouses and her grandchildren.

And then, less than 40 hours after her arrival, the young Queen’s leadership was put to the test when 151 people died in the Tangiwai rail disaster on Christmas Eve. She visited survivors and included words of comfort in her speeches, cementing her connection to the grieving, and to the country.

The female crown
Remarkably, it was not until 2011 that females became equal to males in the rules of British royal succession. Queens only came to power in the absence of a male heir. And yet, this historical sexism also endowed queens with an exceptional quality — strong mother figures presiding over their subjects.

Indeed, in the past two centuries of the British monarchy, it is Queen Victoria (who reigned for almost 64 years) and Queen Elizabeth II (reigning for 70 years) who stand out as not just the longest-serving, but also most significant monarchs.

Both played a crucial part in New Zealand’s history.

In my work as a historian I have argued that the politically conservative “female imperialism”, emblemised in the reigns of Victoria and Elizabeth, encouraged women to support the British Empire and Commonwealth. In turn, it helped raise women’s status in society.

For example, both queens inspired women to “take up their mantle” and work for empire and nation: often in maternal roles with children as teachers and nurses.

The female crown encouraged citizenship based on British values, offering school prizes and support for migrants.

The young Elizabeth’s volunteer work during the Second World War set an example for youth, as did her longtime role as patron of the Girl Guides. The gender-power of the Queen was already on display during the 1952-53 tour when she visited servicewomen, nurses and mothers with new babies, and was given presents for her own children.

Celebrity status
Over the past 70 years, the Queen also became something of a modern celebrity, a fixture in women’s magazines, on radio, television and now social media. As well as turning out to see her in person during her 10 visits, New Zealanders “took her into their homes” with press clippings, souvenir pictures and keepsakes.

During that first tour, the New Zealand Woman’s Weekly pronounced upon the Queen’s role in the enduring relationship with Britain:

An even stronger link will be consolidated and spiritual stimulus given to life by the influence of one who is an inspiration to all.

She was described as “enchanting”, with her “exquisite complexion, her eyes like sapphires […] and her beautiful mobile mouth as she talked and smiled”. In 1963, she was “lovely” with “the breathtaking brilliance of [her] peacock silk outfit against the broad canvas of sea and sky”.

In 1970, she was “a fairytale Queen — a glittering image such as children visualise when they think of the word Queen”. In 1977, “The Queen is perfection”.

On a 1986 visit she was reportedly closer and more familiar than ever, but at nearly 60 her “movements are inclined to be slower, her smile reflects more understanding than youthful sparkle […] and there were times when she looked as if she would rather kick off her shoes and have a cup of tea”.

By the 1980s, the glamour baton had passed to the next generation, notably the hugely popular Diana, Princess of Wales. Proving that royalty was not immune from modern life, three of the Queen’s four children divorced, most publicly and scandalously.

Ironically (perhaps absurdly), there were accusations the Queen was out of touch with the times.

Relationship with a colony
As power devolved around the Commonwealth during the Queen’s reign, the relationship with New Zealand inevitably changed too. Notions of a settler colony of Anglo-Celtic descendants emulating a “superior” British imperial economy, politics and culture — with a distant monarch as head of state — became outmoded.

Most importantly, the colonisation and assimilation of Indigenous peoples were challenged.

As historian Michael Dawson has shown, Māori involvement was minimal at the 1950 Commonwealth Games in Auckland. There was no Māori welcome or presence in the opening or closing ceremonies, with only a musical performance as athletes and officials arrived in the country.

It was left to King Korokī and Te Puea Herangi to hold their own welcome for athletes at Ngāruawāhia. The Prime Minister of the day, Sidney Holland, attended and considered the event an excellent example of good race relations.

But rather than Māori being partners in the planning of the first royal tour, they were largely expected to fit in, mostly providing entertainment.

In the original tour plans, Arawa were expected to represent all Māori during a lunch stop. Only when they asked for more time were plans changed. Meanwhile, the Kīngitanga had to lobby hard for the Queen to visit Ngāruawāhia. This eventually happened, with the Queen and Duke spontaneously deciding to spend more time there than had been allocated.

Importantly, through the Queen’s reign, the Crown’s role in redressing the past became an essential part of New Zealand’s post-colonial development. After much agitation, the Waitangi Tribunal was set up in 1975 to investigate Crown breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi.

In 1987, Māori became an official language. Rather than assimilating into a devolved settler state, decolonisation came to mean mana motuhake for Māori.

By the 1974 Commonwealth Games — the “friendly games” — in Christchurch, Māori “were centrally incorporated” into the festivities, including a leading role in the opening ceremony.

By the 1990 games in Auckland, also the 150th anniversary of signing of the Treaty, emerging biculturalism was evident in the medals incorporating Māori design.

Abandoning Britain?
In late 20th century New Zealand there were simmering republican sentiments. At the same time, because of the regenerating Iwi-Crown relationship under the Treaty, there was a reluctance to move away from Britain constitutionally.

Ironically, it was Britain going its own way – most notably by joining the EEC in 1973 — that moved the issue along. Symbolically, the number and length of temporary working visas for New Zealanders were cut back, despite an “OE” in the “mother country” being still viewed as a rite of passage.

There were other reasons republicanism was not a priority for the state. The shift towards a laissez-faire, free-market economic ideology shifted the ground; the move to a new electoral system in the 1990s underscored New Zealand’s growing independence.

But through those decades of change, the popularity of the Queen provided a constant. If there was a moment when the republican break might have happened, it was missed. New Zealand has been more reticent than Australia, where a referendum on becoming a republic was only narrowly defeated in 1999.

New Zealand has also retired and then later reinstated the royal honours system. Attempts to change the flag and remove the Union Jack from its corner came to nothing in a 2016 referendum.

And New Zealand still doesn’t have its own constitution outlining its fundamental laws of government. Rather, we rely on a conglomerate constitution, messily located in 45 Acts of Parliament. And of course, the Head of State remains a hereditary monarch who lives half a world away.

Aotearoa after Elizabeth
The Queen’s death presents another opportunity for New Zealand to reassess its nationhood — and perhaps be creative.

King Charles and the Queen Consort Camilla simply don’t have the appeal of Elizabeth II. But postcolonial Britain and the modern, diverse Commonwealth still have much to offer an increasingly multicultural New Zealand.

Most importantly, it is time for a broad conversation about how the various dymamics of contemporary Aotearoa New Zealand — liberal and egalitarian traditions, Pākeha settler notions of governance, Te Ao Māori, and the special Iwi-Crown connection — might work together in the future.

After all, Māori signed the Treaty with Queen Victoria at least in part as protection from the behaviour of unruly settlers. Does 21st-century New Zealand still need a monarch to protect against settler colonialism?

Whatever the answer, any move away from the Crown needs to honour the history of which Elizabeth II has been such a significant part.

Dr Katie Pickles is professor of history, University of Canterbury. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons licence. Read the original article.

RNZ News

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern has used her Waitangi Day speech to call for New Zealand’s people to come together and overcome the challenges facing the country today and into the future.

A pre-recorded speech from Ardern has been broadcast as part of today’s Waitangi Day commemorations.

Because of the pandemic, the Waitangi Trust shifted the focus for this year’s Waitangi Day commemorations from the typical in-person ceremony at the treaty grounds north of Paihia to a virtual experience via broadcasts and online.

• READ MORE: Waitangi Day live with RNZ News
• Waitangi Day live on Māori Television

Ardern said it was important to take time and reflect on Waitangi Day and think about how to improve outcomes for Māori and all New Zealanders.

She said across Aotearoa there were stories of arrival, settlement, conflict, unity, hope and hardship and acknowledging the stories was crucial to people’s connection to each other.

“Today, we mark the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and our ancestors who signed this document, we mark their journey, and continue to make our own, one that defines our nation — a nation we can all be proud of.

“Togetherness is something we have shown throughout the last few years, I know it hasn’t been easy. There were many clouds and at times they seemed so dark that the sun could not shine through, but together we have, and we continue to overcome.”

Proud of NZ history teaching
Ardern said she was proud that this year schools would have the resources to teach New Zealand history and the country would celebrate the first Matariki public holiday.

Ardern said she would return to Waitangi in person, but for now she had to address people from Parliament in Wellington.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern and Governor-General Dame Cindy Kiro travelled to Waitangi to pre-record speeches last month.

It was on the flight from Kerikeri to Auckland that they became close contacts of a positive covid-19 case, but subsequently they both tested negative for the virus.

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

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

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

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

• LISTEN TO RNZ MORNING REPORT: ‘It’s an extremely strong report’ – Māori Council national secretary Peter Fraser
• ‘We knew that if we didn’t prioritise Māori, we were going to be having to do what we’ve done for the last five months’ – Interim Māori Health Authority chief executive Riana Manuel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“It’s absolutely vindicated the Māori Council.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• READ MORE: How NZ’s Public Interest Journalism Fund can help ‘normalise’ diversity (Part 1)
• Perceptions over NZ’s public interest journalism project – saint or sinner? (Part 2)
• Public Interest Journalism Fund

Goal 3: The PIJF says: “Actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and Active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi acknowledging Māori as a Te Tiriti partner.”

A brown, bicultural generation is changing the face of New Zealand.

That’s according to the Minister for Pacific Peoples, ‘Aupito Sua William Sio, who has previously told RNZ Pacific that as many as two thirds of New Zealand born-Pasifika now had Māori whakapapa as well.

He says that although the Māori-Pasifika dynamic is not a new phenomenon, there is definitely a more apparent and visible presence now.

“You go back to the 1960s and 70s when New Zealanders invited the Pacific workforce to fill the booming manufacturing industry, the freezing works and the forestry and you trace where the people were in South Auckland, in the Waikato regions in Tokoroa, Rotorua and up north, and you will find people who descend from relationships during that workplace,” he says.

“Now that our communities have migrated to the regions, they are settled, they’ve got jobs and are really putting their roots in the ground. I’m seeing that more and more.

“And I’m trying to describe it as the Generation Six Bs – people who are brown, obviously, but they’re brainy, they’re beautiful and bicultural. They’re bilingual, and they’re bold.”

“They’re brainy, they’re beautiful and bicultural. They’re bilingual, and they’re bold.” – ‘Aupito William Sio

So how does this shape the minister’s approach to what the government does?

Collaborating at grassroots level
Since 2018,  ‘Aupito has wanted to formalise the so-called “tuakana-teina” relationship between Māori and Pacific people in an effort to collaborate more at grassroots level.

“I will have ongoing conversations with my Māori caucus colleagues, I think in the last three years in regional New Zealand, we were recognising this and so were my Māori ministers, and so interestingly enough when I said to the Minister of Provincial Growth Fund at the time, I was saying ‘are you seeing what I’m seeing with this diversity of young Pasifika who whakapapa to Māori?’

“He said, ‘yes I am starting to see these long names on the land register’, and even the Minister of Youth Affairs at the time was also acknowledging that he was capturing that diversity.”

‘Aupito said these conversations would continue to see how best Māori and Pasifika could work together.

However, he conceded data could often be unreliable when it came to Pasifika and Māori people, as those collecting the information often lumped them together.

Lourdes Vano is one person who refuses to be put into a single box.

Of Cook Island, Samoan and Ngāti Kahungunu ki Wairoa stock, the university student and aspiring politician was on a journey of learning about all three cultures.

‘Learning my ancestry’
“It’s just learning all the different words, and also learning my ancestry, learning about my tupuna, and how they all fit together and where they all come from and what our family tree history is.”

Vano’s efforts were not just for her.

“I’m also doing this so that my siblings don’t have to make too much of a trip to find out about themselves, which is a really, really important sort of taonga, a gift that I want to pass on to them.

“I’ve always felt strongest when I know when I learn more about myself and I learn more about my tupuna and where I’ve come from, and I want to be able to give them that feeling as well.”

Vano says she doesn’t want her whānau to face as many barriers as she had.

“A lot of those barriers include what has happened in the process of colonisation where things have been cut off from us or gatekept from us where we have to pay money or we have to jump through a couple of loops to get to our own history.”

For Vano, straddling multiple cultures can be challenging.

‘Including my islands’
I have found myself in the past leaning into different parts of myself, depending on my environment, depending on where I am. But recently I’ve been trying to notice when I’m doing that. One of the ways that I’m trying to break out of that is including my islands in my pepeha and never refusing any part of myself.”

She points to Green MP Teanau Tuiono as inspiration. From Ngāpuhi and Atiu in the Cook Islands, he talked about his whakapapa during his maiden speech to Parliament in December.

People had asked if he was half Māori and half Pasifika.

“Nah, bro. If anything, I’m whole,” Tuiono said in the House.

“I don’t think anyone is half anything. If anything, I’m double. If I was a beer, I would be Double Brown. If I was the flavour down at the dairy, I’ll be twice as nice but the only half the price. I am two peas in the cultural pod.”

Vano says she has now grown to see the beauty of being both Tagata Pasifika and Tangata Whenua.

“I did struggle with it at first trying to figure out where I fit in but I think the more I learn about these things, the more beautiful it becomes to me and how lucky I am to be able to connect to so many different places and so many very cool places.

Many different communities
“I’m really glad that I am a part of so many different communities that work so well together and have always worked so well together and we were doing amazing things thousands of years ago.They were sailing the ocean hundreds of people at a time and hundreds and hundreds of miles away to get to an island,” Vano says.

Hine Funaki is of Ngāpuhi, Ngāti Whatua, Ngāi Tahu and Tongan heritage and is a doctoral student at Te Herenga Waka Victoria University.

She is also on a journey. One that began when she was a toddler at Kōhanga Reo and primary school where she learnt in a full immersion Māori environment.

However, things changed at high school.

“I just went straight into mainstream thinking that, you know, it wasn’t going to get you anywhere. I kind of bought into their narrative, better off learning Spanish or Mandarin or something else so that you can travel and make money and all this Pākehā or Western concept of success. So I started trying to follow that path and it wasn’t working for me.”

Funaki dropped out of high school at 16, with no qualification, thinking that was her lot in life. She then fell pregnant at 19 and had her son at 20. Her moment of clarity.

“I just knew that he couldn’t go down that same path that I went down, and believe those lies.”

Pivotal moment
So Funaki enrolled as an adult university student and reached another pivotal moment when meeting someone who would eventually become her mentor.

“In my third year of undergrad, I had Cherie Chu, she was in Pacific education and her courses were completely different to the two years that I was doing prior to that, I was with Pākehā lecturers all the time.

“The assignments I didn’t understand, I didn’t understand the literature. I just felt so unconfident and inadequate. And then in my third year, I finally met somebody who made the class inclusive, assessments inclusive and accessible. The literature, I understood it.”

Funaki continues to play it forward, mentoring young Māori and Pacific students as they try to navigate a world which has not always welcomed them.

“I can’t turn off the fact that I walk in these multiple different worlds. And so I carry that lens with me all the time and so I think of spaces all the time, physical spaces, relational spaces, theoretical spaces, and so if that space feels safe with certain people, then I feel like I can navigate it a bit more smoothly. Even if I’m still figuring it out. I can do it without feeling ashamed.

“Like I can mess up, and it’s okay, but if it’s in a space like predominantly Pākehā, Western, white spaces, if that whakamā is there, I won’t feel safe to even try and instead I just try and push back or I select spaces that I go to that I know I will feel more comfortable.”

But when Funaki and her colleagues addressed a workshop about how more professors could be Māori and Pasifika, she realised it was important to share stories for change.

Changing the dynamic
Funaki says it is about claiming spaces and changing the dynamic so that she comes from a perspective of pushing for change and not delivering trauma on a silver platter for others to consume.

Funaki keeps advocating for her people, driven by her heritage, both from the Pacific and Aotearoa.

“I can’t just be quiet and complacent. I can’t not say anything or call anything out when injustice is happening, like I feel the need to even more speak up because of my ancestors. When you know you have Pasifika descent in your family who migrated over for the idea of wanting better, or the land of milk and honey.

“You feel this obligation to give back and to do something with that sacrifice they have given. So having this Tongan inside of me and knowing that even though I’m not immersed fully in the Tongan culture, I still feel proud that that’s in my blood.”

Funaki says her Māori heritage and the struggles in institutions like universities, gave her even more motivation.

But still, it could be physically, mentally and spiritually tiring. Funaki said it was her pride in who she was that maintained her.

“That ancestral link, that blood that we have. What our people did to even get here. That’s not by chance or accident. That was navigation, that was intelligence. That’s science. Our people are smart and always have been, for generations. So I’m proud to be Māori and Tongan.”

Proud of his mixed heritage
Haereiti Hetet is someone else who is proud of his mixed heritage. The Fijian rugby international represented his mother’s whakapapa, from Ngāti Maniapoto and Ngāti Tuwharetoa, when he turned out for the Māori All Blacks in 2019, ironically against Fiji. He said being involved in that team made him want to learn more of the Māori language.

Although born and bred in Otorohanga, and surrounded mostly by his Māori whānau, Hetet said rugby had allowed greater access to both his cultures. When it came to his time with the Flying Fijians in 2020 and the Māori All Blacks the year before, both teams took time and made space to acknowledge their wairua, whether it be Fijian prayers and hymns sung multiple times during the day, or karakia and waiata with the Māori team.

“I’m probably still trying to really, fully connect. I want to understand both languages still, it’s still an ongoing journey,” Hetet says.

However, it was challenging trying to connect and learn two cultures and languages in the course of what has become a busy life.

“Throughout the day, you run out of time, you go to work, I’m still trying to train regularly to stay in good condition, just in case somebody comes up. I also have a small family as well, so it’s just finding a balance.”

Hetet says he is trying to find an hour, or a half an hour to keep his learning going. He hopes one day to get to his father’s [former Fijian international Joe Veitayaki] island of Matuku to take his cultural journey to the next level, but in the meantime he will continue to connect via his marae and community in Aotearoa.

And as Aotearoa marked another Waitangi Day, he believes it is a good opportunity for Māori to have their voice heard as they continue to fight for land and rights as tangata whenua.

Waitangi Day unsettling
But for Hine Funaki – Waitangi Day is unsettling.

“To me it’s like this constant reminder of, let’s pretend we have this romanticised lens of a bicultural partnership and then let’s even claim multiculturalism, because we are a multi-ethnic nation and it’s like this time to celebrate and put on these pretty window dressings for another year.”

But Funaki says it is lies.

“Where’s the part where you acknowledge your treaty roles, where’s the part where partnership actually means something and doing something together as equals? That doesn’t mean junior partnerships,” she says.

Lourdes Vano understands that hurt. For her, the day is an opportunity for education and information.

“If you don’t know what to do on Waitangi Day and you’re scared of contributing to something that you don’t know completely about, use it as a day for education. Ranginui Walker’s Struggle Without End is a really good starter book about Māori history and New Zealand/Aotearoa and really sets the scene and gives so much context for Waitangi Day.”

Vano says people could also use it as a day to find out how they could support tangata whenua.

They sound like words from this growing Generation B – so named by ‘Aupito William Sio – Brown, Brainy, Beautiful, Bicultural, Bilingual and Bold.

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

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

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

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

• LISTEN: Waitangi Day with RNZ’s Julian Wilcox and Māni Dunlop

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Evans provided the historic context of the impact of colonisation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Allegations of casual and structural racism within the University of Waikato have been met with resounding silence from the university’s leaders, Professor of Indigenous Education Linda Tuhiwai Smith says.

She is one of six academics who have written a 13-page letter to the Ministry of Education alerting it of their concerns, and demanding that racism within the university be dealt with.

The allegations include Māori expertise being ignored, tokenism, lower pay for Māori staff and no meaningful commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi.

• READ MORE: As Māori students faced education inequality during lockdown, iwi stepped up – report

Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith said it was surprising no one from the university had reached out.

“There are two ways that you can attend to our claim. You can go into defensive mode and scurry around and try to manage us as a crisis, and I think that’s what’s happening to be honest. The other way is to say, ‘oh my God, there’s a problem, we need to sit down and talk about it because why would senior staff speak out?’

“In terms of leadership, a phone call would have been quite good or someone acknowledging that a problem has been identified and trying to talk about that. But silence is an interesting response.”

She said casual racism was occurring every day for Māori staff members.

Science research ignored
“For many Māori who work in the university, especially when they are on their own, casual racism can vary from comments made to people about ‘you people’ that might refer to something in the news, the mispronunciation of your name, all the way to examples of younger scholars having their work dismissed or being asked to contribute to the Māori part of a project but then the science that they have a PhD in is completely ignored,” she said.

“Part of the structural racism is a failure to fully commit to the rhetoric that many institutions already have about their commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, their commitment to equity, their commitment to vision mātauranga and Māori knowledge and te reo Māori and all those things.

“It’s all at the surface. It hasn’t really developed. It’s limited in the sense that it is a very small part and we’re often reminded of just how small we really are.

“The systemic issue is deeply imbedded in academic subject matter in the way that certain forms of knowledge are privileged.”

The university has publicly refuted all allegations.

In a statement the University of Waikato Chancellor, Sir Anand Satyanand, said all allegations of racism were taken seriously.

“The Vice-Chancellor and University Council take allegations of racism seriously and if any members of our community have concerns we encourage them to raise them through the appropriate channel, and in the context of the University’s policies and codes of conduct, so that the university has an opportunity to investigate them.”

The Ministry of Education says it has responded to the letter, but could not add anything further.

This article is republished by the Pacific Media Centre under a partnership agreement with RNZ.

By Māni Dunlop in Waitangi

More than 2500 people gathered this morning at Waitangi to commemorate the 180th anniversary of the New Zealand founding Treaty.

People started flooding into the grounds from about 4.30am.

Among those offering their prayers were Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, Police Commissioner Mike Bush, Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon, Waitangi National Trust Chairperson Pita Tipene and chairperson of the Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi, Mere Mangu.

READ MORE: Follow RNZ’s live blog

Kindness and unity seemed to be the main message conveyed at this year’s dawn ceremony.

The prime minister spoke of the bridge between two people: “On this 180th Waitangi Day let us pledge to take a step across the bridge between our peoples, give us the perseverance in our daily lives to commit to a simple action that helps take us to the other side, and in doing so give us the courage to walk comfortably in each other’s shoes.”

Jacinda Ardern also called to unite in kindness and care towards one another and concluded her prayer with the last verse of the national anthem.

Tribute to mana wāhine
Green Party co-leader Marama Davidson wrote her own karakia in te reo which spoke of the importance to respect and look after our whenua, our mokopuna and paid tribute to the power of mana wāhine.

Act Party leader David Seymour used the opportunity to say: “There is nothing like Waitangi, it’s part ceremony, part conversation, sometimes a bit of conflict, sometimes rambunctious and petulant but you have to forgive the politicians.”

“What it tells us is that we are on a unique journey as a nation, two peoples from exact opposite sides of the world working through our problems to a better tomorrow,” he said.

“On behalf of the police, I want to acknowledge and thank iwi and iwi leaders for the strong and effective partnership which enables us to honour our commitment to Māori and the Treaty and to honour our purpose of keeping this beautiful nation safe.”

Waitangi National Trust chair Pita Tipene spoke at the end and shared some pūrākau about the area in which the Treaty Grounds are – ruarangi – and spoke of the ancestress, Maikuku, the ancestress of mana whenua, Ngāti Rahiri and Ngāti Kawa.

He made his observation of how the country is changing and referenced the Treaty Negotiations Minister Andrew Little’s whaikōrero on the paepae on Tuesday – making a light-hearted reference to the challenges faced with Ngāpuhi treaty negotiations.

‘People using more Māori’
“People are starting to use more Māori in our public occasions and I thought it was absolutely fantastic that Andrew Little spoke in te reo Māori – it goes a long way to touching the hearts of the people, especially the hearts of the people that Andrew is working with.”

Tipene reminded everyone of He Whakaputanga, otherwise known as the Declaration of Independence, which hapū of Ngāpuhi recognise as the senior to Te Tiriti.

“They go hand in hand – it is the senior and the Treaty is the junior and it enhances the Whakaputanga and that is what the hapū o Ngāpuhi have always known that authority has never been ceded and what we here believe at the national trust is to encourage the discourse about our nationhood.

“What I really appreciate about Little is that he has also provided encouraging words that the hapū o Ngāpuhi and the government will have conversations about Whakaputanga.”

Tipene then asked last minute, for the chair of Te Rūnanga a Iwi o Ngāpuhi, Mere Mangu, to be the last speaker.

Following the dawn ceremony – many lined up to get breakfast served by the prime minister and other ministers.

This article is republished under the Pacific Media Centre’s content partnership with Radio New Zealand.

Two flags fly proud over the inaugural steelband festival in Auckland’s Silo Park, flapping in a brisk late summer breeze. Both are red, black and white; both tell a tale of colonisation.

But they come from different corners of the earth – one is the Tino Rangatiratanga’s flag of Māori sovereignty and the flag of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

The flags visually unite Māori and New Zealand’s Caribbean community, but at this festival the ties between the two are more heard than seen, as they celebrate their deep cultural ties through music that has deeper roots in historical protest.

LISTEN to the RNZ National podcast

VIEW RNZ slideshow images

Shortly before kick-off, festival organiser Camille Nakhid is busy delegating, as people set up rows upon rows of steelpan drums. She’s going to perform too, with her group the CaribbeaNZ Southern Stars Orchestra.

Today’s festival will include steelpan and kapahaka, waiata and calypso, and of course reggae.

The music of the Caribbean and the music of Aotearoa create “a beautiful connection”, says festival-goer Cuban Caribbean Ana Fernadez.

“You can see with Māori culture. You can see how our cultures connect back, with the way we do things. Music is an expression of our deep, deep cultural connection.”

Bob Marley an icon
Caribbean Islander Bob Marley was an icon for Māori, venerated during their renaissance of the 1970s that saw Māori reclaiming a voice in New Zealand culture and politics. Milestones of the time included the publication of the first novel by Whiti Ihimaera, the establishment of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Land March of 1975, led by Te Rarawa elder Dame Whina Cooper.

Conversely, Dr Nakhid can identify with Māori history. “We know about colonisation, we know about the near decimation of our people,” says Dr Nakhid, originally from the Island of Trinidad.

Camille’s own people were nearly wiped out by the Spanish in the 1500s. “We had an indigenous peoples, the Caribs. I’m Carib. We still survived.”

Before Spanish colonisation and the slave trade of Africans, the Caribbean Islands had the Taino peoples and the Island Caribs arriving from South America.

“From 40,000 there were only 500 [Carib] people left,” Dr Nakhid says, “[Look at] the whole history of colonisation, we are indigenous people grounded to the land. The concept of family, communal, sharing. Look at all of us here, we intermarry, we really connect [with Māori].”

This year Dr Nakhid was awarded a New Year’s honours New Zealand Order of Merit. The associate professor at the Auckland University of Technology has been driven to raise the profile of ethnic communities at local governance levels in Auckland City.

“We come here as migrants, [we] have to acknowledge the Treaty of Waitangi and this is a respect of tangata whenua.”

Political connections
“Dr Nakhid sees the connections between the political nature of waiata and their vocal music of calypso.

“Waita is just a beautiful sound. I like what it stands for, you do it after a mihi. Our calypso is similar. Just listen to our calypso during Carnival, it’s political. It tells you which politician is corrupt. It’s still a connection with the people and what’s going on, like the waiata.”

The festival is kicked off by the Kapa Haka group from Henderson North Primary School. Their leader, Matua Mark Hiini says that they often perform alongside Auckland’s Caribbean steelpan community.

“The only way I can relate it to – it’s the land, the music of the land. There’s a sound that brings people together.”

He sees similar histories too. “Traditionally connections are there. We have all been suppressed in the past but it’s time to speak out, it’s time to share our reo.”

And introducing himself in Te Reo, Dr Nakhid’s son Alesano Schuster Nakhid is also performing the steelpan. As a New Zealand Carib-Samoan, Alesano says it was only fitting he grew up performing. Learning Te Reo is a way for him to keep alive an indigenous language.

“I respect the Māori language, that it’s survived, and that it’s thriving. In Trinidad, Jamaica our indigenous language has died.

Central to culture
For Alesano, language and music is central to culture.

“I’m not surprised that reggae is a big thing in Māoridom. We are pretty much the Māori of the Caribbean and the Māori are the Caribbean of the Pacific.”

The symbolic colours of the flag of Trinidad and Tobago? “From my recollection, black was the colour of the skin of our people and red was the blood of the land. We’re soul siblings.”

And as if to support his words, “Pokarekare Ana” rings out, performed by the Southern Stars.

Audience member Kara Beckford is Te Arawa, Māori on her mum’s side and British Jamaican on her dad’s. Born in London, her parents bought her back to the Bay of Plenty to grow up immersed in Māoritanga.

Beckford sees the commonality between her own cultures through the protest music of the 1970s that her parents identified with.

“There’s that resistance culture, not wanting to conform to a dominant colonising culture, uprising against that. A lot of black cultures have this in common, certainly Māori and Jamaican.”

Bob Marley protest lyrics appealed to Māori during the 1970s.

“Wairuatanga was important for us Māori. There were a lot of liberation movements happening at the time. As well as the political stuff, I think Bob Marley had that spiritual presence that naturally most indigenous people will tap into.”

Lynda Chanwai-Earle is an RNZ producer. This has been republished from RNZ National with permission. The full package and image gallery is here.

• More music stories
• Aotearoa-NZ Steelband Festival

The New Zealand government’s ongoing failure to acknowledge that the British Crown did not gain sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840 is a breach of the Crimes Act.

In October 2014, this historical deception was made emphatically clear by the Waitangi Tribunal, which found that Māori did not sign away sovereignty when 512 chiefs, or rangatira, signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840.

LISTEN: PM says treaty must be treated as a ‘living document’ – Radio Waatea

Instead of the Crown spelling out to New Zealanders these essential truths since late 2014, it has deceitfully left intact this country’s fairy-tale creation myth that a cession of sovereignty occurred at Waitangi in those flaggy scenes of 1840.

Therefore, the Crown has breached section 240 of the Crimes Act, which covers deception to gain ownership or possession or control over property, or privilege, or to benefit economically, or cause loss to others.

Moreover, since the Waitangi Tribunal’s widely publicised investigation into the United Tribes’ 1835 Declaration of Independence and Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the Crown has pursued a deceptive strategy to avoid admitting that it has no legitimate claim to sovereign authority.

Steve Edwards is Pākehā, a television editor, and blogs on Snoopman News.

• Read Steve Edwards’ full inquiry at The Daily Blog
• PM’s Waitangi breakfast a hit – Māori TV

Waitangi Day 2018 smells different doesn’t it?

It tastes different too.

No bitter “Māori privilege” nonsense from Don Brash and his shallow racism.

No spiteful “Let’s have a NZ day so we don’t have to feel guilty about the Treaty” whining from newspaper editorials.

READ MORE: PM Jacinda Ardern makes historic speech at Waitangi

No constant media barking up of predictions of aggression and protest.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s desire to show Waitangi Day the respect it deserves with a 5-day tour visiting every marae large and small alongside ministers meekly lined up to do the BBQ cooking for Waitangi Breakfast is building a movement of aroha among Māori which will create a legacy relationship that is going to dominate Māori politics.

The electricity when she visits marae is palpable and extraordinary. Her incredible ability to connect emotionally with people has generated a rapport among those packed marae she has visited in a way that will earn her devotion among voters while forgiving any shortcomings.

Political lifetime
If she makes this 5-day tour an annual event she will build a following that will see Māori voting Labour because of their relationship with Jacinda for her entire political lifetime.

Her being pregnant is just the emotional icing, Māori in Northland have taken to Jacinda with nothing short of joy and her visiting everywhere has conjured up an excitement that will bind.

They will speak about Jacinda passing through for decades to come.

This personal relationship is going to cement Labour Party dominance of the Māori electorates leaving any resurgent Māori Party under a new leader like Dr Lance O’Sullivan with only the right for political movement because Labour will totally dominate the Māori vote on the general roll and the Māori roll.

With Jacinda building a huge reservoir of Māori voter support and the Māori faction inside Labour now one of the most powerful factions inside Labour, this puts the Iwi Leaders Forum, the Māori King and the Public Service all in a troubling position.

Many Māori live in urban areas and are not tribe affiliated. Their needs for better social services, jobs and the legacy issues created by colonialism trump Treaty deals which is offside to the goals of the Māori King or the Iwi Leaders Forum. With urban Māori having a far more powerful voice inside the new government, those movements will need to see any extra resources making a dynamic impact on the poorest.

But there’s another segment who are about to face an existential threat – the Public Service.

Building of fiefdoms
Māori know first hand the structural racism of the social service providers who care more about the building of fiefdoms than the actual welfare of Māori. Already the Public Service is strangling ministers with ministerial suffocation but the new Māori faction aren’t going to accept that.

Māori social service providers offer a wealth of cultural initiatives that bring a holistic view to caring about people and the Public Service will either need to adapt to those new initiatives or they’ll face an ongoing battle with a Māori faction that knows damn well how the Public Service denigrate their people.

The crowds thronging Jacinda on every marae suggest it’s a fight the Public Service are going to lose.

This article is republished from The Daily Blog with permission.

• Historic Waitangi speech – ‘Hold us to account’

One of New Zealand’s best-selling and most-respected historians and social commentators, Professor Paul Moon, has been acknowledged for his contributions as a researcher, academic and teacher.

The AUT Excellence Awards recognise and celebrate excellence in the university’s community.

Professor Moon was awarded the top accolade – the AUT University Medal – this week for sustained and exceptional academic achievement, especially in Māori, Treaty of Waitangi-related issues and early New Zealand history.

The award at Auckland University of Technology comes as Te Ara Poutama’s Professor Moon prepares to launch a new online course, focusing on the Holocaust.

The paper is the first of its kind in New Zealand and will be delivered entirely online, enabling people to study from all over the world. It is anticipated that the course will be available next year.

Surveying the Holocaust, from its historic origins in European anti-Semitism, through to its implementation during the period of the Third Reich, the course will centre on the preconditions of the Holocaust in Europe, its subsequent implementation and scale, and recent historiographical issues relating to its enduring significance.

Students will have the opportunity to investigate in detail a specific case study relating to the Holocaust, and to examine the relevance of the Shoah in the contemporary world.

Interactive learning
There will be lecturer support, tutorials for students to participate in, interactive learning, regular feedback on students’ work, and a comprehensive range of resources. The technical aspects of the paper will be supported by AUT’s Centre for Learning and Teaching.

“Now, more than ever, it’s important to remember the uniqueness of the Holocaust, and to understand the mentality that led to it,” Professor Moon says.

Professor Moon also received the Teaching Innovation award. His innovative approach to increasing student engagement has resulted in a number of fully online papers focusing on New Zealand history.

These four papers have formed the basis of AUT’s minor in history.

In his 24 years at AUT, Professor Moon has built an international reputation in the field of New Zealand history.

His innovative approach to learning has led to the development of online history papers and delivery of history based treaty seminars, resulting in a new undergraduate history minor at AUT in 2016.

Professor Moon has published 26 books, including Encounters: The Creation of New Zealand, which was shortlisted for the international Ernest Scott Prize in History.

Biographies, Treaty claims
Other titles include This Horrid Practice: The Myth and Reality of Traditional Maori Cannibalism, A History of New Zealand in the Twentieth Century, a trilogy of volumes on the Tūhoe tohunga (expert) Hohepa Kereopa, as well as biographies of Governors Hobson, FitzRoy, and the Ngapuhi chief Hone Heke,

His works have been published by some of the biggest international publishers including Penguin, Random House and HarperCollins.

He has worked on several Treaty of Waitangi claims and with numerous government agencies on Treaty-related issues. He is one of only a few historians whose work has been cited favourably in Parliament by MPs.

“The award is recognition of the growing role of history as a discipline at AUT, and of the contribution of all the people involved in teaching the subject,” Professor Moon says.

• Professor Paul Moon’s page