A controversial bill to change a Treaty has sparked peaceful protests both in and outside New Zealand’s Parliament.
The ‘Treaty Principles Bill’ would change how the country’s founding document, a 19th Century Treaty between Britain and Māori people, is legally interpreted.
It was introduced by one of the three parties that makes up NZ’s Coalition Government, called ACT. The Labour Opposition and smaller parties, including Te Pāti Māori, are against it.
In protest, thousands of people have joined a march of New Zealand’s North Island, from its northern tip to the capital, Wellington, in the south.
Treaty
In 1840, English officials and over 500 Māori leaders signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, or the Treaty of Waitangi.
Māori leaders signed a Māori version of the treaty and English representatives signed the English version.
Māori leaders were not told that the English believed the Treaty meant they had signed away complete control of the country, leading to decades of conflict.
Not every Māori leader signed the Treaty, but English officials decided it still applied to them.
Agreements
The English-language Treaty has three central agreements:
- Māori ceded “sovereignty” (complete control) of New Zealand to the British.
- If Māori wanted to sell any of their land, they only sold it to the British. In exchange, they were meant to have “the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands… Forests [and] Fisheries”.
- Māori had “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.
In 1975, the Government set up the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate allegations by Māori that the Treaty wasn’t being upheld.
One of the Tribunal’s responsibilities was to interpret what the Treaty agreements actually meant — the “principles”.
The Tribunal has considered allegations about the Government’s actions dating from 1840 to the present, including stealing land and polluting waterways.
In a landmark decision in 2014, the Tribunal found that one Māori iwi (community) did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty.
Bill
The ACT party said the Treaty principles were “gradually built up” over time. It argues this means the NZ public has never been “democratically consulted” on the principles.
“The Treaty principles are often mentioned in legislation, but they have never actually been defined in law,” it said.
A bill introduced by ACT would legally define what the Treaty means. This includes establishing a new legal definition of the “undisturbed possession” land and property agreement.
ACT’s proposal is that this agreement should apply to every NZ citizen, unless there’s been a legal agreement otherwise, e.g. a Tribunal decision protecting a piece of land.
ACT claims the bill would ensure ”all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties”.
If passed, the bill would pave the way for public consultation, and ultimately lead to a referendum.
New Zealanders would be asked if they accept the bill’s interpretation of the Treaty principles, to enshrine them into law.
Government
New Zealand went to an election last October. The National Party, led by former Air New Zealand CEO Christopher Luxon, won the most seats.
However, National didn’t win enough seats for a majority, so it formed a coalition with ACT and another party, NZ First.
Part of the coalition agreement was that ACT would be allowed to introduce a ‘Treaty Principles Bill’, and that National would only vote for it to proceed to a committee review — no further.
Debate
On Thursday, ACT leader David Seymour, who has Māori heritage, introduced the bill to Parliament for a “first reading”. This is a round of debate where each party presents their position on the bill.
New Zealand’s Parliament has one chamber. After a first reading MPs vote on whether bills will be reviewed by a committee, or set aside.
Seymour said: “This bill does not change the text of the Treaty itself… it democratises the principles… It reinforces the rights of the Treaty as universal human rights.”
In response, Te Pāti Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi said: “The only people who can make changes in an agreement are the parties who signed it. The King of England [and Māori leaders]… David Seymour, which one of those are you?”
Labour MP Willie Jackson said the bill is a “stunt” that “seeks to give Māori rights… to everyone.”
Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick said: “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression. That is what is behind this bill.”
Te Pāti Māori MP Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke interrupted voting on the bill with a haka, and was suspended for 24 hours without pay.
Coalition
Luxon has said he is not in favour of the bill and that National only voted for it to fulfil their coalition agreement.
“You do not go negate, with a single stroke of a pen, 184 years of debate and discussion, with a bill that I think is very simplistic,” he told media.
NZ First, the other party in the coalition, also voted in favour of the bill. Leader Winston Peters, who is of Māori descent, has said he doesn’t believe the Treaty has any principles.
In August, he said “it’s a three clause document between two peoples.”
