Treaty Principles Bill
It seems to be a dream of many of the so-called IWI elite to have it recognised that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori.
But unfortunately for them it is nothing more than a bad dream or to put it another way a nightmare!
The Treaty itself has only three articles and nowhere in any of them does it mention a partnership. It is simply a contract signed by many that ceded sovereignty over New Zealand to the Crown and in return the Crown guaranteed that all citizens would be granted the the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property with the Crown being given the exclusive rights to purchase when the owners decided to sell. It also granted that the people of New Zealand shall have all the rights and privileges of British subjects granted to them.
A claim of Partnership between the Crown and Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi is nothing more than a Lie; a dangerous, divisive attempt to gain advantage based on race, which will end in the destruction of democracy in New Zealand.
To make the claim that it is racist to oppose the implementation of policy that enshrines rights by way of a person’s ethnicity is just wrong and if it was not wrong then I should definitely be called racist as I firmly believe that we should all have the same rights irrespective of ethnicity.
All New Zealanders want to live in a place where we can respect one another, get along well and foster a better New Zealand”.
But in fact that will not and cannot happen whilst there is a section of the population which is claiming superior rights based solely on their ethnicity and an erroneous belief that they are indigenous to New Zealand.
Maori by their own historical claims sailed to New Zealand from Hawai´iki which just makes them immigrants the same as the other races that have migrated to these shores since that time, certainly not indigenous.
They claim that as the indigenous population of New Zealand and Treaty partners we should treat them with respect and care and this is all well and good but giving in to special interests based on ethnicity is not a sign of respect or caring.
We should all share a vision of New Zealand where everyone is equal and where no one is given special rights based on their ancestry or skin colour.
If we respect the value of all New Zealanders, we must be able to discuss any moves that may weaken our democracy.
The electorate in 2023 voted for change and currently they are not getting that change. In fact if we look at the current government’s actions we can see that instead of change we are actually getting more of the same race based legislation that the electorate voted against.
An example of this being the Treaty Principles Bill being promoted by the Act Party which the Prime Minister has said he will not support past the first reading in parliament.
At the nationwide Hui held at Turangawaewae Marae in January 2024, there was much discussion around the leaking of a so-called advice paper from an un-named official in the Justice Ministry which claimed to supposedly warn that the proposed Treaty Principles Bill was “highly contentious”, failed to consult with Maori, and would likely breach relevant international standards and obligations.
All of this advice for a Bill that did not exist at that time and; which the possible content of hadn’t even been debated by Cabinet.
There is no mention anywhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, of “Principles”.
Parliament made the decision to include in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation, the word ‘principles’.
In that legislation, ‘principles’ referred directly to the meaning, value, and purpose of the Articles in the Treaty of Waitangi. The word ‘principles’ was tied to the Articles. It had no referent outside those Articles.
Parliament did not provide a meaning of the term “Principles” in that Act, and such vacancy of meaning, opened up opportunities for those with vested interests to insert their own meaning.
In inventing and consolidating their version of “Principles”, advocates for a partnership-based co-governance structure have used traditional ideology to provide an almost spiritually authorised quality to their interpretation of the term.
The inclusion of the term “Principles” into legislation without knowing or describing what it meant was an unprecedented failure on the part of our political representatives of that time.
The coalition government was voted into power by the electorate on the basis that the voters wanted a change in direction from the race based decision making that had been the basis of the Labour government’s regulatory changes and it would do well to remember that fact.
Act had as a major part of their election manifesto promised to have a referendum on the Treaty of Waitangi Principles, yet many opponents including most of the mainstream media are saying that they believe it will not get past the first reading at the select committee.
A Curia poll held in October 2023 showed 45 per cent support for holding a referendum yet there has been little commentary in favour of this proposal.
The fact that there is no partnership requirements contained in the Treaty still does not mean that we shouldn’t work together in a co-management role as has happened in the past. And in actual fact work together in good faith to achieve the same desired results for all.
What it does mean is that we should jealously protect our democratic systems of governance for the equal benefit of all New Zealand citizens from the approximately 250 different ethnic groups that make up our population.
Taking the above into account and given the recent history of New Zealand (post the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi legislation) and the ill-informed interpretations of the Treaty document, it is definitely time we held a referendum to identify the meaning of the term “Principles” as it applies to the Treaty of Waitangi legislation.
An example of the feelings out in the electorate may be seen in the result of the recent Kaipara District Council meeting where the council voted to disestablish its Maori ward.
In his closing speech, the Kaipara Mayor Craig Jepson said the idea of a Maori ward was condescending to Maori.
"If you are the best candidate, no matter who your ancestors are, you will be elected. This is well-proven in the history of our nation's local and central government.
"To name a few, Mayor [Tania] Tapsell in Rotorua, Mayor [Tory] Whanau in Wellington and Moko Tepania in the Far North District Council - all Maori mayors. We have famous politicians - Winston Peters, Shane Jones and David Seymour - as leaders of our coalition government."
Jepson said it harked back to something Martin Luther King said about wanting children to grow up in a nation free of discrimination.
"I think we live in a society right now where we actually value that."
The National Party have lost touch with the reality out in the electorate where people are really struggling just to survive. It is my firm belief that they are not reading the state of the nation correctly, and that until they decide to actually do what they promised and return New Zealand to a democratically ruled country rather than one where ethnicity is the guiding factor, they are most likely heading for defeat at the next election.
In light of the public outcry around the issue of co-governance and Treaty Principles, clearly the people want the opportunity to have a debate about these issues and be able to have a say in the decision making process, but up to now they have not been given the chance to do so.
Act was the only party backing a referendum on co-governance and Treaty Principles prior to the general election. Every other party either outright rejected it or said it wasn’t important, and in fact the Labour government passed legislation to prevent the public (normal people) from having any kind of say on co-governance.
The most glaring example being the change to legislation to prevent local bodies from holding referenda to decide whether there should be Maori wards on local bodies. It used to be that 5% of ratepayers in an area could force a vote on any proposal to appoint Maori ward representatives to local bodies and the vote result was binding. That was democracy at work.
In 2021, the Labour Government removed that right to object. Too many times democracy had said no. In other words, too many times the public had said no to what the government wanted to do, so they took that ability away by changing the legislation.
Since then, councils around the country have moved to set up Maori seats. The Western Bay of Plenty District Council did so and a community board member quit in protest. He was probably on the side of the public given that 78 per cent of ratepayers said no to these seats around seven years ago.
If you ask members of the group separated from the real world, if we should have a referendum on co-governance the answer is always no: it’ll be divisive, it’s race-baiting, people don’t understand what they’re saying, this is good for New Zealand.
No one ever says out loud what the real reason they are so opposed to a referendum is that a referendum would most likely return a big, fat no.
The separated group keep repeating that saying no to a referendum will be extremely divisive, but in fact the whole issue of co-governance is divisive not just referenda to decide the issue.
They don’t seem to realise that the public of New Zealand (normal people) have very real concerns about the push for co-governance (and by association the opposition to any referendum on the Treaty Principles) of this country which is seen as nothing more than an attempt to prioritise part-Maori interests, above those of all other ethnicities in NZ.
Up until the recently defeated Labour government came into power in 2017, NZ had one of the oldest democracy’s in the world with the adoption of universal suffrage in 1893; and the changes Labour made by going to race based co-governance systems did more harm to NZ than any other government in history through dividing the population on ethnic identity and breaking down the trust in our democratic systems of government.
The coalition government was elected at the general election in 2023 on a platform of change and now that they are starting to effect that change there are many in that separated group (a lot with vested interests in the outcomes), who are loudly opposing this course of action by the coalition government.
Most are claiming that holding a binding referendum will be the worst thing that could happen to our country as the move to co-governance is supported by the majority.
If this is in fact true then surely in a democratic nation such as ours, the only way to prove that it is the will of the people, is to hold a binding referendum and give all citizens a chance to exercise their democratic right to decide the question: Should we have Co-Governance or not?
The issue of the proposed Treaty Principles Bill to be introduced as part of the coalition agreements also needs to be brought before the public to allow them the chance to exercise their democratic right to decide what the make-up of the Treaty Principles should consist of.
Those who support co-governance and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill are very vocal in telling us how we should agree with their position on these issues as they will be so good for New Zealand.
The mainstream media have made it crystal clear that a referendum is completely unacceptable to them. They seem to find it outrageous that the government won’t just rule the referendum out as of right.
Newshub’s political editor, Jenna Lynch, issued the following warning on air:
“Christopher Luxon’s language around that Treaty Principles Bill needs to be refined. He needs to communicate clearly either why he is not categorically ruling out supporting it past that select committee process, or, if not that, why he was even open to it in the first place if it was never going to result in a law change or referendum as the Act Party intended it to.
“Letting it go through these stages just to be killed in the process could be seen as a total waste of Parliament’s time but, not just that, it’s sparking a heated, divisive debate for an unclear outcome.”
Given that there are no “Principles” of the Treaty in the words of the Maori King, during his speech to the national hui at Ngāruawāhia in January 2024, he stated that Maori did not want to see any changes in the Treaty and also that there were no principles in the Treaty.
In light of this fact a national debate, however divisive, is needed to sort out what sort of constitutional future might be best for New Zealand and such matters lie properly within the remit of voters. And someone should break the news to the media that the Prime Minister doesn’t need to “refine” his language just because they can’t get their own way.
There is no mention anywhere in the Treaty of Waitangi, of “Principles”.
Parliament made the decision to include in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation, the word ‘principles’.
In that legislation, ‘principles’ referred directly to the meaning, value, and purpose of the Articles in the Treaty of Waitangi. The word ‘principles’ was tied to the Articles. It had no referent outside those Articles.
Parliament did not provide a meaning of the term “Principles” in that Act, and such vacancy of meaning, opened up opportunities for those with vested interests to insert their own meaning.
In inventing and consolidating their version of “Principles”, advocates for a partnership-based co-governance structure have used traditional ideology to provide an almost spiritually authorised quality to their interpretation of the term.
The inclusion of the term “Principles” into legislation without knowing or describing what it meant was an unprecedented failure on the part of our political representatives of that time.
The initial authority for inclusion was not given by the people. Until this occurs, or if the people refuse to authorise the inclusion, the Principles do not have the authority claimed for them. They should be removed. In the end, legitimacy is decided by the people if democracy is to work.
It is in discussion with the people that our parliamentary representatives must assure themselves and us that they know what they are talking about. The discussion about whether we want Treaty Principles may be four decades late, but it must happen for the sake of New Zealand democracy.
The current interpretation of the “Principles” of the Treaty have actually significantly changed the terms of the Treaty and the way the Treaty is enacted, yet they have never been officially put before the public to be ratified.
The suggestion of holding a referendum regards the Treaty Principles that was put forward by the ACT Party, was to allow the voters of New Zealand to have a reasoned and rational discussion related to the content of any such principles and then to ratify the result of those discussions through the democratic processes.
Taking the above into account and given the recent history of New Zealand (post the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi legislation) and the ill-informed interpretations of the Treaty document, it is definitely time we held a referendum to identify the meaning of the term “Principles” as it applies to the Treaty of Waitangi legislation.
Yes it may hurt some of the riders on the Treaty gravy train but it will give all New Zealand citizens the opportunity to calmly and reasonably discuss the interpretation of the Treaty and any attendant principles that we may wish to have with the Treaty.
Those who have done well out of the invention of Treaty Principles will object to the holding of a binding referendum and most likely use the loud voices and threatening tactics that have proved effective in the past to try to justify their opposition.
The proposed referendum is not about changing the Treaty it is about only two things;
- 1. Whether there should be a set of principles under the Treaty, and if so
- 2. What those principles should contain.
As the Maori King stated at Ngaruawahia, the original Treaty should stay the same without any changes.
Here’s a radical thought. How about we leave it to the people to decide?
If the result is not genuinely better than at present, people will reject it. If it is, then we end up with an improved outcome which is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights.
Surely that is how democracy is supposed to work and in fact how it has worked up until the Labour government decided to change it by introducing race based legislation into the equation.