It’s Divisive – Yeah Right
Our Prime Ministerial puppet Christopher Luxon claims that there is nothing in the Treaty Principles Bill that he agrees with and in fact he claims it is over simplistic and will do great harm to the relationship between Maori and other races in New Zealand.
I call him a puppet on purpose because surely he has to be spouting someone else’s views on this bill; he can’t possibly be dumb enough to really believe that this is so much different from the Treaty itself.
After all the Treaty is a very simple document that consists of only three articles as shown below in this copy of the Littlewood draft.
Article one: “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.”
Article two: “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.”
Article three: “In return for the cession of their sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”
The Treaty itself 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.
There were no principles contained in the Treaty document and they only appeared as a result of the government including the mention of them in passing the Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation in 1975.
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.
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.
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.
Why is there such a push back against the proposed Treaty Principles Bill being put forward by David Seymour, the Act party leader?
His Bill is seen as a threat to the Treaty Gravy Train that has been running for the past 50 years. As a result, barely a day goes by without someone being reported in the mainstream media denouncing Seymour and his bill.
Seymour’s Bill proposes a solution that should be unremarkable in a democracy but is being reported as subversive and revolutionary. He wants voters to be given the chance to decide their own constitutional future, but his proposal is seen as complete anathema to the so-called elite, who appear to believe that even allowing voters to discuss the matter of the Treaty’s place in New Zealand’s life is unacceptably risky.
His assessment is that even if the Treaty is considered as the nation’s founding document, it is no longer seen by many as relevant to the New Zealand of the 21st century. It is, in fact, the founding document for a bi-cultural New Zealand that no longer exists. As David Lange said in 2000; “The Treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place”.
Seymour’s position is that no matter what the Treaty says, or what various “experts” declare its articles actually mean, New Zealand has no future as a modern and prosperous nation if having even a miniscule amount of Maori ancestral blood can grant different political rights to that person.
The almost hysterical reaction to the prospect of a national debate or referendum on Treaty principles is a clear sign that the so-called elite fear his Bill will gain huge public support and they will lose their place on the Gravy Train. The taxpayer’s trough that they have had their snouts buried deep into for the past fifty odd years will be taken away and they may actually have to find a real job.
If you ask the elite 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.
They 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.
What we’re seeing with the push for ethnicity based decision making, is manipulation of facts for political and financial gain. The 'mythical partnership' is being used to secure privileges that no other group in New Zealand enjoys, despite the fact that over 260 ethnicities call this country home.
These privileges—whether they’re related to land rights, legal status, or political representation—are dividing New Zealanders and fuelling resentment. How is this fair; why should one group get special treatment while the rest are expected to stay silent?
What New Zealand needs is one law for all. Equality, fairness, and justice cannot be achieved if we keep pandering to a distorted view of history. Every New Zealander, regardless of their ethnicity, should be treated equally under the law. Special privileges based on race undermine the very principles of democracy and unity that this country should stand for.
This should be about moving toward a fairer, more equal society where no group has special privileges based on ethnicity. New Zealanders need to wake up to this reality and demand that politicians have the guts to confront this issue head-on.
It’s time to focus on creating a future where every New Zealander is treated with the same rights, privileges, and responsibilities—one law for all, no exceptions. The people of this country deserve nothing less.
One of New Zealand’s most acclaimed Maori Leaders; Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D in his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi" concludes with the words:
"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful".
The coalition government was elected at the general election in 2023 on a platform of change and yet many (a lot with vested interests in the outcomes), 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.
The issue of the proposed Treaty Principles Bill introduced as part of the coalition agreements should have been brought before the public to allow them the chance to exercise their democratic right to decide if there should be any Treaty Principles and if so what they should consist of.
But with his latest statements on this Bill the Prime Minister has confirmed that as far as he was concerned the Bill was just used to get an agreement in place to allow a coalition government to be formed. He is adamant that he has no intention to support the bill past the first reading.
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.
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.
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.
The proposed referendum is not about changing the Treaty it is about only two things;
- Whether there should be a set of principles under the Treaty, and if so
- What those principles should contain.
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?
A former Labour Prime Minister and Party Leader David Lange stated that his government could not acknowledge the existence of a dual sovereignty.
In a speech given by David Lange in the year 2000 he highlighted the danger to democracy of proceeding down the path of dual sovereignty. Mr Lange said that in a democracy what we cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as we do that, it isn’t a democracy. We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t co-exist and we can’t have them both. He went on to say that the court of appeal once, absurdly, described the treaty as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not.
Any claims of dual sovereignty are not only wrong in fact, but also promote racial separation of our country and creates a serious threat to our democratic system of governance.
Christopher Luxon by way of his recent statements regards the Treaty Principles Bill, has confirmed that he either has very little real understanding of what the Treaty document contains or that he is quite prepared to ignore the facts and promote a race based division of New Zealand.
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.