WELLINGTON, New Zealand — A session in New Zealand’s parliament was disrupted on Thursday as tensions flared over a proposed law that seeks to redefine the nation’s foundational agreement between the Indigenous M?ori people and the British Crown. Two lawmakers were removed from the assembly following chaotic scenes as reactions to the bill intensified.
The bill aims to broaden the implications of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, which outlines the relationship between the government and the M?ori people, by suggesting that the rights outlined in the treaty should be extended to all citizens of New Zealand. Historically, this agreement assured M?ori tribes that they would maintain rights over their lands and interests while ceding governance to colonial powers. The legislation has seen little support and is viewed skeptically by many, with critics arguing that it could incite racial strife and lead to significant constitutional shifts. Throughout this week, numerous New Zealanders have been organized in protests against the bill.
Despite facing considerable opposition, the bill was passed during its initial vote after capturing public attention for several months. This is partly attributed to nuances within New Zealand’s political landscape that enable smaller political parties to exert considerable influence. The political climate reflects some unease among parts of the population regarding the acceleration of progress toward honoring the commitments made to M?ori during colonization.
The Treaty of Waitangi has been a topic of contention ever since its signing. Disparities between the English version and the M?ori text, along with government violations, have led to ongoing disenfranchisement for M?ori over the years. Indigenous language and culture faced significant decline by mid-20th century, and many tribal lands were appropriated, leaving M?ori communities disadvantaged. As the Indigenous rights movement gained momentum in the 1970s, lawmakers and courts began to clarify what the treaty might guarantee M?ori: partnership, involvement in decision-making, and protection of their rights.
David Seymour, leader of the minor libertarian party ACT and the bill’s proponent, stated, “The principles contained in this treaty grant M?ori different rights than those of other New Zealanders.” Advocates of the treaty emphasize the ongoing efforts that have involved multi-million dollar land settlements, support for the M?ori language, and guaranteed representation in both central and local governments to address systemic inequalities faced by Indigenous people.
However, Seymour, who identifies as M?ori, criticized the lack of a definitive legal interpretation of the treaty’s principles, suggesting that the ongoing ambiguity fosters division. He argued that his legislation addresses a void left by parliament for decades.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon holds a differing view but chose to support the bill in an effort to maintain a political alliance that bolstered his leadership. Following the previous October elections, Luxon negotiated with smaller parties like ACT, which secured less than 9% of the vote. He assured them that his party would only support the treaty bill once, vowing that it would not progress further.
Luxon noted that the treaty’s principles have been debated for 184 years, countering Seymour’s notion that these complex issues could be resolved swiftly. Lawmakers from the ruling party faced ridicule as they attempted to explain their votes against the bill while ultimately supporting it. Luxon avoided this backlash, having traveled to an Asia-Pacific leaders’ summit shortly before the parliamentary session.
Opposition lawmakers heavily criticized Luxon’s political maneuvering. Veteran M?ori lawmaker Willie Jackson passionately condemned Seymour’s actions, leading to his ejection from the chamber for calling Seymour a liar. Another lawmaker from Te P?ti M?ori, Rawiri Waititi, condemned those supporting the bill, implying a shared responsibility for the intended harmful impacts. Green party leader Chloe Swarbrick echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the implications of supporting the legislation.
The parliamentary proceedings reached a further boiling point when Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke of Te P?ti M?ori stood and began to chant a traditional haka, inviting participation from both opposition lawmakers and spectators. Speaker Gerry Brownlee struggled to regain order as tensions flared, leading to a suspension for Maipi-Clarke.
Moving forward, the bill will enter a public submission phase before a subsequent vote. Seymour remains hopeful for widespread support to influence Luxon’s stance on the legislation, yet protests are expected to escalate. Thousands are set to gather in Wellington, anticipating one of New Zealand’s largest marches advocating for race relations in the nation’s history.