WELLINGTON, New Zealand – The anniversary of the Treaty of Waitangi on February 6, a day traditionally filled with political energy and vocal protests, was notably subdued this year. The absence of Prime Minister Christopher Luxon from the main celebrations was felt amid ongoing tensions related to a controversial proposed law that seeks to redefine the treaty’s implications.
The Treaty of Waitangi, signed in 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and around 500 M?ori tribal leaders, established the foundation of their relationship. Over the years, the observance of this occasion has allowed politicians and Indigenous leaders to gather and discuss their issues face-to-face, even during challenging times. Historically, this event has served as a barometer for the relations between the government and M?ori, with occasions sometimes framed by protests and efforts for reconciliation. This year’s solemnity was echoed in a sermon delivered during the annual church service at Waitangi, where Te Aroha Rountree from the Methodist Church remarked, “To renegotiate the terms of a marriage usually requires both spouses. It seems our spouse, the Crown, has filed for divorce.”
The current debates surrounding the treaty have been intensified by a proposed law viewed as a pivotal point in discussions about New Zealand’s commitment to its M?ori population post-colonization. Originally drafted in both English and M?ori, the treaty’s two versions significantly diverged, particularly with the M?ori text ensuring Indigenous sovereignty. Unfortunately, breaches by the Crown have led to the severe erosion of M?ori language and rights, with Aboriginal communities facing considerable challenges across various indicators.
In recent decades, M?ori tribes have made significant efforts to reclaim their rights through legal processes and substantial settlements with the government, aimed at restoring ancestral land and resources. This latest proposed legislation, championed by a minor libertarian political party that supported Luxon’s rise to power in 2023, intends to redefine the treaty’s principles to prevent perceived favoritism towards M?ori. Critics have labeled the bill a serious rollback of M?ori rights at a time when there have been strides towards embracing these rights more openly.
David Seymour, the lawmaker behind the bill, faced protests during his address at Waitangi marae—an important M?ori venue—this past Wednesday. As he promoted his legislation, numerous protesters stood in unity, turning their backs to him, effectively silencing portions of his speech when they took his microphone. This type of demonstration has been emblematic of the ongoing unrest; last November, massive protests were organized in Wellington against the law.
Given the charged atmosphere, Prime Minister Luxon opted to commemorate the day far from Waitangi, participating in events at Onuku Marae on the South Island, where chiefs signed the Treaty shortly after it first formed. He expressed hope for navigating the current divides, noting that he has no intention of allowing Seymour’s bill to pass, although he had agreed to facilitate its initial vote as part of a larger political strategy. “Looking forward, our ability to resolve differences and create connections will be essential for New Zealand’s future,” Luxon stated. “We have repeatedly shown that we can address tensions, heal historic grievances, and move ahead, a feat that many other nations have struggled with.”
In reply, Justin Tipa, chair of Ng?i Tahu, the hosting tribe, pointed out that Luxon’s time in power had heralded “a striking change in the cultural and political environment” within New Zealand. He cautioned that the complexities of contemporary politics could jeopardize the integrity of the country’s nuanced historical narrative and identity.
At Waitangi, various M?ori leaders and some political opponents criticized Luxon for avoiding the significant event. However, the prime minister maintained his position that his plan all along was to observe Waitangi Day in different locations and stressed that he was not the first leader to adopt such an approach.
Historically, leaders choosing to stay away from Waitangi have often been linked to tumultuous periods in the Crown-M?ori relationship. Some politicians, like Seymour, have willingly confronted the grievances expressed by protesters during their visits to the site. Over the years, expressions of dissent at Waitangi have ranged from M?ori donning black armbands in mourning for lost lands to more outrageous incidents, such as a protestor throwing a wet t-shirt at Queen Elizabeth II during her visit in 1990. Even more bizarre was a descent in 2016 when a cabinet minister was hit with a sex toy, leading to an arrest but no charges being filed.
