In a decisive parliamentary session in Wellington, New Zealand lawmakers voted overwhelmingly against a proposed legislative change on Thursday, which aimed to redefine the foundational treaty between M?ori tribes and the British Crown. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi bill was rejected with a resounding 112 to 11 vote, stopping its progress toward a final legislative approval. The announcement of the voteโs outcome was met with cheers and applause from those present, who celebrated by singing a waiata, a traditional M?ori song.
The proposal was intended to reinterpret the historic 1840 treaty, which was signed by British representatives and around 500 M?ori chiefs during the colonization period in New Zealand. Although it was unlikely to be enacted into law, the bill sparked significant debate over Indigenous rights and last yearโs largest protest on race relations in the nationโs history. However, the rejection of the bill does not close the ongoing discussion about M?ori rights in the countryโs legal system.
The Treaty of Waitangi, a pivotal document, shapes the interactions between the M?ori and the government. Through numerous legislative measures and court decisions, its provisions have been clarified over time. Originally, the treaty promised M?ori tribes the right to retain their lands and safeguard their interests, conditional on granting governance to the British. A critical issue was the presence of two versions of the treaty: one in English and another in M?ori, with discrepancies regarding the scope of authority ceded. Historical breaches by the Crown have led to severe disenfranchisement faced by M?ori, who continue to grapple with inequities.
Efforts aiming to address these issues gained momentum from the 1970s, leading to the incorporation of treaty considerations in New Zealandโs legal framework. These initiatives have played a role in revitalizing M?ori language and culture, resulting in substantial settlements to compensate for land seizures.
The bill sought to conclusively determine interpretations for each treaty clause and apply the defined rights uniformly to all New Zealanders. It was authored by David Seymour, a libertarian lawmaker of M?ori descent, who challenged what he described as privileges granted based on race. Addressing lawmakers, Seymour argued for uniform rights and responsibilities among all New Zealanders, but he failed to secure endorsements outside his party.
Opponents of the bill, like opposition leader Chris Hipkins, denounced it as detrimental to the nation, accusing proponents of perpetuating the false notion of โM?ori special privilege.โ Hipkins highlighted the persistent socio-economic disadvantages faced by M?ori, such as higher poverty and illness rates and reduced life expectancy.
Willie Jackson, an opposition lawmaker, emphasized that the Treaty is about the legal rights of the M?ori in their agreement with the Crown, rather than racial advantage. An unprecedented number of 300,000 public submissions were received on this bill, of which 90% were opposed.
Te P?ti M?oriโs Hana-R?whiti Maipi-Clarke criticized the bill as thoroughly discredited. Maipi-Clarke faces disciplinary actions in Parliament for her protest against the billโs initial vote last November, where she tore up the document in a haka, a M?ori chant of defiance. Alongside her colleagues, she declined to attend a hearing citing disrespect towards tikanga, signifying M?ori customs.
The preliminary passage of the contentious bill was facilitated by New Zealandโs political system, which permits minor parties to exert significant leverage. This quirk saw Prime Minister Christopher Luxonโs party support the bill initially as part of a coalition agreement with Seymour, despite Luxonโs intention to oppose it subsequently.
Seymourโs proposal is among several agreements Luxon has entered into regarding the treatyโs legal standing, including enacted measures instructing public bodies to cease designing policies targeted at addressing M?ori disparities. Further commitments include potentially revising treaty references across New Zealandโs legislation.