This submission was prepared by Moana Moran, our Kaitūhono – Research Sector Engagement and Projects Lead. Moana comes from a background in Anthropology, and their research practice is in using storytelling to dispel fear of the ‘Other’. You can read the submission below.

—

7 January 2025

I am writing this submission on behalf of Community Research. Community Research is an NGO which seeks to build a better nation by uplifting and making space for community-led research and knowledge making.  

I am Moana Moran, one of the Kaitūhono (connecters) at Community Research. My background is in Anthropology and using stories to build a better world by reducing fear of people who are different to ourselves. I am Pākehā – and proud of how that word links me to this land and the history my ancestors have both here and in other nations.

Community Research, our kaimahi (staff) and kaitiaki (board) wish to strongly oppose the Principles of the Treaty Bill. We believe it will further intrench existing inequalities in our nation, and does not respect our founding documents.

What follows is some discussion on why we hold these views, using accessible, everyday language.

The Value of ‘Experts’

Mr Seymour has approached this issue by using language which deliberately mystifies the processes around Te Tiriti into things which “these legal experts” (D. Seymour, 2024) are up to, and ‘the lawyers’ – as if lawyers are people who are disconnected from reality in our country. This is a classic tactic which is used to push an ‘us vs them’ narrative – particularly in regards to people with education in areas which is hard for people without that education to grasp. In reality ‘these legal experts’ are, in fact, exactly that. Legal experts. This is not a bad thing, and is especially not a bad thing in relation to a topic which requires a knowledge of history and law.

While creating and reinforcing these ‘us vs them’ narratives, Mr Seymour has, with a no-doubt deliberate air of innocence, called for a referendum so that ‘everyone can have their say’. He is most definitely aware even as he does that of the degree of misinformation and lack of knowledge about Te Tiriti amongst the populace of New Zealand.  52% say they are ‘not confident’ about their understanding of the principles of the treaty (1News, 2024). I believe there is a significant risk that the ACT party seeks to use this lack of understanding to push for changes which will increase privileges for some people over others.

Within this context, we can see that while every New Zealander has a right to be part of this conversation, every New Zealander does not have the capacity to be part of the decision making. There’s a reason why we get lawyers and kaumātua to debate these issues, because the legal and social frameworks of laws and constitutions are complex (and I include tikanga as a ‘legal framework’ in this situation too).

Here are some realities of our ‘now’, and why a referendum is not the correct tool to use for this situation:

• Many New Zealanders don’t know the details of the difference between the English and Te Reo versions of Te Tiriti. In particular, the key differences between the meanings of specific words including ‘sovereignty’ vs ‘tino rangatiratanga’, and ‘kawanatanga’ vs ‘governance’, and how these words were used differently in the different versions.
• Most New Zealanders (including many Māori) don’t know the details of (or even know about) He Whakapūtanga, which provides critical background to the signing of Te Tiriti. For those who signed Te Tiriti, He Whakapūtanga was front of mind as an existing document, and even the reason why some people didn’t sign the treaty – because they felt that it already established a solid enough baseline for a partnership between Māori and the British Government. Without that knowledge, many people today do not understand that there was already a clear agreement in place between many Māori and the Crown which clearly stated:

“all sovereign power and authority within the territories of the united tribes of new Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in their collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves”
(He Whakapūtanga, 1835)

which is an extremely clear statement with regards to sovereignty and how power decision making should operate in Aotearoa.

These realities are what these ‘experts’ are required to understand, and can’t be left out of decision-making around our laws. Without this knowledge, our people can’t make informed choices about how to shape the future of our laws.

What are the ‘Principles of Te Tiriti’

If we were to believe that the Bill is being presented in good faith (which I do not believe it was, I believe it was specifically written to gain votes from those who feel threatened by the scary, unfamiliar and strange world of Māori culture and Māori authority) we might be willing to acknowledge that a desire to ‘define’ the principles of Te Tiriti could be an effort to explain something which is complex in simple terms. At present, many laws and policies refer to ‘the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ to determine decision-making in ways which respect the relationships established between Māori and the Crown when Te Tiriti was signed. These ‘principles’ are not explicit in the words of Te Tiriti (at least from a Pākehā lens) and have been established by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal in a conceptual way, rather than through a clear definition (again, from a Pākehā lens) since. A person taking that Pākehā cultural lens to this issue might find this frustrating – wanting to understand something which might seem ‘vague’ to them, but is grounded in cultural and historical knowledge. If, as we have said, this Bill was acting in good faith, this might be a genuine attempt to clarify these principles in accessible ways across-cultures. However, the proposed wording of ACT’s so-called ‘principles of the treaty’ have no relationship to Te Tirity or The Treaty of Waitangi (the original English version). In the words of the Ministry of Justice, 

“the proposed policy is not grounded in the Treaty/te Tiriti or the existing Treaty principles, (…) the underlying rationale for the principles as described in the ACT party policy relies on a novel reading of the Treaty/te Tiriti that is not supported by the available evidence”. (MoJ, 2024)

The proposed wording of these new principles is clearly driven by a desire to erase any ongoing recognition of Tino Rangatiratanga in our country, and our organisation believes this will further disadvantage Māori and reduce our chances as a nation to build a better future from the foundations of Te Tiriti.

The Hidden Reality of a ‘One Rule for All’ System

This Bill, and the agenda behind it, proports to make a system for New Zealand where ‘everyone is equal’, and uses language such as “Everyone is equal before the law.” (Govt, 2024). This language is very misleading because it appears to say one thing (everyone should be equal) which appeals to most people’s value structures, but in reality it is pushing a hidden agenda. 

‘Equal’ in a White Way

What this ‘equality’ is, in reality, is based on a Pākehā world view. It presents a social, governmental, and legal structure which all centre around what British descendants think of as ‘normal’. In Anthropology, we call this ‘ethnocentrism’ – where we make assumptions about what is ‘normal’ based on our own cultural experiences. In a Pākehā house it might be ‘normal’ for someone to come into a home wearing shoes, but that might not be normal for other folks. For Pākehā it’s ‘normal’ to have a winter-style roast at Christmas, because of what our ancestors (in a totally different weather pattern) did. Pākehā might go to a grave site to speak to their ancestors, while in other cultures a shrine for ancestors might be kept in a home. For Pākehā with Catholic upbringing they might wear a medallion for Saint Christopher for safety while travelling, while in other cultures they might wish for good luck for the year amongst family while tossing noodles. In my mother’s Irish-decent family it was ‘normal’ to gather on St Patrick’s Day and sing songs, while my father’s family (English/Scottish) did not.

All of these things are differences to our day-to-day lives (our cultures) which in turn influence our values, our decisions, and even our views on a person’s ‘rights’. In Māori culture, there are ‘norms’ which flow from and into their ‘legal’ framework, which is tikanga. To say we want a nation in which “everyone is equal” is a good value to aspire to in theory, but when paired with this Bill, is veiling an ethos which is seeking to apply these British-heritage values to every single person in our nation. To override Māori values. It is also, I believe, attempting to push an ethos that ‘we are all the same’. We are not all the same – our differences are part of what makes this country beautiful. We should all have access to the same opportunities and playing field, but we are not identical creatures, and why should we try to be?

To attempt to say that every rule is the same and should always apply in the same way, is both impossible, and hiding this white-homogeneity underbelly. It implies (though carefully avoids saying aloud) that our laws and our decisions as a nation should be based on white, British structures and norms, and that Māori structures and norms don’t matter. One of the things which many indigenous people worldwide have been fighting for is for formal recognition of their own value structures. This is why there are Tribal Courts for Native Americans in the USA, and other such emerging systems which recognise that difference is not bad. Homogeneity all too often disguises a power system where one cultural group’s influence erases another’s. This will not benefit anyone in Aotearoa.

Equal in a ‘We All Have the Same Starting Line’ Way

In addition to the above, the ‘everyone is equal’ narrative can be used to hide the reality of how not everyone has the same opportunities, and how this has a historical source. If everyone in Aotearoa had equal political power, equal resources, equal opportunities, then we should all be served the same degree of support by our government and power structures. We unfortunately know perfectly well how far we are from that reality. While we should, as a nation, strive to make sure everyone has a baseline of rights which don’t differ based on privileges, there are many people (including but not limited to Māori) who are statistically more likely to be under-privileged. To be on a different starting line.

The stealing of land, the loss of life, the loss of language, of whakapapa – all of the deliberate efforts by the British-backed government to disenfranchise Māori are still having an extremely tangible effect in our society today. Other cultural groups also experience poverty and a lack of voice – but there is a tangible ‘this caused that’ impact which is still a very real element of life for many Māori. Pākehā can’t expect to simply say ‘We’re all equal now, colonisation is over. It’s okay, we’ve decided you’ve got equal rights, don’t worry!’, when so many Māori are still directly impacted by colonisation. Colonisation is not over, it’s still being lived. This Bill itself is a tangible colonising effort. Māori do not, as a group, have the same opportunities per capita that Pākehā do. So for a group of officials to declare ‘it’s all fine now’ and ‘we should all be equal’ is anywhere from blind obliviousness to an active form of structural violence. (Structural violence being, in this case, where the structures of our society are set up in ways where it takes power and resources away from certain groups and benefits other groups.)

A Better Way Forward

As can be seen by the tens of thousands of people who took part in the Hikoi to stand against this Bill, it is not something which will bring a better future for Aotearoa. We need a future which will:

• Respect the multi-cultural context of Aotearoa;
• Respect our founding documents (Te Tiriti and He Whakapūtanga);
• Use legal frameworks, informed by experts, which allow for difference, and
• Continue to build a nation which allows for Māori Tino Rangatiratanga.

On the issue of sovereignty and Tino Rangatiratanga, The Waitangi Tribunal (again, a group of experts who understand the law, not just a group of random people with strong personal opinions) have been quite clear on this issue:

“The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. That is, they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They agreed to a relationship: one in which they and Hobson were to be equal – equal while having different roles and different spheres of influence”. (Waitangi Tribunal, 2014)

New Zealand’s ‘what next’ has the opportunity to be imaginative and transformative, building on the diversity of thought which exists in Te Ao Māori and mixing with the other cultures which are here now. We don’t need to use the Westminster system, or a tired white-homogeneity based framework. Te Ao Māori has always worked on an hāpu-based, mokopuna-first framework, and who amongst us would say we were against a system which allows the needs of different smaller parts of our society to be met, and the futures of our grandchildren to be put first? It’s a good system and one which many New Zealanders would like to see reflected throughout our country’s structures.

Unlike this Bill, which didn’t consult with any Māori, there has been a huge movement in Te Ao Maori for Matike Mai – a constitutional change conversation which supports the “different spheres of influence” concept which Te Tiriti always set out for us. This quote from someone during that consultation stands out to me:

“Te Tiriti has everything a constitution needs – the recognition of each community’s mana, the preservation of each community’s decision-making authority, and the recognition that there are things everyone has to come together to make a decision about, like finance or foreign affairs for example”. (Matike Mai, p. 53)

There is an opportunity for Aotearoa New Zealand to step forward into a future of justice and hope. For us as a nation to, instead of taking a bad-faith reinterpretation of our founding documents (and all the bitter history that followed it), instead say, no, we want to learn from our history and build something which cares for all of our people. Something which shows how we can have Māori Tino Rangatiratanga and Kāwanatanga (the Crown’s governance) operating together without either diminishing the other.

We ask that Select Committee listen to the voices of the tens of thousands of people who walked to stand in front of parliament only a few weeks ago. Those voices are not saying division, those voices are saying partnership, unity, diversity – together we can make something beautiful. This Bill seeks to kill that movement. It seeks to diminish our treaty. It seeks to diminish Māori rights. We don’t want it.

Sources:

1News. “Poll: Half of NZers Say They Don’t Understand Treaty Principles.” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://www.1news.co.nz/2024/02/26/poll-half-of-nzers-say-they-dont-understand-treaty-principles/.

“He Whakaputanga – Declaration of Independence, 1835.” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/the-declaration-of-independence.

Office of the Associate Minister of Justice. “Policy approvals for progressing a Treaty Principles Bill,” Accessed January 7, 2025. https://www.beehive.govt.nz/sites/default/files/2024-09/20240910%20-%20Cab%20paper%20Redacted.pdf.  

“Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill – New Zealand Parliament,” January 28, 2025. https://www.parliament.nz/en/pb/sc/make-a-submission/document/54SCJUST_SCF_227E6D0B-E632-42EB-CFFE-08DCFEB826C6/principles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi-bill.

RNZ. “Treaty Principles Bill: David Seymour’s Acknowledgement of Rangatiratanga Raises ‘a Whole Lot of Questions,’” November 27, 2024. https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/534907/treaty-principles-bill-david-seymour-s-acknowledgement-of-rangatiratanga-raises-a-whole-lot-of-questions.

The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa – The Independent Working Group On Constitutional Transformation (nd). Accessed January 7, 2025. https://matikemai.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16-1.pdf