Despite his claim of Maori ancestry, he is defending his Treaty Principles Bill.

His comments came as a hikoi opposing the bill reached Parliament, backed by passionate speeches and strong objections from Maori leaders.

Leaders voice Hapu concerns

Te Runanga o Ngati Rehia issued a statement condemning Seymour's proposed legislation, calling it a threat to mana Maori motuhake (Maori self-determination).

"Ngati Rehia oppose everything this bill stands for" the runanga said, urging Seymour to withdraw the bill which they say contradicts the principles his ancestors fought for.

They also expressed fears the bill would harm Maori communities.

"He has disregarded our voice and continued with this divisive kaupapa" their statement read.

Seymour stands firm on individual freedoms

Seymour responded by emphasising his belief in individual freedom over collective identity, stating he does not feel obligated to follow the perspectives of his hapu.

"If the proposition is that being Maori means I have to bow down and follow leadership, then that's not a very attractive proposition" Seymour told Local Democracy Reporting.

"The idea that I have to think the same as every ancestor I have."

He also dismissed the hikoi's objections as lacking coherence, while acknowledging the intensity of Maori-related discussions at his public meetings.

Highly contentious remarks at ACT meeting

NZ Herald reports that at an Act Party meeting in New Plymouth on Wednesday, Seymour's audience voiced sharp criticisms of Maori issues, reflecting the polarising nature of the debate.

One attendee compared Maori to seagulls, suggesting continued government support led to dependency.

Another claimed the Treaty had been reinterpreted over time to serve a Maori elite, while another dismissed pre-colonial Maori society as violent.

Source

• NZ Herald

Those who took part in the hikoi, along with supporters around the country, both Maori and non-Maori, consider the Bill to be a betrayal of the commitments made at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Waitangi Tribunal has voiced its deep concern.

It says if the Bill were to be enacted, it would fundamentally change the nature of the partnership between the Crown and Maori by "substituting existing Treaty principles for a set of propositions which bear no resemblance to the text or spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi".

Likewise, in September this year, 440 Christian leaders signed an open letter to MPs urging them to oppose the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill. Why should this be a matter of concern to Christian leaders?

The Covenant

Soon after the Treaty had been signed in 1840, Maori began to refer to the Treaty as a covenant. This is biblical language.

Covenant is the word used to describe an unconditional commitment that God makes to humankind.

It is a commitment grounded in love and describes a relationship that is to be unbreakable and in which the parties involved seek the welfare of the other come what may, "in sickness and in health, for richer for poorer, till death do us part", as the traditional vows of the marriage covenant put it.

Maori understood, apparently, that the Treaty established a relationship of this sort.

God's faithfulness and steadfast love and, derivatively, the faithfulness and commitment of marriage partners to one another was the model for the relationship established between the Crown and Maori signatories on behalf of their respective iwi.

Imagine then their dismay when the betrayals began, first with the seizure and illegal confiscation of land, then with the Native Lands Act, then with the efforts to suppress Maori language and culture.

Then came betrayals with the Tohunga Suppression Act, then with the payment of a pension to Maori during the 1920s and 30s at a rate 25 percent lower than non-Maori received, and so on and on.

The Treaty Principles Bill is yet another attempt to annul the promise of the covenant relationship that Maori saw embodied in the Treaty.

Biblical concepts

There were other biblical concepts in play when the Treaty was signed.

The word used in Te Tiriti, the Maori translation of the Treaty, to describe the authority being granted to the Crown is "kawanatanga".

That is not a native Maori word. It is a word coined to translate the term governorship. The governor in English became the kawana in te reo Maori.

Such a word was needed to translate the office held by Pontius Pilate, who is described in Matthew 27:15-26 as the governor.

Pilate, of course, was not the Emperor, he was not sovereign. He was an official answerable to a higher authority elsewhere and had strictly circumscribed authority himself.

His primary role was to maintain law and order. This was the level of authority being accorded to the Crown in the first article of the Treaty.

What kind of authority is then assigned to Maori in the second article? The words used in this case are ‘tino rangatiratanga'.

Rangatiratanga means chieftainship, sovereignty, self-determination.

It too appears in the Maori translation of the Bible, notably in the Lord's prayer, where the disciples of Jesus are enjoined to approach God with the prayer ‘Your kingdom come' — Kia tae mai tou rangatiratanga.

Then at the conclusion of the prayer they are instructed to pray, "For yours is the kingdom ..." — Nou hoki te rangatiratanga.

The modifier "tino" used before rangatiratanga in the second article of the Treaty heightens the quality being referred to. It means that something is unrivalled or of great intensity.

Within the framework of biblical thought, with which Maori had now become very familiar and which the Reverend Henry Williams, translator of the Treaty, likely appealed to when encouraging the chiefs to sign, rangatiratanga is clearly a more elevated authority than kawanatanga.

The biblical provenance of the language used in Te Tiriti should dissuade us, therefore, from the frequently heard contention that in signing Te Tiriti Maori ceded sovereignty.

What they ceded was kawanatanga, the same kind of authority to maintain law and order that Pontius Pilate held as Governor of Judaea.

It was promised to Maori in return that they should retain their already existing tino rangatiratanga, their sovereignty, over "o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa", that is, over their lands, their homes (or habitats) and over all their treasures.

With the Native Lands Act of 1863, a mere 23 years after the signing of the Treaty, this promise had been betrayed, the land confiscations had begun.

Rebuild relationships

Far from betraying further through the Treaty Principles Bill the covenant relationship that was understood to have been established at Waitangi in 1840, we should instead be devoting our efforts to rebuilding the relationship on the terms that were first agreed.

• Republished with permission of the ODT
• Murray Rae is a University of Otago professor of theology.

Vicar General of the Catholic Archdiocese of Wellington, Monsignor Gerard Burns, and the Anglican Bishop of Wellington, the Most Reverend Justin Duckworth, both walked alongside thousands of others protesting the Government's Treaty Principles Bill on Tuesday.

Both church leaders spoke of issues like social justice, a shared history and the need to uphold the treasure of the Treaty.

That treasure looks likely to be lost if the Bill - which intends to codify some aspects of the interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi - passes into law.

Duckworth says 230,000 people signed the petition which calls on the coalition government to stop the Treaty Principles Bill from passing into law.

The petition was handed to the Government on Tuesday.

A shared history

Catholic leadership was represented at Waitangi in 1840 when the Treaty was signed, Burns says.

Bishop Pompallier was at the Treaty debate in 1840 and intervened in favour of denominational and religious equality.

"Faith-wise - in addition to the Treaty's human and political context - I see Te Tiriti in terms of a covenant, similar to the covenants of the Scriptures" Burns says.

It's a covenant for everyone. It's for Maori. It's for others - like my family - who moved here a few generations ago, he says. But it hasn't always been honoured.

"I have been involved in various social justice issues for a long time and one of the longest is the question of Maori rights, given the marginalisation of iwi Maori during the European settlement and colonisation of Aotearoa New Zealand since 1840. All in contravention of the promises made by the British Crown in the Treaty of Waitangi."

Burns says that in the last 40 years, the Treaty (especially the Maori version - Te Tiriti) has been given new life by Maori advocacy, solid academic and historical work, and a broadening of knowledge about this country's history.

"This has filtered into everyday life, the law, practice of institutions, art, theatre, education, religious ceremonies.

"Generally this has been positive for our country and certainly adopted by our advertising and trade advocates to promote a ‘point-of-difference' for tourism and commerce.

"A variety of legislative projects are looking to roll back some of these developments and for what reason? I think to promote the possibilities of wealth for a few, under the guise of promoting debate, ensuring democracy, etc."

He indicates that marching in the hikoi was the correct response to these covenant breaches.

Catholic representation at Hikoi

Catholic Peacemakers and Challenge 2000 were two significant bodies joining the hikoi. Many others - lay people, priests and religious participated.

Catholic Peacemakers began with prayer at St Mary of the Angels and joined the hikoi as it passed by the Church.

Challenge 2000 viewed participation in the hikoi as part of its mission to uphold the Treaty of Waitangi. For them it was considered a working day.

"This hikoi aligns with our commitment to Te Tiriti" said a Challenge 2000 spokesperson. "It's an opportunity for us to stand together in solidarity and demonstrate our values in action."

"This is about honouring our past and paving a way for a fairer future" said one participant.

"Kotahitanga at its finest, represented with so much mana, aroha, a bit of hoha, but most of all it was a historical and pivotal moment where, as a Maori woman, I could reclaim some sense of the mana that had been stripped away from my people and my whenua" said a staff member.

"I saw people of all ages and ethnicities joining together, proclaiming Te Tiriti as the founding charter for all of Aotearoa New Zealand.

"The hikoi asserted biculturalism, demonstrating compassion, forgiveness and love to those who wish to hurt people through division, scapegoating and disrespect.

"It was a sign of hope and unity leaping like fire in the people's hearts" said a Pakeha social worker.

"The hikoi was a living sign of how successful Te Tiriti can be" says a Challenge 2000 spokesperson.

"The Queen and Maori made a sacred covenant together, which gives me a right to be here, so I am here as a citizen of Aotearoa New Zealand because Maori tupuna welcomed my Irish and Scandinavian ancestors.

Catholic Church silent

A CathNews correspondent expressed disappointment with the New Zealand Catholic bishops' apparent silence on a specific call to stop the Bill.

She says there is no statement on the NZ Bishop's website but notes the Anglican Diocese of Wellington's website shows significant support for stopping the Bill.

"It is important as a Church we don't limit ourselves to weeping over past disgraces to the point that we miss what's going on under our noses" she said.

Source

• Supplied
• Anglican Movement NZ

"important national conversation about the place of the Treaty in our constitutional arrangements".

The hikoi is timed to coincide with the first reading of the contentious Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill on Thursday.

It and other similar protests are a response to what many perceive as a fundamental threat to New Zealand's fragile constitutional framework.

With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.

As constitutional lawyer and former prime minister Geoffrey Palmer has argued about the current Government's legislative style and speed, the country "is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety".

Central to this ever-shifting and contested political ground is te Tiriti o Waitangi/Treaty of Waitangi.

For decades it has been woven into the laws of the land in an effort to redress colonial wrongs and guarantee a degree of fairness and equity for Maori.

There is a significant risk the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill would undermine these achievements, as it attempts to negate recognised rights within the original document and curtail its application in a modern setting.

But while the bill is almost guaranteed to fail because of the other coalition parties' refusal to support it beyond the select committee, there is another danger.

Contained in an explanatory note within the bill is the following clause:

The Bill will come into force if a majority of electors voting in a referendum support it. The Bill will come into force 6 months after the date on which the official result of that referendum is declared.

Were David Seymour to argue his bill has been thwarted by the standard legislative process and must be advanced by a referendum, the consequences for social cohesion could be significant.

The referendum option

While the bill would still need to become law for the referendum to take place, the option of putting it to the wider population - either as a condition of a future coalition agreement or orchestrated via a citizens-initiated referendum - should not be discounted.

One recent poll showed roughly equal support for and against a referendum on the subject, with around 30 percent undecided.

And Seymour has had success in the past with his End of Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.

He will also have watched the recent example of Australia's Voice referendum, which aimed to give a non-binding parliamentary voice to Indigenous communities but failed after a heated and divisive public debate.

The lobby group Hobson's Pledge, which opposes affirmative action for Maori and is led by former ACT politician Don Brash, has already signalled its intention to push for a citizens-initiated referendum, arguing:

"We need to deliver the kind of message that the Voice referendum in Australia delivered."

The Treaty and the constitution

ACT's bill is not the first such attempt. In 2006, the NZ First Party - then part of a Labour-led coalition government - introduced the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill.

That bill failed, but the essential argument behind it was that entrenching Treaty principles in law was "undermining race relations in New Zealand".

However, ACT's current bill does not seek to delete those principles, but rather to define and restrain them in law.

This would effectively begin to unpick decades of careful legislative work, threaded together from the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, the Treaty settlements process, the courts and parliament.

As such, in mid-August the Tribunal found the first iteration of ACT's bill

would reduce the constitutional status of the Treaty/te Tiriti, remove its effect in law as currently recognised in Treaty clauses, limit Maori rights and Crown obligations, hinder Maori access to justice, impact Treaty settlements, and undermine social cohesion.

In early November, the Tribunal added:

If this Bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty/te Tiriti in modern times.

If the Bill remained on the statute book for a considerable time or was never repealed, it could mean the end of the Treaty/te Tiriti.

Social cohesion at risk

Similar concerns have been raised by the Ministry of Justice in its advice to the government.

In particular, the ministry noted the proposal in the bill may negate the rights articulated in Article II of the Treaty, which affirms the continuing exercise of tino rangatiratanga (self-determination):

Any law which fails to recognise the collective rights given by Article II calls into question the very purpose of the Treaty and its status in our constitutional arrangements.

The government has also been advised by the Ministry of Justice that the bill may lead to discriminatory outcomes inconsistent with New Zealand's international legal obligations to eliminate discrimination and implement the rights of Indigenous peoples.

All of these issues will become heightened if a referendum, essentially about the the removal of rights guaranteed to Maori in 1840, is put to the vote.

Of course, citizens-initiated referendums are not binding on a government, but they carry much politically persuasive power nonetheless. And this is not to argue against their usefulness, even on difficult issues.

But the profound constitutional and wider democratic implications of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill, and any potential referendum on it, should give everyone pause for thought at this pivotal moment.

• First published in The Conversation
• Alexander Gillespie is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato
• Claire Breen is a Professor of Law, University of Waikato

The Church and iwi have joined forces to "unequivocally" oppose the Bill which they say reinterprets the 184-year old Te Tiriti o Waitangi - the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Bill, which sets out proposed principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, is repeating historic mistakes the Church and iwi say.

On Thursday, Parliament was suspended briefly during the Bill's first reading as Maori MPs staged a haka to disrupt the vote.

Once order was restored, the Bill passed its first reading and will be voted on again next year.

It is not expected to go through a second reading as National and NZ First say they will not support it beyond the first.

Rewriting a sacred covenant

The Bishop of Wellington Justin Duckworth and Assistant Bishop of Wellington Anashuya Fletcher said "For us, the Treaty is a sacred covenant".

The Bill's misinterpretation of the Treaty between the British Crown and Indigenous Maori undermines "this sacred covenant" and diminishes "the mana of our forebears and all parties who signed it".

They agree the Treaty Principles Bill "has echoes" of a far-reaching judgement which the long-dead supreme court judge Sir James Prendergast made in 1877 concerning the Treaty, Ngati Toa and the Anglican Church.

The rift, the judgement and the Treaty

The 176-year rift between the Church and iwi had its roots in 1848, when Ngati Toa gifted land in Porirua to the Anglican Church.

In return, the Church promised to build a school for the iwi's rangatahi (young people).

No school was built. Later, the Church received a Crown grant to the land without Ngati Toa's consent.

Offended Ngati Toa chief and Executive Council member Wi Parata took the church to the Supreme Court in 1877.

The judges dismissed the case.

The Chief Justice of the day, Sir James Prendergast, in his ruling called the Treaty of Waitangi a "simple nullity" and "worthless".

It couldn't be of value because it was signed "between a civilised nation and a group of savages" he claimed.

"The dismissal of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in this landmark case was a grievous error that disregarded the sovereignty guaranteed to Maori under Te Tiriti" said Dr Taku Parai, Ngati Toa's Pou Tikanga.

The King's Counsel oppose the Bill

The Anglican Church and Ngati Toa's joint statement joins a chorus of opposition against the Bill, including a many thousands-strong hikoi that will arrive at Parliament grounds today.

Those on the hikoi are bringing with them a letter signed by 42 of the country's prominent King's Counsel.

The letter calls the Bill an attempt to rewrite the Treaty.

It will effectively unilaterally change Te Tiriti and its effect in law without the agreement of Maori as the Treaty partner, the King's Counsel say.

Source

• The Post

So theologian Alistair Reese told Parliament's Petitions Committee last week.

The written text of the Treaty - Te Tiriti o Waitangi - includes a preamble and three articles.

History speaks

Reese told Parliament that when Pompallier (the country's first Catholic bishop) put his question about Crown Care of Maori, Hobson was negotiating Te Tiriti on behalf of the Crown.

The Catholic bishop was concerned that Catholicism might receive little sympathy in an English colonial New Zealand.

Pompallier asked "whether the natives who joined the Catholic Church would be looked after by the Crown".

"And that sent Henry Williams, the [Methodist] translator and mediator of the Treaty, and Governor Hobson into a bit of a huddle" Reese told MPs.

"Hobson is reported to have responded 'Oh, most certainly'. And that if Pompallier had asked him this earlier, his 'desire should have been embodied in the Treat'."

William Colenso, who was also present during the Treaty negotiations, then wrote out an undertaking in te reo Maori and English that was read out to the assembled rangatira:

"E mea ana te Kawana, ko nga whakapono katoa, o Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma me te ritenga Maori hoki, e tiakina ngatahitia e ia."

This translates as: The Governor says the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also the Maori custom, shall alike be protected by him.

The petitioners

Besides Reese, the petition was developed with two kaumatua who have since died - Patrick Nicholas (Pirirakau, Ngati Hangarau) and Hukikakahu Kawe (Ngai Te Ahi, Ngai Tamarawaho, Ngai Te Rangi).

Their petition argues that the Treaty was an oral undertaking for Maori who signed it. It was not read by them, but read out to them.

An oral contract is just as binding as a written one, the petition says.

That being the case, Hobson's other - oral - undertaking, which was also read to Maori, should have equal status and should be included within our understanding of the Treaty.

Freedom of religion

The New Zealand Bill of Rights already includes a specific right for the freedom of religion.

But Reese wants this right added to the Treaty because it's "a matter of integrity" he says.

"It's a matter of laying the moral foundation for the nation. Then all our experts, laws, lawyers, theologians, academics and iwi Maori can gather around and say, ‘Ah, this actually has an impact upon the very identity of who we are as a people'.

"So I think that there's a lot to talk about, and we shouldn't be short-circuited because someone's said ‘Oh, that's already taken care of'."

He hopes his petition will be included in discussions about the ACT Party's Treaty Principles Bill which seeks to enshrine meanings on all aspects of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in legislation.

Source

• Community Scoop

It's probably fair to say that as a teenager my actions were sometimes sub-optimal.

One incident in particular came to mind from my college days, when I'd made an inappropriate comment to a fellow student who was Maori.

Before I knew it, our groups of respective mates were in a stand-off.

After a bit of back and forth, things started to get ugly, and I distinctly remember turning around expecting to see my mates in support - only to discover they had legged it.

But the other guy's crew? They were backing him up all the way.

This memory probably cropped up as I had the privilege of hearing speaker after speaker at Turangawaewae delivering the most amazing korero - and unlike my teenage experience, were always backed up by their support crew, who were ready to tautoko with waiata (and sometimes even jump in early when they felt someone had gone on too long).

I felt a strong sense of people moving collectively, and it was such a testament to Kiingi Tuheitia's call this year for kotahitanga.

The Bible uses the metaphor of different parts of the same body to describe individuals in relationship together.

Whether hand, foot or eyeball, each part is valued and important and has a unique role.

There's a sense of kotahitanga and radical equality.

We read of these distinctions broken down in the book called Galatians:

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus."

You'd be forgiven, then, for thinking that an open letter by more than 400 Christian leaders calling on the Government to stop the Treaty Principles Bill progressing to select committee falls short of the Christian message of unity.

Surely Christians would share in ACT and NZ First's declaration that each of us should be treated the same?

In response to the letter, ACT leader David Seymour wrote of his admiration of the "core Christian principle of imago dei" - every human made in the image of God - which, he states, automatically means that everyone has equal dignity.

It's an idea, he says, that is at odds with te Tiriti.

But what does it really mean to be made in the image of God?

Does it really mean, as Seymour says, that "everyone has equal dignity"?

Of course, in one sense the answer is yes; we are all "uniquely and wonderfully made", as it says in Psalm 139.

But as a society I think we've drunk the Kool-Aid of a culture that says if one person receives something different from us, our personal rights have been trampled on.

I would argue that being made in the image of God brings a diversity of culture which needs protecting and nurturing for our collective good.

That's what kotahitanga can look like.

We see this at work in the early church, where different customs threatened to cause a split. Jewish Christians thought their non-Jewish counterparts should be required to be circumcised, as they had; non-Jews disagreed.

In the end, both groups came to realise it was being in relationship that was important.

The importance of relationship

The Christian God is a God of relationship - between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit - so it follows that for us to be made in the image of God means we acknowledge our relationship with one another.

It also means we recognise that different people need different things to flourish.

If health for one part of the body looks a certain way - such as the protection of te Tiriti, which aims to support te ao Maori towards self-led outcomes effecting positive change - then together we enable that to happen.

At the tangi for King Tuheitia and the raising up for Kuini Nga Wai hono i te po last Thursday, my colleague Archbishop Don Tamihere gave a powerful sermon which I think is a prophetic call to take us forward as a beautiful and diverse nation.

He said: "If we focus for too long on dismantling and deconstructing, we forget how to repair and how to renew. If we focus for too long on criticising and condemning, we forget how to uphold and how to uplift. If we focus for too long on tearing down, we forget how to build up; we forget how to stand together, we forget how to be united."

In light of what I saw last week, I'm excited about what the future holds for Aotearoa.

We're having to take the next step in growing up as a nation; learning more of what it means to live together as a uniquely and wonderfully made people.

• First published in The Post. Republished with author's permission.
• Justin Duckworth is a New Zealand Anglican bishop. Since 2012, he has been the Anglican Bishop of Wellington, and since 2024 he has been the senior bishop of Tikanga Pakeha in the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia

He was responding to Monday's open letter from over 400 religious leaders who, sight unseen, wanted the Bill voted down at the first reading, preventing it from going to a Select Committee for public comment.

Luxon added that the National Party needs to honour its agreement with ACT as part of a democratically elected MMP government with coalition partners.

"I have a coalition agreement [and a] commitment, I honour those commitments" Luxon said.

"We have a coalition agreement, very clear, [we] went to the election, we have an MMP system, people voted, those are the cards they gave us."

Luxon reiterated his position, explaining that while ACT would prefer a full public referendum after the Select Committee process, that is not going to happen.

No one has read the Treaty Principles Bill

ACT leader David Seymour confirmed that only a "broad outline" of the Bill was discussed at the Cabinet meeting before a draft version would be created and publicly released in November.

Seymour said that no one has read the Bill yet.

He told Newstalk ZB's Heather du Plessis-Allan on Monday that "the Government and the parties had agreed to the Bill's broad outline. It now goes off to Parliament's drafters who will take some time to write the exact wording".

He said the religious leaders who sent the open letter have tried to halt public comment at the Select Committee stage.

Seymour argued that the Churches' pushback undermined the democratic process and attempted to stifle debate.

He also accused the religious leaders of playing politics.

On Tuesday, CathNews reported that a range of Catholic individuals had signed the open letter.

Among New Zealand's six Catholic bishops, Michael Dooley, Steve Lowe and Archbishop Paul Martin signed the letter, as well as several sisters, priests and emeritus bishops.

CathNews also learned from some signatories that they had not seen a draft of the Treaty Principles Bill and were not fully aware of the content of the open letter before signing it.

In attacking the signatories and discrediting them, one said it seemed ironic that Seymour appeared to be trying to prevent them from engaging in the democratic process, then doing precisely what he accused them of doing.

Labour and Greens congratulate religious leaders

Labour and the Greens have congratulated the Christian leaders for condemning the Treaty Principles Bill.

Willie Jackson, Labour's Maori development spokesperson, praised them saying "I'm really pleased and congratulate them on their actions and their bravery... this takes some courage and bravery, and they deserve to be complimented and supported as far as I'm concerned".

Marama Davidson, co-leader of the Green Party, expressed gratitude for the church leaders' strong stance.

She viewed their action as demonstrating a deep commitment to upholding the centrality of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Sources

• NZ Herald
• CathNews
• NZ Herald
• 1 News
• RNZ

At the last election, it was the only party to propose a referendum on this subject, and 91.6 percent of the electorate did not support them.

It had no democratic mandate to enact its ideas about the Treaty.

In the coalition negotiations that followed the election, both Act and NZ First (with only 6 percent of the vote) gained support for specific policies - from gun laws, far right economic policies, a Fast-track bill and smoking laws to a referendum on Te Tiriti - that won very little support from voters. In some cases, these policies weren't even put to the electorate.

This makes a mockery of the democratic process.

As the party that won the majority of votes in 2023, National must take responsibility for this breach of democratic norms.

To gain power, its leaders were willing to trade away positions on matters of national importance supported by centrist majorities in favour of policies and initiatives supported by fringe minorities.

As Sir Geoffrey Palmer has noted, "New Zealand is in danger of lurching towards constitutional impropriety. The Luxon government is driving a number of controversial issues rapidly through Parliament. Some of these policies are unfit for purpose, legally suspect, contrary to the public interest and inappropriate."

The previous Labour government must take some of the blame for this state of affairs.

Emboldened by an absolute majority, it also tried to enact controversial policies on Te Tiriti and other matters that lacked a democratic mandate.

At the same time, by rushing through a raft of ill-considered legislation under urgency, and trying to avoid proper scrutiny as they enact their backdoor deals, the National-led coalition Government is putting New Zealand's democracy at risk.

In his article, Sir Geoffrey examined Act's proposal for a referendum on the Treaty as a case in point. Again, his comments are apposite:

"New Zealand is likely to be internationally embarrassed if these policies prevail. The Act policy on this matter is polarising and dangerous to civil order.

"Sir John Key was right to speak out against it.

"The Treaty is binding on the New Zealand Government.

"It is binding because New Zealand is the successor to the obligations of the UK government which negotiated the Treaty, since we are now independent. And it is also binding on us because it is a valid treaty at international law."

In its draft Treaty Principles bill, Act has made an attempt to rewrite a document that was written, debated and signed in te reo, to mirror their own libertarian ideologies.

Much of their rhetoric, and that of their funders, has been inflammatory and divisive - a classic case of ‘pernicious polarisation.'

Libertarianism, which elevates individual liberty and private rights over notions of collective responsibility, is historically and culturally specific.

It traces back to strands in Greek philosophy and Christianity as well as philosophers like John Locke and John Stuart Mill.

Its support among the New Zealand electorate is slight, as indicated by Act's 8.4 percent share of the vote.

Libertarianism is also radically at odds with the framings of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In 1840, te reo was the dominant language of the land, and relational thinking the dominant philosophy. In keeping with this kind of logic, Te Tiriti o Waitangi is framed as a chiefly gift exchange between the rangatira of the various hapu, and Victoria, the Queen of England.

In Ture / Article 1 of Te Tiriti, the rangatira give all the ‘kawanatanga' (governance) of their lands, absolutely and forever, to the Queen of England. In Ture / Article 2, Queen Victoria agrees with the rangatira and the hapu to uphold the tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all their treasures.

In Ture / Article 3, in exchange for the gift of kawanatanga, the Queen promises to protect the indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand, and gives to them ‘nga tikanga rite tahi' (tikanga absolutely equal) with her subjects, the inhabitants of England.

Act's attempt to rewrite Te Tiriti as a statement about individual liberty and property rights is presumptuous since they clearly can't read the original.

Through partial and misleading translations, they seek to erase the ‘tino rangatiratanga' (the term that Henry Williams used as a translation equivalent for ‘independence' in He Whakaputanga, Declaration of Independence in 1835) of hapu, although this is unequivocally acknowledged by Queen Victoria in Ture 2.

As a group of licensed translators of te reo has noted, Act's proposed Treaty principles are based on "additions, omissions and distortions of the original text," and are unethical and inaccurate.

Basing a referendum on this kind of misrepresentation would be an offence against the democratic process in New Zealand, and a betrayal of our best values.

Like tikanga maori, Western political philosophy is not purely about individual rights.

It also includes many strands of relational thinking - about collective rights and responsibilities, and democracy ‘of the people, by the people, for the people,' for example.

The same is true of the law, which is fundamentally about relationships among groups as well as individuals, and how these should be conducted.

Values including honour, truth and justice resonate closely with ideas such as mana, pono and tika.

The ‘scales of justice' remind one of the balanced, reciprocal exchanges in debates on the marae. This is the way in which discussions of the contemporary significance of Te Tiriti ought to be conducted. Continue reading

• Anne Salmond is a Distinguished Professor at the University of Auckland, and was the 2013 New Zealander of the Year. She became a Dame in 1995 under National, and was awarded the Order of New Zealand in 2020.

The 440 senior leaders from Catholic, Anglican, Salvation Army, Baptist and Methodist denominations, under the "Common Grace" umbrella, expressed their views in an open letter.

On Monday, September 9, the Cabinet saw a draft version of David Seymour's controversial bill for the first time.

The ACT leader's bill will have its first reading in November and, if supported, will be sent to a select committee for discussion.

As part of their coalition agreement with ACT, National and NZ First said they would not support the bill beyond the first reading.

However, as a matter of process, the Church leaders who signed the letter want National or NZ First to break their coalition agreement and vote down the bill at the first reading.

Failing to garner support at the first reading would prevent the bill's progress and potentially destabilise the Government.

Allowing the bill to progress to the Select Committee stage opens the process to what Richard Harman in Politico labels as a "procession of extremists from either side of the Treaty debate".

The religious leaders say they have fears for the country if it progresses beyond its first reading.

One of the Christian leaders, the Very Reverend Jay Ruka, Dean of Taranaki Cathedral, labels the bill "dangerous".

"He is tricking New Zealanders into thinking that to honour our founding contract is to demerit democratic representation. This is a lie. As a Christian leader, I steadfastly oppose this falsity. The Treaty Principles Bill is holding our nation in contempt," says Ruka.

Catholic signatories

A range of Catholic individuals featured in the letter's 400-plus list of signatories.

Bishops Michael Dooley, Steve Lowe, and Archbishop Paul Martin from the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference signed the letter.

While other Catholic leaders including sisters, priests and emeritus bishops supported the initiative, CathNews learned from some signatories that they had neither seen a draft of the Treaty Principles Bill nor were conversant with the content of the open letter.

A covenant

In the Open Letter, the Christian leaders express their commitment to Te Tiriti - the Treaty of Waitangi.

"As Christian leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand, we express our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi."

"Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides a basis for finding common ground, recognising and reconciling past wrongs, and acts as a moral and equitable compass for our democracy" write the leaders.

The signatories say the Treaty is a covenant between people.

"We believe God takes covenants seriously and that we are likewise called to honour our promises.

"As Christian leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand, we express our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

"As inheritors of the legacy of the missionaries involved in the drafting, promoting and signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we acknowledge a duty of care for upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi."

The leaders say they commit their churches to deepening Treaty education and pursuing reconciliation.

"We will work to ensure the flourishing of life in Aotearoa New Zealand for all peoples living here, both Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua, as Te Tiriti of Waitangi enables."

Seymour unhappy

David Seymour is not pleased with church involvement in his political plans, saying the churches do not own New Zealanders' moral compass.

In a post on social media Seymour said the "core Christian principle of imago dei" automatically meant everyone has equal dignity, and the belief was at odds with the recent interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

"It would be unusual, to say the least, for two thousand years of Christian faith to be overturned by a one page Treaty signed by a few hundred people in one country" he said.

"If you wonder why church attendance and reported Christianity is in decline in New Zealand, today's display of church leaders abandoning a core, if not the core, Christian belief to play politics might be a clue."

He told the Herald that the churches' "pushback" was undemocratic.

He said it wasn't the first time churches had tried to interfere in democracy, citing the End of Life Choice Act as an example.

His coalition partners, National and NZ First, say they won't support the bill past a first reading.

They reiterated their stance last month at the late Kingi Tuheitia's 18th coronation celebrations at Turangawaewae.

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon stressed this remained the case when the Common Grace letter was published yesterday.

Source

• RNZ
• NZ Herald
• Politik
• RNZ
• David Seymour

It's a question focused on at present by two Catholic organisations - the Christian Life Community and the Bicultural Committee of the Archdiocesan Commission for Ecology, Justice and Peace.

They have already held a two-day hui to further their thinking and gather ideas.

The hui gave them a shared understanding and appreciation of the Treaty and related issues.

"There is some confusion and anxiety at times and certainly when we look at the political landscape, looking at the principles of Te Tiriti" said Mat Ammunson of Wairarapa Moana in a Waatea News interview.

"I guess it would be understandable for some people to be a little anxious in that space."

The Treaty covenant

The Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi - is more than a document Ammunson told hui participants.

As an agreement between two peoples, the Treaty has a spiritual dimension, so it's often referred to as a kawenata tapu or sacred covenant.

Within the Treaty context, we start talking about things like tika and pono, he says.

"Pono is an essential foundation concept which encompasses both truth and genuineness, and which provides the deeper ethics from which tika, doing the right thing, operates.

"We recognise that this is an agreement between two people, and so we're talking two people, two bodies, so it becomes inherently spiritual.

"We're starting to talk about mana and tapu.

"Tapu refers to ethical behaviour that acknowledges the intrinsic value of each and every person and thing, and behaving according to this principle.

"And then through spirituality and these values, we recognise a commitment between two people and parties is formalised."

The parties' commitment encompasses whanaungatanga, which is about relationship, kinship and a sense of family connection.

This comes from shared experiences and working together, providing people with a sense of belonging.

"This is how we get the idea that it's a kawenata tapu, a sacred covenant" he said.

Mixing and matching

The Treaty covenant is for all generations. It resonates with Catholic social teachings, Ammunson said.

"Key principles of Catholic social teaching are participation, common good, distributive justice, preferential options for te pani me te rawakore (orphans and poverty), human dignity, stewardship, solidarity, promotion of peace and subsidiarity.

"As Catholics and as a Catholic Church we support actively protecting taonga."

Taonga include the Maori language and Maori culture, he said. Some parishes conduct the Mass in te reo. The Church increasingly embraces a wide range of cultures and languages.

For the Church - and local churches - honouring the Treaty involves developing excellent relationships with Maori people within their region.

Equitable outcomes

We need to consider how as a Catholic community we can support our whanau, hapu and iwi aspirations, Ammunson said.

"This comes back down to a couple of things.

"Awareness of what is within this covenant and then making sure that we're undertaking a correction of what has been done in the past."

Next weekend a working party will meet to create a statement that synthesises the themes put forward at the hui.

Source

• Waatea News

They want him to stop the "violent attack" on the Treaty presented by the ACT Party's Treaty Principals Bill.

Urgent hearing

Iwi chairperson Professor Makere Mutu presented evidence at an urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing into the Bill.

She and other expert witnesses presented their concerns about the ACT Party's interpretation of the Treaty Articles in its Democracy or Co-Government Policy Paper.

ACT's translation is "nonsensical" Mutu said.

"Which tells me either that the person has absolutely no understanding of the reo at all or is so disparaging of the reo that they think nothing of doing ... gratuitous violence to our language ...".

Tribunal agrees

Tribunal panel member Monty Soutar agrees.

It is "just not possible to draw that English translation from the Maori that's there" he said.

Te reo Maori expert and Ngapuhi historian Hone Sadler also agrees.

"This cutting and pasting exercise ... demeans, debases and trivialises our founding document as a nation and disparages and denigrates Ngapuhi, the guardian of these sacred covenants" he told the Tribunal.

ACT's idea

Seymour reject's Sadler's view.

People say the Treaty "requires us to be divided by a partnership between races, rather than a compact that gives us the same rights, duties and then gives us - all of us - the right to self-determine" he says.

ACT says the Treaty redefined:

• Article 1: "Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou whenua" - the NZ Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders

• Article 2: "Ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa" - the NZ government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property

• Article 3: "A ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi" - all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.

Disgracing the Crown

Mutu told the Tribunal the government is disgracing the Crown with its actions.

The late Queen knew how to exercise her own rule of law in this country that upheld the mana and the tino rangatiratanga of our people, she said.

"We still look to King Charles ... to stop the lawless behaviour of the Pakehas. And that's all we're dealing with here ...."

She said ACT's plans could change the Treaty so iwi might be unable to pursue their historical claims.

Source

• ODT

A media release accompanying the report stated that social cohesion is under threat in this country.

"[The] challenge of social cohesion is becoming increasingly critical, and more research and policy development is needed to help sustain it," the statement noted.

Society has changed rapidly, greater ethnic diversity in cities and elsewhere is a reality, and "the resolution of what it means to be a ‘Kiwi' is still evolving".

"Societies only function well when they exhibit a level of cohesiveness that allows them to work for the mutual benefit of all their diverse members, despite differing world views, identities, and values. Societal well-being therefore depends on maintaining social cohesion," the statement added.

A robust media and better democratic processes that encourage informed debate were among the ways suggested for maintaining or enhancing social cohesion.

"We need to understand social cohesion through a very Aotearoa lens, and recognise [that] our social cohesion needs will be different from any other country," the statement added, with particular reference to Te Tiriti O Waitangi.

There will likely be differences with other nations, but there will also be similarities. The report did not touch on faith or religious affiliation overmuch as a factor in social cohesion.

In fact, the report mentioned "faith" once, and "religion" six times, but almost always in the context of looking at the past.

However, while the 2018 census showed an increasing percentage of respondents saying that they had "no religion", it also showed that a significant proportion of the population still states they have a religious affiliation.

Christians made up 37 per cent of a population of 4.7million.

That is not an insignificant statistic, in its own right, and also in terms of consequences for social cohesion.

In 2014, the UK Catholic Weekly The Tablet noted a study by the Social Integration Commission, which showed that churches are the most successful places in Britain to meet a wide variety of people.

"It shows that attending a church gives the best chance of interacting with others across lines of age, income and ethnicity. The research found that while sporting events are the best places to bring people together across the age groups, churches were next best," The Tablet article stated.

Also from Britain, a 2020 paper by the Theos Think Tank pointed to research that showed that "people with a religious affiliation are more active citizens than those without".

Many of the participants in the Theos study had religious motives for civic and community engagement.

"Particularly common themes were the need to follow Christ's example, the call to be ‘salt and light' in the community, bringing the marginalised into the centre, building the ‘Kingdom of God', and love of neighbour," the paper noted.

"First, at their best and in contrast to much of cohesion policy which has been driven forward in crisis, churches are emblematic of an approach that views cohesion as a desirable outcome in its own right," the paper added.

"They (churches) are embedded in their local communities, and [are] often working concertedly under the radar to bolster the strength of our collective relationships.

"Therefore, policymakers should ensure that they are working with churches wherever possible and appropriate, as a practical step towards a less crisis-driven approach to cohesion."

It is to be hoped that, while the work of churches in the community in this country frequently flies under the radar too, those responsible for policy-making and research in this area will work with churches in this country too, for the good of all.

As the Theos paper noted, churches are generally good at listening to what communities need, tailoring responses to local circumstances, and prioritising what the community and congregation will support on a sustainable basis.

• Michael Otto is NZ Catholic's editor.
• First published in NZ Catholic. Republished with permission.
• CathNews

The Tribunal says the first stage of its inquiry into the Crown's housing policy and services from 2009 to 2021 is now complete.

It found the Crown's actions breached Te Tiriti (the Treaty) - particularly its principles of active protection, equity and good government.

As an example, the Crown formulated a definition of homelessness in 2009 without adequately consulting Maori. Nor did it take any action to address the rising Maori homelessness levels. In fact, seven years of inaction over rising Maori homelessness followed.

The Tribunal also found the Crown developed a Maori housing strategy but did not implement it. Furthermore, it tightened access to the social housing register despite Maori reliance on social housing.

During this part of the inquiry the Tribunal heard claimants in 79 claims. Witnesses appeared for the Crown from five separate agencies. Claimants called technical witnesses, but no research was commissioned.

Crown failures

The Crown sought to reduce its provision of social housing from 2010. It opted to transfer more responsibility to community housing providers, the inquiry found.

While state house numbers declined, community housing providers weren't filling the gaps.

"This shortfall took place just as housing affordability began to severely worsen," the tribunal report says.

After being forced to recognise the housing crisis in 2016, the Crown attempted to combat Maori homelessness.

The Tribunal says it's unable to measure if these attempts were Treaty-compliant as many were introduced just before or during its inquiry.

At the same time, the Tribunal found the Crown continued to breach the Treaty in various ways through its:

narrow consultation about its new strategies,

ongoing failure to collect thorough homelessness data,

shortcomings in inter-agency coordination,

continued failure to reform the welfare system to improve outcomes for Maori,

lack of support for homeless rangatahi.

Tribunal concerns

The Crown has a Treaty obligation to protect rangatiratanga over kainga, the Tribunal says.

However, it notes traditional kainga barely exist today because of colonisation and urbanisation.

In the circumstances, the Crown's starting point is to provide suitable housing for homeless Maori. That is because it is the immediate need, the Tribunal says.

It recommends urging the Crown to work in partnership with claimants on a definition of homelessness that incorporated Maori perspectives.

It did not identify solutions to the homelessness problem. "This is a matter for a future report following a broader investigation into homelessness and its underlying causes," the Tribunal says.

Although the Tribunal deferred findings on issues concerning housing on rural Maori land, it is concerned about living conditions.

Many Maori who had returned to live on their whenua are living in appalling conditions which should be unacceptable in 21st century New Zealand, the Tribunal says.

Where to from here

The Housing Policy and Services inquiry will move into the main part of its hearing programme in 2024.

Source

• RNZ
• Stuff

The comments about parish sacramental celebrations come from Palmerston North's Bishop emeritus, Peter Cullinane, in an article published in Tui Motu.

Citing examples of the Church's mistakes, Cullinane says the lack of training for diocesan priests in ministry to Maori combined with the Church entrusting the ‘Maori Mission' to specialist groups ensures that most Maori do not feel 'at home' in our parish church celebrations of Eucharist.

He says that developing a sense of inclusiveness does not come about by running parallel Maori and European churches.

"The Church in our country is greatly indebted to the Religious Orders to whom the ‘Maori Mission' was entrusted," he writes.

Cullinane mentions the Society of Mary, the Daughters of Our Lady of Compassion, the Mill Hill Missionaries and the Congregation of Our Lady of the Missions in particular.

"Their work continues to bear fruit, and any alterations to pastoral practices need to safeguard the right of Maori to continue to experience life and worship in the Church in ways that are natural to them."

Nevertheless, Cullinane says, running a Maori Mission parallel to parishes had serious unintended side effects.

He writes it is against that background that introducing te reo into parish Eucharists seems a tiny gesture - but it is about recognition of tangata whenua, inclusion and belonging.

"Of course, it would be mere tokenism if it were not to follow through in all the ways required by respect for the rights of Maori in wider society and Te Tiriti o Waitangi."

Our celebrations of the Eucharist are meant to feed into our daily lives, Cullinane points out.

"Eucharistic life involves the rejection of racial prejudice and discrimination wherever these occur.

"In this way, the use of te reo in parish Eucharists should whet our appetites for the kind of hospitality, listening, sense of community and inclusiveness we have been talking about on the synodal journey."

He suggests that the next step is to experience Eucharist on a marae and recognise Maori's warm and welcoming ways.

"This way, people can see how these properly belong to the gathering stage of coming together for Eucharist.

"Respect for the rights of the home people can be only a first step in our reaching out to the many others in our society who suffer from inequalities …

"It also involves our support for other ethnic groups who can be victims of racial prejudice. Anything less than a prophetic stand for all these is less than Eucharistic."

Failure to address prejudice or help people disadvantaged by personal, social or economic conditions, proves the Second Vatican Council's claim:

"The split between the faith which many profess and their daily lives deserves to be counted among the more serious errors of our age," writes Cullinane.

Source

• Tui Motu

The media organisation issued an historic public apology on Monday following the Our Truth, Ta Matou Pono investigation which saw around 20 Stuff journalists scrutinise the company's portrayal and representation of Maori from its early editions to now.

The findings unearthed numerous examples of journalism practices denying Maori an equitable voice in Aotearoa. Read more