These have included high-stakes cases involving the Yukos Oil Company in Russia, an energy business in Ukraine, and land claims under a treaty between Malaysia and Singapore.

In every case, the principle is clear: compensation must be fair and should aim to restore as much of what was lost as possible.

When it comes to New Zealand's Treaty of Waitangi settlements, the government consistently falls far short of international standards—and its principles of fairness.

Before signing the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, the British government made it clear that the Maori "title to the soil" and "sovereignty of New Zealand" was "indisputable".

Crucially, colonisation depended on the "consent" of Maori.

Yet, the treaty that followed has been undermined by decades of breaches — particularly relating to the loss of land.

It is well documented and accepted by the government that compensation for land claims covered by Waitangi settlements does not remotely reflect market values and fall short of the loss suffered by Maori landowners.

Given the current debate about Treaty principles, the shortfall in compensation should be more widely acknowledged.

It is also far short of what New Zealanders generally could expect if the government seized their land.

Waitangi land settlements are a specific and substantial form of discrimination against Maori.

The Treaty Principles policy that ACT leader David Seymour campaigned for, guaranteed equal rights and duties for all.

Post-election, I was interested in whether a change was underway.

That is, given ACT's "everyone has the same rights" promise, I assumed that land settlements would now be based on the same standards of compensation New Zealanders could generally expect.

However, Seymour now considers his election promise "too broad" and the equal treatment guarantee would not apply to Treaty settlements.

There is a real danger that the inadequacy of Treaty settlements is intended to continue.

Two landmark cases — the Waikato-Tainui Raupatu and Ngai Tahu claims—illustrate the scale of the injustice. The government has acknowledged the wrongful confiscation of 1.2 million acres (500,000 acres) of Waikato-Tainui land, valued at $12 billion in 1995. Yet the settlement amounted to just $170 million—a discount of over 98%.

The same settlement sum was offered for Ngai Tahu, whose claim involved breaches involving a tenth of the 34.5m acres sold to the government (about 80% of the South Island). The government has never put forward any reasoned case to link these sums to the losses suffered by Maori.

While helpful for iwi development, these settlements are far from fair compensation.

The government admits as much.

There are many examples.

For instance, the Ngati Hinerangi Deed of Settlement explicitly states that "full compensation… is not possible." Yet, there is no effort to explain why or to address the vast gulf between the losses and the restitution provided.

The inequality becomes even more glaring when compared to the rights of other New Zealanders generally.

If the government took your home under the Public Works Act, you'd be entitled to compensation at market value—a right that every New Zealander expects and deserves.

Token compensation, such as the Treaty settlements, falls far short of this standard.

New Zealand is not alone in addressing treaty disputes.

Continue reading

• Tim Giles is originally from Wellington. He is an internationally recognised financial economics consultant and valuation expert, specialising in treaty disputes and international arbitration. He is a senior advisor for Analysis Group.

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

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

The last time that occurred was in 1877 when the then Chief Justice James Prendergast proclaimed the Treaty was "worthless" because it had been signed "between a civilised nation and a group of savages" who were incapable of signing a treaty.

In one foul swoop iwi/Maori were last week transported back to the Jurassic period where the notion of colonial superiority moved from military to legislative treachery.

If the bombs raining down on Gaza sickens you then understand that is exactly what happened here in Aotearoa.

Last week we recognised 160 years since the illegal and unjust invasion of Rangiriri Pa.

As women and children tried to escape through the swamp, they were systematically shot one-by-one.

Children who could not swim without their mothers drowned in Lake Kopuera which turned red with the blood of their mothers.

Screams of terror and cries for mercy were quickly silenced.

Mothers who survived were raped next to - babies who were dispatched with bayonets and then shot - there was no time for prisoners because they would hold up the advance into Waikato.

That is the context that drives iwi like ours who continue to advance the notion of indigenous relevance in a contemporary world.

So, when this coalition Government proclaims the removal of mechanisms like co-governance from the delivery of public services, it is effectively saying prepare yourselves to die sooner in a public service that does not see you.

We have confirmation they will not recognise the United Nations Declaration of Indigenous Peoples as having any binding legal affect in Aotearoa.

It actually means nothing because neither did any of the other previous governments moved much on UNDRIP either.

But it sounds great to the Hobson's Pledge brigade and their ilk.

Both NZ First and the National parties have agreed to support a bill seeking to define the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi to its first reading.

The day this is introduced to Parliament it will trigger an immediate response from Maori and many non-Maori from across the country.

I have spoken to a number of iwi over the weekend and the initial feedback has been overwhelming and they will mobilise in numbers

We must protect the Treaty of Waitangi rights and interests that we have negotiated in good faith at all costs.

Those rights and interests in practical effect are held in perpetuity and we will not allow that to be changed by stealth and at the whim of the other Treaty partner.

We have a clause embedded in our Treaty settlements that effectively commits the Crown to engaging with us. Continue reading

• Tukoroirangi Morgan is a former politician and broadcaster. He is the chairman of Tainui iwi and helped spearhead the Waikato River settlement claim with both the Labour and National governments alongside the late Lady Raiha Mahuta.

It's been an ongoing question with pros and cons. Should the Act be expanded - or not?

The legislation already specifically protects people from being subject to hate speech because of their colour, race, ethnic or national origins.

Now the Government has decided the Act is to be amended. It will specifically include religious groups, the Minister of Justice, Kiri Allan, says.

Cardinal John Dew is one religious leader likely to be firmly in favour of the amendment.

In fact, during his homily at the interdenominational church service at Waitangi in 2020, he said he would like us all to recommit to protecting the beliefs of followers of all religions and non-religious people.

"It is time to recommit ourselves to protecting the faiths of all who live here - of Maori custom and spirituality, of the different Christian denominations, of Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Bahai'i and many other faiths; and also the freedom of religion and conscience of those who profess no faith," he said.

He pointed out that in New Zealand our heritage was religious tolerance, religious inclusion and religious acceptance.

This heritage was sealed when the Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi - was signed in 1840.

At that time, Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier New Zealand's first Catholic Bishop of New Zealand, asked for religious freedom to be respected.

In response, Crown representative Captain William Hobson formally affirmed: "Ko nga whakapono katoa i Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori, e tikanga ngatahitia e ia - the several faiths of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome and also Maori custom shall alike be protected."

Why the religious freedom amendment was passed

The current amendment to the Human Rights legislation stems from a recommendation suggested by the Royal Commission of Inquiry into the 2019 Christchurch terror attack.

It followed extensive consultation, with more than 19,000 submissions on six proposals.

While just one change tohas the Act been agreed, the Government says it intends asking for further work to be done alongside a wider range of groups.

These groups could include women, disabled people and the rainbow community.

The debate goes on

The divisive policy debate around expanding the Human Rights Act may continue.

Not everyone agrees extending the Act to include protection from hate speech is a good idea, for example.

Not surprisingly, the Free Speech Union isn't in favour of it.

The Union is commending the Minister for listening to the overwhelming public response calling for free speech to be upheld.

‘Hate speech laws don't work. For over 18 months, we have led the charge calling on the Government to back down from the idea that hate can be outlawed," says spokesperson Jonathan Ayling

"Over 80 percent of the submissions against the ‘hate speech law' proposals specifically endorsed our submission ... with over 50,000 signatures.

‘Two Justice Ministers have now failed in pushing their ideological agenda of expanded ‘hate speech' laws through and have now passed this poisoned chalice to the Law Commission ...

"The Ministry of Justice has just spent over two years working on this very issue. It's time better solutions were given a chance, solutions that elevate dialogue, reason,and counter-speech.

"If hate speech laws don't work for other ‘vulnerable communities', we need to rethink the entire venture. The question, ‘if this group, why not that group' is legitimate."

Source

• NewsHub
• Scoop
• Scoop
• Scoop

The project and the report explore systemic change in the legal studies curriculum at Aotearoa New Zealand universities as an important step towards integrating Maori law into Aotearoa New Zealand's legal system. Read more

Read the report

Kura Moeahu, chairman of Te Runanganui o Te Atiawa and of the Waiwhetu Marae in Lower Hutt, was unsurprised the booklet To All New Zealanders: Are we being Conned by the Treaty Industry? was doing the rounds. Read more

The legislation replaced the controversial Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2011.

It allows Maori to gain legal recognition of their customary rights in the marine and coastal area, which includes the high tide mark on a beach and the seabed 12 nautical miles out.

Under the Act, Maori had until April 2017 to engage directly with the Crown, or apply to the high court to have their customary interests recognised under the law. Applicants could opt for both application pathways if they wished.

The Tribunal found the Act is in breach of the treaty because it:

• Failed to provide adequate and timely information about the Crown engagement pathway for applicants.
• Failed to put in place adequate policies to ensure that the high court pathway and the Crown engagement pathway could operate cohesively.
• Breached the Treaty of Waitangi by not funding all reasonable costs incurred by the applicant.
• Failed to actively support efforts to resolve overlapping interests in the marine and coastal area, enable timely access to funding for applicants in the Crown engagement pathway, and fund judicial reviews for Crown engagement applicants.

The Tribunal recommends that the Act's procedural and resourcing arrangements be amended to give effect to Treaty principles.

It asked the Crown to:

• Urgently address the lack of cohesion between the two application pathways.
• Consider the Legal Aid scheme to make applications affordable.
• Improve the Crown's support for applicants seeking to resolve overlapping interests.

The Tribunal has suggested that the Crown provides applicants with funding and administrative support, access to facilitators and mediators, and access to Tikanga-based resolution processes.

Part two of the Tribunal's inquiry will look into the substance of the Act itself.

Source

• rnz.co.nz
• forms.justice.govt.nz
• waateanews.com
• waateanews.com
• .waitangitribunal.govt.nz
• Image: waateanews.com

A pivotal part of this involves the "Doctrine of Discovery". This doctrine (which is enshrined in Catholic law) was used internationally as justification for Christians to claim land belonging to non-Christians.

Maori Council executive director Matthew Tukaki says the Council's request for an apology came after a number of hui last year, aimed at addressing issues of historic racism amid the anniversary of Captain Cook.

"Right across the indigenous world, from Canada to Australia to the South American countries, such as Brazil and Argentina, were claimed by those European monarchies as if no-one lived there, and it was a terrible time for many people".

"In fact a lot of cultures were extinguished, their language was extinguished, and Australia had seen the extinguishment of literally dozens, if not hundreds, of indigenous languages."

Tukaki says he Catholic Church in New Zealand has said it is open to the Council's request for an apology.

"Over the last couple of months, we've also had significant contact with other indigenous peoples who have been fighting the Doctrine of Discovery".

"There's been some really positive soundings coming from the Church".

"We have been in discussions with people over at the Vatican and we're hopeful of something, and what's different this time is the difference in the leadership of the Church."

Bishop Patrick Dunn, president of the NZ Catholic Bishops Conference and Bishop of Auckland, says the Church is consulting over the matter.

Once it has completed its consultation it will release a definitive statement.

"The Catholic Church of Aotearoa New Zealand takes this matter seriously indeed," he says.

"As a result of representations made by the Maori Council and others, the Catholic Bishops are consulting with appropriate people including relevant experts.

"This process is likely to take some time as it needs careful scrutiny before we can make a considered response."

Tukaki says despite the doctrine's widespread use, most non-Maori New Zealanders don't know much about it.

"It's like understanding the whakapapa, you've got to go right back to the beginning where things began... in order to understand where you need to go."

One of the cases it was notably used was in the Wi Parata vs The Bishop of Wellington case of 1877. In this case, the Treaty of Waitangi was declared "a simple nullity".

Source

• RNZ
• Image: Newshub