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

"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

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

Describing the proposed Bill as "radical", former National Party minister Chris Finlayson and political commentator Matthew Hooten say the bills should not have the National-led Government's support.

Former  National Party attorney general and minister for Treaty negotiations under Sir John Key's leadership, Finlayson is firmly opposed to a referendum about the Treaty.

The ACT Party's Treaty referendum would "derail years of good faith bargaining and empower weirdos" he says.

"It will bring out of the woodwork the sort of people who used to write to me and say ‘why don't you get cancer?', ‘how dare you give property rights to people above their station' or, as sometimes even happens now, walking along Lambton Quay, someone will call me a ‘Maori-loving c***'."

Respected political commentator Matthew Hooton, who has ties to both ACT and National, agrees with Finlayson's concerns.

"The principles of the Treaty were put into legislation to the disadvantage of Maori because the risk was that if the Maori text was taken as authoritative, then the Crown would not be sovereign.

"You do not want to put the words ‘tino rangatiratanga' into statute" he says.

Catholic religious orders are concerned

Some members of the Catholic Church's Congregational Leaders Conference of Aotearoa New Zealand [CLCANZ] are also concerned.

The group, representing Catholic religious orders, is troubled by the current political discourse regarding the Coalition Government's policies about Maori language and the Treaty.

CLCANZ has issued a public statement saying:

"Te Tiriti o Waitangi was the foundational document of Aotearoa, with Bishop Pompallier present at the gathering.

"It had the flavour of a covenant, a sacred agreement.

"It was between the British Colonial Office then, and the Government today, and Maori.

"Any ongoing conversations today should involve members from both parties.

The religious leaders are alarmed by the rhetoric surrounding curbing Maori language and attempting to rewrite the principles of the Treaty and say it is not time to remain silent.

"This current coalition government appears to be continuing a litany of broken promises to Maori, the indigenous peoples of our country.

"We stand in protest at the attitude of the present coalition government in disestablishing the bicultural relationship between Maori and the Crown, and destroying many efforts made over significant years.

"We commit ourselves to learning more about our responsibilities living in a bicultural milieu," say the group of leaders.

The proposed Bill

The five principles the proposed Bill will consider include:

• Kawanatanga - the principle that the Government has the right to govern and make laws
• Rangatiratanga - the right of iwi to control the resources they own
• Equality - all New Zealanders are equal under the law
• Co-operation - there must be co-operation between the Government and iwi on big issues of common concern
• Redress - that the Government acts responsibly to provide a process to resolve Treaty grievances

ACT is committed to replacing and rewriting those principles.

Sources

• NZ Herald
• Otago Daily Times
• For further information CLCANZ statement, please contact the President, Fr Thomas Rouse, on 04 5677216 or by email

King Tuheitia and the Waitangi National Trust say they want to hold the ‘unifying' national discussion on the Treaty principles while the new coalition government prepares its own political debate on the issue.

The royal proclamation was made a day after Tuesday's ‘National Maori Action Day' which saw country-wide protests over the new coalition Government's plans.

These plans include political hot potatoes such as the public service reducing the use of Maori language and relooking at the Waitangi Treaty principles.

Kingi Tuheitia says he received a clear message from Maori across the country last weekend, which has inspired his call for a national hui.

"There's strong opposition to the Government's statements on the Treaty of Waitangi which could undermine decades of hard-fought justice and equality for our nation" he says.

The hui will create a safe space for both Maori and non-Maori to unite and have their voices heard.

It will take place at Turangawaewae Marae in Waikato on January 20.

The Kingitanga will take the outcome of the hui to both Ratana and Waitangi Day commemorations for iwi, whanau, and politicians to hear.

Waitangi 2024

The Waitangi National Trust which in charge of the commemorations is in the early stages of planning next year's event.

Trust chairman, Pita Tipene, says there will probably be three days of events from February 4-6.

The Governor-General's powhiri will be on Feburary 4, followed by political parties the next day. The annual political talks will take place and the traditional dawn service will take place on February 6.

Earlier, on 1 February, the Iwi Chairs Forum with the government is expected to be held.

Tipene says Waitangi Day is about the "two partners - iwi Maori and the Crown - so it's only right the Government is there".

Prime Minister Christopher Luxon says it's his intention to be there. He acknowledges its importance but says nothing has been confirmed yet.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins and colleagues intend being in Waitangi for the three days.

Tipene hopes Waitangi will provide an opportunity for debate and discussion in which all political parties will join.

"Given the turmoil the country has found itself in around the Treaty principles, now is the time for discourse, debate and discussion.

"The lead-up to Waitangi Day is always a tense occasion given the political issues - and that's at the best of times without what is happening around the Treaty principles rights now" Tipene says.

He says that the Treaty principles legislation and select committee process agreed to as part of National's coalition agreement with ACT is the right discussion but the wrong format.

He wants to see something more neutral to lead the discussion. He thinks it would achieve the same outcomes without the politics.

Source

• 1News
• Newsroom

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

As the late Moana Jackson commented, the meaning of Te Tiriti will be talked about in each generation because it is about a relationship between Maori and Pakeha and relationships must always be worked on.

Here, we focus on the learning of te reo Maori by non-Maori in relation to Te Tiriti and the Maori concept of whakapapa in the hope of continuing the conversation and the relationship.

For full disclosure, we are married. Pania is Ngati Porou and her father is a native speaker. Brian is Pakeha. We both learned te reo Maori as a second language as adults. We will come back to this later.

The learning of te reo Maori by non-Maori has become cool. Growing numbers of non-Maori are enrolled in te reo courses and there are many new resources to support their learning. It cannot be separated from Tiriti concerns and whakapapa.

Several authors have commented on this phenomenon of non-Maori enthusiasm for te reo Maori and Maori knowledge, highlighting the complex nature of the motivations involved.

Alison Jones, a Pakeha scholar in Indigenous education, notices how the demand by non-Maori to have te reo echoes the colonising demand to have Maori land.

Catherine Delahunty, a Pakeha activist in environmental and social justice, reminds non-Maori to "stay in our lane", and warns that if we don't, we effectively co-opt and attempt to control things that don't belong to us.

Nicola Bright, a senior researcher of Tuhoe and Ngati Awa descent at the New Zealand Council for Educational Research (NZCER), tells us Maori should benefit first from the revitalisation of te reo Maori.

Georgina Tuari Stewart, a scholar who explores the nexus between culture and education, alerts us to the need to accept the limits of our ability to know in relation to Maori knowledge.

In our own work, as academics focused on Indigenisation and decolonisation of education systems, we talk of New Zealand and Aotearoa as two different countries occupying the same land. Te Tiriti is about relations between these two countries.

A whakapapa perspective on language

We see the learning of te reo Maori with a whakapapa lens. We refer to whakapapa as the emergence of new entities from their previous forms. Inherent in our understanding is an acceptance that entities have a natural right to have their whakapapa respected.

For most non-Maori, languages have been commodified and are available on demand. We liken this to having a language supermarket. Customers can buy various products "off the shelf" to allow them to learn any language they like.

These days, the supermarket is virtual and the products are digital apps. We see the dark irony in Maori having to shop for their own language in this supermarket.

In this commodified world, language is understood as a symbolic code that can be learned to express your thoughts. Learning a new language just means learning a new code. This is a distinctly colonising and capitalist view of language which cuts right across whakapapa, treating language as a disembodied entity, fixed through a vocabulary and a set of rules.

Viewed through whakapapa, a language is inherent in the worldviews and experiences of the people who emerge with it. Seen this way, languages cannot be separated from the people who speak them and who have inherited them from their ancestors.

Could non-Maori learning te reo be akin to colonisation?

The learning of te reo Maori, whether we like it or not, is already in the public domain. Anyone can learn it and we encourage everyone to do so. But if not done well and ethically, it could be another wave of colonisation.

If we go about learning te reo Maori as if it were a symbolic code or a commodified product that will provide certain (economic and self-investment) benefits, several things become apparent.

Since we learn a commodified version of te reo, we are not part of any processes of emergence alongside the people whose heritage te reo Maori is. This commodified form is in fact part of whakapapa for many non-Maori. It has emerged from our experiences and worldview and is a form of appropriation.

The taking of other people's stuff and refashioning it for our purposes is indeed colonisation. But there is also great potential for growth as people and as a nation because learning a language can change you.

In whakapapa terms, the presence of te reo Maori in your life has become part of the emergence of the next versions of you and your descendants. The bottom line is to understand and respect whakapapa.Read more: Learning to live with the 'messy, complicated history' of how Aotearoa New Zealand was colonised

Honouring te Tiriti

Non-Maori people must first acknowledge the right for te reo to emerge in the world along with the people whose own emergence is intimately entwined with it through whakapapa. That's iwi Maori.

This is a difficult task because many non-Maori are so used to believing that, in theory at least, they can know and possess anything (if they want to and put in the effort). Respecting whakapapa then involves non-Maori in a necessary self-limitation which runs counter to their own cultural development in a capitalist, exploitative and predatory culture.

Non-Maori must figure out how to acquire te reo Maori without possessing it. It might help to return to our idea of two countries overlapping in time and space - New Zealand and Aotearoa. Honouring Te Tiriti then asks those of us who live in New Zealand to honour what happens in another country, Aotearoa.

We would never say, for example, that we have claims over what happens in China, nor that because we speak Chinese we have some special insight or claim over China or Chinese people. Adopting a similar stance with respect to te reo Maori as the native language of Aotearoa will bring us closer to being able to respect its right to have natural emergence through whakapapa.

For us, even though we converse with each other every day in te reo Maori, one of us speaks Maori and the other doesn't.

• Brian Tweed and Pania Te Maro are married. Brian is a Senior Lecturer at Massey University and Pania is an Associate Professor also at Massey University.
• First published in The Conversation. Republished with permission.

The principles were based on the assumption that the two Treaty texts were not translations of each other and didn't convey the same meaning. Therefore, the court felt free to explore what the judges thought was the "spirit" of the Treaty.

We really need to look at that again because it's no longer acceptable, historically speaking, to say that the Treaty texts are completely different from each other.

The reason I think it's no longer acceptable is because of research by legal historian Ned Fletcher, which I supervised over a period of seven years. His thesis sets out a compelling and thorough argument for reconciling the Maori and English texts of the Treaty.

It's a brilliant piece of scholarly research with massive footnotes and citations to every conclusion that is made. It's a long read, but if people want to just look at one page, it's page 529 where Ned summarises why we should assume that the text in Maori and the text in English said roughly the same things.

In particular, the thesis demonstrates that both texts guarantee the continued rangatiratanga and authority of Maori in New Zealand.

It argues that the cession of sovereignty, as understood in 1840, did not impose English law on Maori. Rather, it assumed that tikanga, as the law in operation for the Maori world, would continue.

Historian Ruth Ross, in her famous essay in 1972, was quite correct to say we must stop looking at the English text as the only text of the Treaty. She reminded us that New Zealand in 1840 was a te ao Maori world, in which Maori was the relevant language. Te Tiriti therefore remains the paramount text because that's the version that Maori talked about at hui and then signed.

But along with that reminder went her second statement, which was that the English text was purposefully different from the Maori text. She argued that the English version of the Treaty was deceitful and, therefore irrelevant.

If you look only to Te Tiriti because you believe the English text was flawed and intended to improperly gain Maori consent, then the whole transaction becomes a trick and a fraud.

Whereas, if we look to what I now think is the historically-correct context — the Treaty as a genuine attempt at a relationship-building exercise — then it opens the possibility of doing things better in our society today. We can proceed based on the original bargain, not based on a 1987 reinterpretation of the bargain.

We need to get back to the original understanding. That will give us some good hints about how we can solve some of our major issues like cleaning up our rivers and natural environment, looking after our precious places, deciding customary rights, and the way in which water is allocated and cared for. Continue reading

• Dr David V Williams is a Professor Emeritus at Waipapa Taumata Rau | The University of Auckland. He was a Rhodes scholar at Oxford University, and his PhD is from the University of Dar es Salaam in Tanzania where he taught in the 1970s. He has tertiary qualifications in history, law and theology, and continues to work as an independent researcher on Treaty of Waitangi issues.

"It is an urgent task," the founding group says.

"Although Pope Francis' 2023 synod holds some hope for nurturing a church that is responsive to the needs of all, we don't feel confident that the people can get the quality of inclusion and participation within a hierarchical power structure such as the institutional church."

The work of a group of laypeople, Te Whariki's purpose "is to reflect on the interconnectedness of each strand of church and society with the ecological crisis which highlights the ever more craven workings of western capitalism," they say.

"We have observed the widespread disillusionment and dissatisfaction with the institutional Church. We have also realised that many feel uncertain about how to respond to this situation.

"We think that the voice of the institutional Church has been silent on two of the most vital issues concerning life in Aotearoa.

"One concern ending colonisation and the other the planetary crisis. As the institutional Church prioritises its own interests and survival first and foremost, it is no wonder that we have come to somewhat of an impasse today."

Te Whariki (a woven mat) is intended to empower participants to make the necessary analysis and change that will lead to a different model of Church in their communities and a different experience of Church throughout Aotearoa.

The new vision has seven key features:

• Connection and interconnectedness. These become critical features of the new model's relationship foci
• The relationships between Tangata whenua and Tangata Tiri; (as a consequence of Te Tiriti o Waitangi)
• Te Reo Maori and English are used extensively across the Whariki to ensure clarity of understanding
• The key themes (making up the WEFT) are Mana Motuhake/Ending Colonisation; Papatuanuku/Care of the Earth; and Whakawhanaungatanga/Being Community
• The key questions that run across each of the themes (making up the WARP) relate to identity - who are we in relation to the theme, culture - what are our values, and action - what is our mission that follows from this?)
• The intertwining of the weaver's warp and weft creates a robust and stable platform for engaging people and ideas. This enables the group to work positively with worldview difference and diversity rather than avoid it
• It is open-ended - more strands can be added

While the group is strongly supportive of Judeo-Christian values, it says it also wants to propose a different way "the people of Aotearoa" can work as Church.

Te Whariki has three workstreams where members say we need to focus our energy for change: they see them as being critical to the way we plan and work together as Church.

• Anton Spelman +64 21 233 6309 antonforbespelman@gmail.com
• Cecily McNeill +64 21 235 6996 cecilymcneill@icloud.com
• Mary Thorne +64 21 024 11653 mary.thorne@gmail.com

Source

• Supplied

"As Indigenous people we need to take back and understand what time looks like for us. How do we observe the seasons, how do we observe the land, our ocean, and our sky, and from there, how do we create solutions?" asks Mina Pomare Peita, Principal, Te Kura Taumata o Panguru in the preface to Caritas's submission.

Pope Francis's tacit support for the Bill is evident in his 2015 exhortation Laudato Si':

"There is a need to respect the rights of peoples and cultures … Nor can the notion of the quality of life be imposed from without, for quality of life must be understood within the world of symbols and customs proper to each human group."

All three submissions acknowledge the Matariki festival, its significance to Maori and the Catholic Church in New Zealand's obligation to protect Maori culture.

Matariki is a significant time within the Maori calendar, to acknowledge the past, present and future in a non-linear way, Challenge's submission explains.

We must protect this tradition, as was promised at the Treaty of Waitangi.

Catholics have inherited a "measure of responsibility" for the verbal assurance about protecting all faiths given to Bishop Pompallier at Waitangi in 1840, the Commission confirms.

That assurance specifically included a promise to protect ritenga Maori (Maori customary rituals).

"We acknowledge and regret that assurance was not always upheld as it should have been, and that Maori religious perspectives and practices have not always been respected.

"Our country and communities are strengthened by recognising and celebrating the diverse cultural and religious traditions of all the people who live here, beginning with tangata whenua," the Commission says.

It also confirmed it supports the Statement on Religious Diversity the Catholic bishops endorsed last year - that New Zealand's educational institutions, work environments and public services recognise and accommodate diverse religious beliefs and practices.

Celebrating Matariki is a natural extension of that principle.

Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand explains the festival is still an important aspect of Te Ao Maori.

"It's a chance to connect with culture and whanau, an opportunity for all to learn about Matariki and relearn the Maramataka cycle (lunar month) calendar to support wellbeing."

The Commission says local knowledge of the Maramataka cycle and place was disrupted when it was overtaken by a single calendar developed far from here for different seasons, weather patterns and cultures. It would welcome the revitalisation of traditional Maori understandings of time.

The submissions particularly asked parliament to ensure (if the Matariki Public Holiday Bill becomes law) that it will "provide greater opportunity and participation for collective rest and restoration, and protect vulnerable workers."

Matariki signals the Maori New Year. It is a time of renewal and celebration in Aotearoa New Zealand that begins with the rising of the Matariki star cluster.

The festival is unique to this country and celebrating it can enable all New Zealanders to reconnect with each other and the land, the submissions say.

Source

• Archdiocese of Wellington Ecology, Justice and Peace Commission
• Challenge 2000
• Caritas Aotearoa New Zealand
• Image: Matariki - Wikipedia

He gave the assurance, Wednesday on NewstalkZB.

Singling out the elderly, Hipkins acknowledged that not all people have the required digital skills necessary to get the vaccine pass. He said they will be able to phone 0800 222 478 and get their vaccine passport sent to them instead.

The "My Vaccine Pass" will take the form of a QR code that can be shown digitally or on printed paper, allowing venues to check whether a person has been vaccinated against Covid-19 or not.

Vaccine passes will not be required at schools, supermarkets, or other "essential" businesses.

Once the Government's traffic light system is introduced, however, churches wanting to function without restrictions at orange and green levels will need to use vaccine passes - or suffer in-person limits on congregation sizes.

"Having the vaccine pass means people will be able to do the things they love", Covid Minister, Chris Hipkins told Stuff.

"We don't want anyone to miss out, so we're strongly encouraging those who've been putting off getting a vaccine to take that step now, as we prepare to transition into the COVID-19 Protection Framework."

Vicar for Maori in the Auckland diocese, Manuel Beazley (pictured) is concerned Maori vaccination numbers and Maori ability to access the vaccine passport technology.

The vaccine level is a trust issue, he says.

"For Maori, who is saying it is just as important as what's being said."

Maori have been let down by institutions in so many ways, he says.

"There is a deep mistrust by many Maori towards institutions and so, when the Government through the Ministry of Health, Ministry of Education or any other government ministry or agency, starts to direct people to take up the vaccine, understandably, Maori are very dubious.

"Our vaccine booking system works when you have access to a laptop or smartphone and good Internet connection.

"Drive-through vaccination stations are good if you're not too far from it or if you have a vehicle that is registered and has gas to travel - or a vehicle in the first place.

"Many of our rural and isolated communities are predominantly Maori, [and] there are issues of access to vaccination centres in those places," he says.

"We need to listen to the reason why a person is not choosing to be vaccinated. In the Maori worldview, we have the elements of Pono, Tika and Aroha. This must inform and guide our interaction."

Beazley explains when observing Pono, one listens, not only to the words, but to "their heart - what they are feeling".

Responding with Tika means responding in a way that is respectful, providing accurate and reliable information, and not forcing one's opinion on others.

"When Pono and Tika have been followed, the result is always aroha - there is a new-found communion between people because they have heard each other, they have been free to interact without fear of judgement or coercion, and the product of that is aroha - communion, respect, compassion," Beazley says.

Sources

• CathNews
• Stuff
• Newstalk ZB
• Image: NZ Catholic

Chris Finlayson was Minister for Treaty Negotiations (and Attorney General) between 2008 and 2017. (Alas, he was Minister of Arts, Culture and Heritage for only six of those years.)

His record is reported in in He Kupu Taurangi: Treaty Settlements and the Future of Aotearoa New Zealand. It will be an invaluable reference book for those working in the area. But also in the course of the book he also indicates something of his political philosophy (later he cites Edmund Burke favourably):

The National Party is traditionally a liberal-conservative party in that it combines two great political traditions in one party. Both the liberal and conservative traditions value equality of opportunity, respect for the law and property rights, but the party's liberals have generally been more open-minded to social reforms. ... [m]y approach to settlements was always, consciously or not, centred on the two core National Party principles of respect for the rule of law and the sanctity of property rights. ... A 1993 judgement from the High Court put it well ‘... property rights are very strong rights.

They rank, in the hierarchy of law, just below absolute constitutional rights.

In more colloquial terms, on a scale of one to ten, constitutional rights are a ten, property rights are a nine.'

I am not sure that a social democrat would rank property rights as highly. Here is a fundamental difference between the Labour and National parties.

Finlayson says that he ranked property rights so highly enough that when he saw them seriously breached by the 2004 Foreshore and Sea Bed Act, it ‘tipped my decision in standing for Parliament in 2005.' Previously, ‘[i]f I had any aspiration it was to be a judge.' He was critical of National's position at the time: a ‘confused and frankly hopeless approach'.

When the book was written, the writers did not have Michael Cullen's autobiography which tells how, because it was a minority government, Labour's response to the Court of Appeal decision was blocked by a lack of parliamentary support.

They had to depend on New Zealand First, whose support came at a ‘heavy price' including the loss of ‘a lot of high moral ground'.

Ironically the two NZF negotiators, Dail Jones and Winston Peters, both lawyers, had been National MPs.

The irony is compounded because Cullen thought that National's replacement 2011 Takutai Moana Act (supervised by Finlayson) was closer to what Labour wanted in 2004 than what they could negotiate with New Zealand First. (A further irony is Finlayson conferred with Roger Kerr when fashioning National's policy. We lack Cullen's, not doubt witty, response to him being in the same room as Kerr.)

Finlayson admires Cullen's thirteen-month stint as the Treaty Negotiations Minister which settled the massive Treelords deal involving the Central North Island Forests.

He is more critical of Cullen's Labour predecessors, especially Margaret Wilson who, he thinks, was tardy and who completed fewer settlements than he did.

Wilson tells a different story in her recently published autobiography, Activism, Feminism, Politics and Parliament.

She suggests that the Bolger Government put a lot of effort into the huge Sealords, Tainui and Kai Tahu deals but that it had not really moved on to the next stage of numerous, and often contentious, smaller deals.

Speculating - Finlayson does not appear to have consulted Wilson - he suggests that Labour was more concerned with related but different issues.

The Labour Party is a social-democratic party.

When Labour Party ministers refer to settlements, they often do so in the context of social justice, a concept common in the Roman Catholic Church, which has become a feature of centre-left politics over the last fifty years.

Margaret Wilson said that settlement must be understood within the context of wider government policies such as the Labour-led government's ‘closing the gaps' policy. In my view, looking at the settlements as another ‘tool' in the economic and development ‘toolbox' does not reflect either the historical reasons for the settlements or the aspiration of most iwi who settle claims.

The two strategies were raised in the 1980s by Eddie Durie, then chair of the Waitangi Tribunal. Continue reading

• Brian Easton, an independent scholar, is an economist, social statistician, public policy analyst and historian. He was the Listener economic columnist from 1978 to 2014.
• He Kupu Taurangi: Treaty Settlements and the Future of Aotearoa New Zealand by Christopher Finlayson and James Christmas. (The Maori title means ‘A Promise'.)

Although they are making inroads into the poor COVID-19 vaccination rates, health statistics show the low uptake is part of a difficult yet familiar reality.

At present, for every one non-Maori or Pacific person who has received their first dose of the vaccine in New Zealand, just 0.6 Maori have received theirs.

The problem is the healthcare system delivering the vaccine rollout is racist. That's the opinion of Maori health professionals working in the system and the Associate Minister of Health.

Systemic change and mobilisation is needed urgently, they say.

One issue is that Maori have different health needs from Pakeha, with last September's New Zealand Medical Journal noting Maori are 50 percent more likely to die from Covid-19.

Dr Rawiri Jansen - who quit the Government's immunisation advisory group over concerns his voice was not being heard - says there is evidence that Maori aged 40 have similar health risks as Pakeha aged 65.

For equity to be achieved in the roll-out, he wants Maori and Pacific communities to be given access to the vaccine at a younger age.

"I'm disappointed in the Ministry of Health and their inability to achieve what they promised in the beginning which was equity in the vaccination programme.

"It is consistent with a health system which consistently, persistently, under-serves Maori. And we know that racism is a feature of that system."

A big problem is contacting Maori which has been more difficult than with Pakeha, Jansen says.

"Maori and Pacific people have found it much harder to engage with text messages to tell them to go to a booking app, so that hasn't worked well for us."

Henare says the low COVID-19 vaccination uptake among Maori is not for lack of trying.

"I traveled the country to continue to promote the vaccine amongst our people," he says.

"For whatever reason, our people didn't come forward to get the vaccine."

Jansen says he agrees comments made by Prof Papaarangi Reid last week that the unfolding situation is a breach of the Treaty.

His sentiments are echoed by Mr John Mutu-Grigg, chair of the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons' Maori health advisory group.

Jansen, Mutu-Grigg and Henare's concerns come at the same time as three Maori women are reporting improved health outcomes for Maori due to Maori-focused hard work.

Mata Cherrington, who leads Southland's Awarua Whanau Services, an iwi health provider says at a recent three-day clinic, she and her team of three vaccinators helped 900 people get immunised - double the number the Southern DHB predicted.

While appreciative of the of the health board and Ministry of Health's support, Cherrington says they're far removed from the reality of what is actually happening on the front lines.

Also pushing Southland Maori to take up the immunisation challenge is Tracey Wright-Tawha - chief executive of Southland-based Nga Kete Matauranga Pounamu Charitable Trust. She is setting up clinics in remote areas to ensure vaccines are available to as much of the southern rural community as possible.

In Northland, another Maori woman, Dr Maxine Ronald, is making progress with vaccination uptake. However, systematic change from the top is needed to improve Maori health outcomes, she says.

Source

• Stuff
• Otago Daily Times
• Image: Stuff

Poverty followed and the introduction of new, foreign diseases ravaged the Maori population.

Over the past 25 years, the Government and iwi across New Zealand have been working to acknowledge the historical grievances.

In most cases, there has been a measure of financial redress for Crown wrongdoing and the return of many culturally significant sites to iwi.

But the Crown says the financial element of the settlements can never fully compensate the true value of loss in many claims.

In particular, those where large areas of land were confiscated and then settled.

So far, there have been 73 settlements with the Crown passed into law.

There are a further 11 settlements that have been agreed but are either awaiting the rubber stamp from Parliament or have failed to pass the final hurdle of Parliament.

The total value of all finalised settlements is $2.2 billion.

While that may seem like a lot of money, it's worth considering some other similar Government expenses for context: In just the next 12 months, the Government will spend (excluding capital investment) about $87b.

One of the biggest outgoings is superannuation at $14b.

The entire value of Treaty settlements over the past quarter of a century would cover super payments for two months. Continue reading

• Andy Fyers writes at Muck Rack
• Image: Stuff

Our first stop was St John's church in Te Awamutu, Waikato's oldest building. It was built to serve the mission station established there at Otawhao pain 1841. The community thrived, and its agriculture prospered. Read More

Manuka Henare presented his thoughts to a recent church hui at Manukau Institute of Technology on the treaty and theology.

He says it was a chance to review the greater understanding historians now have of the early contacts between Maori and missionaries and the thinking behind the korero at Waitangi on February 6, 1840 from rangatira like Hone Heke, Waka Nene and Patuone.

"They referred to the treaty as 'He Kawenata Hou' The New Covenant. And this is the difficult concept that has come to the fore and it's at this point that the christian church has had this obligation to be custodians as it were, kaitiaki, of the wairua of the Treaty of Waitangi" Listen to interview

Mr Finlayson says he is keen that iwi are not left on their own once their Treaty of Waitangi legislation was passed and the Crown could do better to help iwi make the transition, reports Radio New Zealand News.

Mr Finlayson made the admission when he appeared before Parliament's Maori Affairs Select Committee on Wednesday.

Mr Finlayson said he wrote letters to local authorities but working with iwi to help them into the new world and relationships was something the Crown could do better.

Source: RNZ News

There will be roaring levels of commercial testosterone at this auction, and the Treaty of Waitangi's protective intent comes into play immediately in this scenario.

The Treaty was highly protective of Maori and their position as tangata whenua in 1840, their wellbeing, ownership rights, and cultural survival.

We should not be surprised in the digital age that its protections, in respect of the assumed royal prerogative (the right of kings, queens and parliaments to assert ownership over raw resources and the right to own and sell) reaches into areas like the spectrum resource. The courts have accepted that the Treaty deliberately placed a fetter over the prerogative in New Zealand.

Maori should not be blamed for the length and sharpness of those guarantees. Maori didn't write the Treaty nor initiate the migration and colonisation which necessitated it. They are entitled to cling to the contract their ancestors signed.

It's useful to remember that in all the claims Maori have made for spectrum in both broadcasting and telecommunications, they have displayed a clear idea of what they would do with spectrum and why it is needed. All have faced fierce Crown opposition and produced bitter fights in the courts.

In 1985 the Maori Council surprised the Government of the day by launching a bid for the third channel TV warrants before the Broadcasting Tribunal. The last national VHF network was at stake. The bid failed. Conventional wisdom of the time framed the Maori channel as an impossibility. Look at Maori Television now. A burgeoning success, but started 20 years after the main body of native speakers of the language passed into the night, along with the rich resources they would have provided. Continue reading

Sources

• Piripi Walker in The Dominion Post
• Image: Delimiter
  

Piripi Walker, Ngati Raukawa, is spokesman for Nga Kaiwhakapumau i Te Reo, (The Wellington Maori Language Board).