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With no upper house, nor a written constitution, important laws can be fast-tracked or repealed by a simple majority of Parliament.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

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

Urgent hearing

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

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

ACT's translation is "nonsensical" Mutu said.

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

Tribunal agrees

Tribunal panel member Monty Soutar agrees.

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

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

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

ACT's idea

Seymour reject's Sadler's view.

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

ACT says the Treaty redefined:

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

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

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

Disgracing the Crown

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

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

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

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

Source

• ODT

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

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

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

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

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

Crown failures

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

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

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

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

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

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

narrow consultation about its new strategies,

ongoing failure to collect thorough homelessness data,

shortcomings in inter-agency coordination,

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

lack of support for homeless rangatahi.

Tribunal concerns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where to from here

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

Source

• RNZ
• Stuff

The 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

The report says the system is racist, Maori health is a humanitarian crisis, the government has failed Maori, and it should apologise. Continue reading

Hato Petera College stands on a portion of the of the Crown Grant of 376 acres given to the Catholic Church in Auckland's North Shore in 1850 for the purpose of supporting Maori education on the site.

A group of former pupils Nga Tauira Tawhito o Hato Petera lodged a claim with the the Waitangi Tribunal in 2014.

The claim concerns the land awarded by Crown Grant to the Catholic Church in 1850, and the subsequent maladministration of that land.

Lawyer Stuart Kett, of Tamaki Legal - which is representing claimant group - said since then, most of that land had been sold and the proceeds had not been fairly used to fund or support the school.

"The original reason for the grant was for the maintenance and support of Maori education on the Takapuna Crown grant lands," Mr Kett said.

"Those purposes, those duties, those obligations are for the church to provide that maintenance by way of the Crown grant lands."

Kett said it was not clear how the proceeds from the Grant land sales were spent, but it wasn't on Hato Petera.

"The diocese presumably is doing what it can, but unfortunately we haven't been able to access their financial records in terms of how they expended the proceeds of sale moneys in terms of benefiting Hato Petera.

"What we do know is Hato Petera is on a lot less land than it would have been had the original grant remained intact."

In the claimant group's final submissions Mr Kett asked that the Crown fund a new boarding facility and new buildings at the school.

The Catholic Church was contacted for comment but referred questions back to the school.

Source

• radionz.co.nz
• tuhoronuku.com
• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• nzherald.co.nz
• Image: i.ytimg.com

The claim centres on the land where the kura (school) is sited, which was granted to the Catholic Church by Governor George Grey in 1849.

A spokesperson for a group asking for an inquiry, Frank Rawiri, said: "We are at a crisis point with the future of the school."

"If the Wai 1385 claim is not settled the way we would like to settle it, we may as well say good-bye to Hato Petera."

"We want to get the land back that has been lost or at least some of it. This remains possible because some of the land is still owned by the Crown."

Rawiri was a member a trustee of Te Whanau 0 Hato Petera Trust from 1995 until he resigned this year.

He was chairman of the Trust from 2000 till 2010.

In June this year Rawiri presented a brief of evidence as part of an application for an urgent hearing in relation to the Crown's 2014 decision to recognise the Tuhoronuku Deed of Mandate.

The brief states that, "Our Treaty claim concerns the 376 acres awarded in trust by way of a Crown Grant to the Catholic Church in 1850, and the subsequent maladministration of that land.

Rawiri identified himself as representing Nga Tauira Tawhito o Hato Petera.

He said was chosen to represent Nga Tauira for their Treaty claim because he is an old boy and has been actively involved with the College since 1995.

Nga Tauira Tawhito is pan tribal organisation made up of affiliated Catholic Maori and other Maori from around the country who share an allegiance to Hato Petera College.

Nga Tauira has approximately 1200 members.

It formed and registered the Nga Tauira Tawhito o Hato Petera Trust Board as a charitable trust on 2 September 2002 for the purpose of acting on behalf of and advocating for the education of Nga Tauira.
Source

• Radio New Zealand
• The Waitangi Tribunal
• Image: www.waateanews.com

How about those Muslim women? Won't let men see them out of veil. Take them to the Human Rights Commission!

As a non-believer, I don't have a lot of time for religion, be it Christianity, Islam or Maori "spiritual" beliefs. So, if the Waitangi Tribunal, in its latest findings, talks about Maori believing that rivers have a mauri, or life-force, and taniwha lurking in the depths, shouldn't I be loudly ridiculing such mumbo-jumbo?

Perhaps, but the thing is, I'm not Maori. And while I don't personally hold spiritual beliefs about rivers, many Maori do. And the tribunal must take those beliefs into account. The tribunal isn't saying that there are taniwha in the Waikato. Read more

Sources

• Dave Armstrong in The Dominion Post
• Image: Waikato Times

Dave Armstrong is a writer for theatre and television.