My submission against the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi bill submitted to parliament select committee.
The Act Party’s assertion that the Treaty of Waitangi applies equally to all New Zealanders is a profound misreading of history and a direct threat to Indigenous rights. Their claim fundamentally ignores the Treaty’s context, its signatories, and the historical realities of 1840.
1. The Treaty’s Intended Parties: The Treaty’s preamble and text explicitly identify its intended partners: the British Royal family and the Māori chiefs and tribes of Aotearoa. There is no ambiguity; the agreement was not intended to encompass the then-small British population, who were largely not yet considered New Zealanders. The approximately 2,000-3,000 British citizens present in Aotearoa in 1840 did not identify as New Zealanders. They were British subjects, and their self-identification underscores the Treaty’s targeted nature.
2. The British Empire and Treaty-Making: In 1840, the British Empire did not sign treaties with its own citizens. The vast majority of 21st-century New Zealanders of British descent resided in Great Britain, not Aotearoa. The Act Party’s suggestion that Lieutenant Governor William Hobson intended to include them in the Treaty demonstrates a startling lack of historical understanding.
3. The Necessity of Māori Consultation: The Treaty is a bipartite agreement between the British Royal Family and Māori. Any changes affecting its interpretation or implementation require consultation with these original parties, not with all subsequent New Zealand citizens. The Act Party’s refusal to engage in meaningful consultation with Māori is unacceptable.
4. Addressing “Colonizer Fragility”: The Act Party’s position appears to be fueled by a form of “colonizer fragility”—a resistance to acknowledging historical injustices and the ongoing impact of colonization on Māori. This resistance ignores the systematic dispossession of Māori land and resources throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, effectively silencing Māori claims to redress. Most anti-treatyist claim they are here to honour the Treaty but very much are opposed to honouring the document with demands to disband the Waitangi Tribunal or they deny the indigenous rights offered to Maori in the Treaty.
5. Foreign Influence and the Atlas Network: Evidence suggests that the Act Party’s stance is influenced by the Atlas Network, a New York-based political think tank with a history of opposing indigenous rights. David Seymour’s past association with the Canadian think tank the Frontier centre for public policy further underscores this concern. Allowing foreign entities to manipulate New Zealand’s democratic processes and undermine the Treaty of Waitangi is a dangerous precedent.
6. The Success of Existing Principles: The existing principles of the Treaty of Waitangi drafted by the late Matiu Rata has not been the outrageous breakdown of democracy that has ruined our economy and left the country in tatters as claimed. The existing 3 P’s of partnership, Participation and Protection are very democratic honourable concepts that has a proven record of working for the last 50 years.
Conclusion: The Act Party’s interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi is not merely a misinterpretation; it is a deliberate attempt to diminish Māori sovereignty and rewrite history. This action must be challenged to protect the integrity of the Treaty and the rights of the indigenous population of Aotearoa.
