It has taken until 2024, but even the All Blacks now recognise that Māori are the tangata whenua of this country. There is no consensus however, about what that unique status means in terms of the rights it confers on Māori, and the responsibilities it imposes on the Crown. David Seymour and his Treaty Principles Bill have chosen to ignore that dimension entirely, in the so-called “debate” he has been orchestrating.

Does Seymour accept that the Treaty ensures customary rights are enjoyed by Māori, by dint of them being tangata whenua? Apparently not. Because under its Principles 2 and 3, his Bill has set the constitutional table in this contorted fashion:

2. Rights of hapū and iwi Māori—the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.

3. Right to equality—Everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination. ( My emphases.)

Meaning: the rights enjoyed by hapū and iwi may have existed at 1840 but if Seymour’s Bill ever became law, the Crown would respect and protect the unique aspects of those rights only to the extent they have been codified in the settlement processes of the late 20th century. In that sense they’re not a Treaty right at all but are conditional on relatively recent court judgements, and held only by those hapū and iwi who have negotiated Treaty settlements that explicitly recognise those rights.

In all other respects, Māori and pakeha are to be treated as “equal before the law...without discrimination.” The language of equality is deceptive when used in this context. Not by accident, it frees the Crown from any division of national resources, or from any need to tailor and target action, funding, or social delivery systems to address the legacy of colonialism. Yet the ongoing impact of that legacy is all too evident in the Māori health statistics, poverty figures, rates of imprisonment etc…

Moreover, the Bill would also lay open to legal challenge any forms of affirmative action taken to help bridge those socio-economic gaps. Under this Bill, any disgruntled pakeha who thinks Māori have had it too easy for too long, would be able to go to court and prevent all forms of a hand up being made available only (or primarily) to tangata whenua – whether that be in the form of healthcare delivery programmes or university scholarships, or anything else.

The status quo is not a level playing field. It perpetuates significant inequalities of opportunity. While welcome, the relatively recent attempts made to correct the past 180 years of neo-colonial privilege have barely grazed the surface. Yet the Treaty Principles Bill would stamp out even those limited efforts.

The Bill seeks to turn back the clock to where “equality before the law” would mean that the only option on offer to Māori would be assimilation, and in existing conditions where there is structurally unequal access (a) to the necessities of life and (b) to the means of socio-economic progress. Māori children, in particular, have a right to far better.

The Treaty itself recognises that Māori, as tangata whenua, have customary rights not enjoyed by pakeha. It also places unique responsibilities on the Crown towards the Treaty partner, that require it (a) to try and correct the neo-colonial wrongs and disadvantages that are still having enduring effects on the Treaty partner and (b) to ensure that Māori share equal access to the new forms of wealth and opportunity that society has developed, since 1840. The Treaty is, after all, a living document and its commitments endure.

Seymour’s Bill is a concerted attempt to deny that the Crown has these responsibilities and obligations. It does so by invoking a bogus equality before the law, and by ignoring the causes of the blatant and enduring inequality of access to opportunity. These are issues that the Crown is Treaty-bound to address.

Footnote: To foster the “debate” that Seymour says he aims to stimulate...does Seymour think the Treaty in 1840 established that all Māori (and only Māori) as tangata whenua enjoy customary rights and entitlements? If so, why is he trying to restrict the Treaty-enshrined rights of hapū and iwi solely to those who have succeeded in embedding them in Treaty settlements?

Moreover, does Seymour oppose the Crown taking affirmative action to address the gaps in social well-being and life expectations that currently exist between Māori and pakeha? Doesn’t his Treaty Principles Bill rule out any and all affirmative action programmes that are available only, or primarily, to Māori? If Seymour is indeed opposed to affirmative action, how does he propose to bridge the glaring socio-economic gaps between Māori and pakeha?

More “tail wagging dog” news

This week, PM Christopher Luxon has tried to blame MMP – and not his own incompetence – for the government’s sponsoring of the Treaty Principles Bill for the next six months. That’s just the price, Luxon claims, of doing deals and forming a government under MMP.

That claim is completely untrue. MMP requires a negotiation, not an abject surrender. As former National Cabinet Minister (and veteran settlements negotiator) Chris Finlayson says, John Key would have called David Seymour’s bluff, and the Treaty Principles Bill would have never survived its first reading.

To repeat: forming a coalition did not require Luxon to accept every item on Seymour’s wish-list. Political parties are supposed to have core values, and positions that are not trade-able. Alas, Luxon appears to regard everything in politics as transactional. What he did wasn’t deal-making, it was submission.

I’m sure Seymour sold it to him as a win/win. The sales pitch would have been: ACT will use the six months of free publicity to build its redneck/anti-Māori support, after which National will look centrist and earn a round of applause as it finally brings down the curtain at the second reading. Luxon bought it. But taxpayers will have to foot the bill for this costly charade.

We should be glad that Seymour didn’t tell Luxon to bring back capital punishment for gang leaders. Chances are, some members of the National caucus would have regarded that as a potential vote winner.

Selective morality

In an embarrassing diplomatic air kiss to Donald Trump, New Zealand has declared the political and military wings of Hezbollah to be terrorist entities. (The EU has so designated only the military wing.) Did Trump ask for this in his recent phone call to Luxon? We’ll never know. What we do know is that Hezbollah is safer to criticise than Israel. To our shame, New Zealand has not denounced Israel’s bombing of Lebanon’s cities, towns and villages, nor the IDF’s relentless pursuit of a Final Solution in Gaza for the Palestinian inhabitants.

Among other atrocities...Israel’s murderous actions in Gaza have killed 1,000 doctors and nurses. Palestinian medical staff imprisoned by Israel have reportedly been raped, tortured and executed while in custody. Besides the bombings of civilian neighbourhoods in Beirut and elsewhere in Lebanon, there has been collective punishment meted out, and forced evacuations imposed on entire populations in southern Lebanon.

But hey, look over there, at Hezbollah. They’re terrorists, says our leader. Dutifully, RNZ devoted seven minutes yesterday morning to news that an extremist rabbi called Zvi Kogan had been abducted and murdered in the UAE. Ample air time was given to angry expressions of outrage by Israel at this “heinous” act, which it is. Yet by the same token, Israel itself has carried out scores of assassinations of the region’s politicians, journalists, scientists, and military leaders over the past two decades or more. Israel is hardly in a position to complain when its enemies subject its own prominent envoys to similar treatment.

Talking of which...in the past 380 days in Gaza, at least 130 journalists have been killed by the IDF. As UN chief Antonio Guterrres said earlier this month:

Mr. Guterres noted that journalists in Gaza have been killed “at a level unseen in any conflict in modern times”, adding that the ongoing ban preventing international journalists from Gaza “suffocates the truth even further”.

In the same two day reporting period as the death of Rabbi Kogan, Israel killed 120 people in Gaza, Nine days ago, Israel killed 94 Palestinians in Gaza, with one third of them (reportedly) being children. RNZ’s Morning Report didn’t seem to have covered that outrage at all.

To repeat: why has our government been silent all year on calling out those responsible for the vastly disproportionate use of force within the Gaza killing zone, and for the related months of mass starvation of thousands of Palestinian children? Genocide, shmenocide. We shake our heads, and move on.

© Scoop Media