ADDENDUM: See added comments and clarifications under “addendum” at bottom.
********************
I’ve written many times about the battle of the indigenous people in New Zealand (the Māori) to get their “way of knowing”—which includes a lot of superstition and unreliable word-of-mouth “knowledge,” as well as legends and morality—adopted as official policy or as a “way of knowing” that is equivalent to science. This push demands an extreme and unjustifiable form of affirmative action, supported, say the activists, by the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi made between the locals and European “colonists.” (In the Māori language it’s called “Te Tiriti”.)
The culture war—and there really is one—is fomented not by the “colonists” (descendants of Europeans) as the WaPo implies, but by the Māori themselves, who argue that the Treaty essentially entitles them to half of everything in the country. This is not even equity, for Māori comprise about 18% of the population. But the issue is with the Treaty, which, say indigenous people, is in effect the official Constitution of New Zealand. It isn’t, because it really specifies only three things (from Wikipedia):
- Article one of the Māori text grants governance rights to the Crown while the English text cedes “all rights and powers of sovereignty” to the Crown.
- Article two of the Māori text establishes that Māori will retain full chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures while the English text establishes the continued ownership of the Māori over their lands and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the Crown.
- Article three gives Māori people full rights and protections as British subjects.
Note that this says nothing about more modern problems, like who gets hired for jobs or accepted in college, what projects get funded, or what gets taught in classes. Yet that’s the way the Māori have interpreted it.
To create a more modern law, a libertarian “colonist” in parliament, David Seymour, introduced a “Treaty Principles Bill” that, he says, will remedy the Māori interpretation of Te Tiriti by banning discrimination but also providing equal opportunities for everyone. Seymour is the leader of the ACT New Zealand party, which Wikipedia describes, confusingly, as “a right-wing, classical liberal, right-libertarian, and conservative political party in New Zealand”. (I believe it would be seen as “centrist” in the U.S.)
My non-Māori friends in NZ, while opposing the extreme privileges given to indigenous people, nevertheless say that the Treaty Principles Bill is confusing, but still think that the 1840 Treaty is outdated and needs some legislative tweaking, especially to eliminate the whole passel of special privileges the courts and government have conferred on the Māori. And even the Prime Minister of the country, Christopher Luxon, elected partly to eliminate wokeness, has says the bill is dead. The Luxon government has failed to stop the Woke Train set in motion by the Ardern government.
Needless to say, the Māori hate the new bill and want to keep adhering to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Here’s the reaction (described in the WaPo article below), of the youngest member of New Zealand’s Parliament, Hana-Rawhitie Maipiu-Ckarke, only 22. Below you can see her tearing up the new bill and performing a haka (a traditional war dance to intimidate the enemy) in Parliament. She is joined by other like-minded lawmakers, but the video went viral and inspired thousands of people to write in or give oral testimony opposing the Treaty Principles Bill. Note, however, that given the atmosphere of intimidation in NZ, public support of the bill would seriously endanger people’s jobs or well being.
Read the WaPo article by clicking below (it’s also archived here):
The article is sympathetic to the Māori, who were indeed once treated very badly by Europeans. But it distorts not only the advantages that the law has now given them over Europeans, and the dangers of opposing their increasing drive for not only equity, but more than equity. This demand for Even More Than Equity is what has ignited the culture war, most prominently in the schools, and, on this site, in the science classroom. (Remember the money allocated to rub whale oil on kauri trees and play whale songs to them, all catering to a Māori legend that the whale and trees were brothers, creating the notion that whale oil and songs could kill the microorganism blight that’s killing the trees? (It won’t, and the money came from taxpayers.)
The WaPo distorts the treaty grossly, saying stuff like this:
The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an 1840 agreement between the British crown and more than 500 Maori chiefs, resulted in New Zealand’s Indigenous population being violently dispossessed of their lands, leading to disadvantage and disempowerment that continue today.
As you can see from Article 2 of Te Tiriti above, this is either a lie or a distortion that could have been easily corrected had the author looked at the treaty. The Māori retained their lands.
In the end, this is a fight about extreme affirmative action, and I can’t help but sympathize a bit with Seymour, who, noting the great legal advantages Māori have over all other New Zealanders (there are also about 18% Asians in the country),
. . . has insisted his Treaty Principles Bill merely “gives every New Zealander the same rights and dignity” and would ensure “the Treaty can no longer be used to justify separate public services, race-based health waitlists, and creeping co-governance.”
This equal rights and opportunities notion is anathema to indigenous people. And so the Treaty Principles Bill is, in effect, dead, an ex-bill, singing with the Choir Invisible. Even Luxon admits this. There is no sign that equal opportunities rather than group preferences will come to pass in New Zealand.
The article goes on to valorize the indigenous people, implying that even now they are experiencing a form of Jim-Crow-like segregation and bias similar to that of the American South in the late 18th and early 19th century. That is simply not true.
But I’ll hand my commentary over to a Kiwi friend who know about America, and tried to explain everything to me when I asked the anonymous friend “what the hell is going on over there?”
His/her answer is below the line, with the words indented, and quotes doubly indented. The last full paragraph sums up the situation, but if you read what’s below, you’ll get a good understanding of what is going on in New Zealand. As I said, WaPo and Wikipedia quotes are doubly indented, but I’ve also put them in quotes.
========================Here are a few comments that may be helpful – I find that Americans can be flummoxed by NZ treaty discussions. *Every* *single* *element* of the discussion seems be in active dispute, with high emotions and no obvious way of resolving the issue.
Here are a few tips for American brains trying to understand the NZ Treaty debates: NZ’s political system is UK-derived, so there is no single written constitution. There are a variety of documents and laws that make up “the constitution”. Wikipedia seems to have it:
================
“The constitution of New Zealand is the sum of laws and principles that determine the political governance of New Zealand. Unlike many other nations, New Zealand has no single constitutional document.[1][2] It is an uncodified constitution, sometimes referred to as an “unwritten constitution”, although the New Zealand constitution is in fact an amalgamation of written and unwritten sources.[3][4] The Constitution Act 1986 has a central role,[5] alongside a collection of other statutes, orders in Council, letters patent, decisions of the courts, principles of the Treaty of Waitangi,[1][6] and unwritten traditions and conventions. There is no technical difference between ordinary statutes and law considered “constitutional law”; no law is accorded higher status.[7][8] In most cases the New Zealand Parliament can perform “constitutional reform” simply by passing acts of Parliament, and thus has the power to change or abolish elements of the constitution. There are some exceptions to this though – the Electoral Act 1993 requires certain provisions can only be amended following a referendum.[9]”
================
So, this passage in the WashPo article is confused in several ways:
=============
“The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an 1840 agreement between the British crown and more than 500 Maori chiefs, resulted in New Zealand’s Indigenous population being violently dispossessed of their lands, leading to disadvantage and disempowerment that continue today. Maori experience worse health, greater poverty and higher incarceration rates than the non-Maori population.
But the treaty has become New Zealand’s de facto constitution. In recent decades, Parliament and the courts have come to see it as promising Maori, who make up almost 20 percent of the population, significant decision-making powers and special protections.”
=============
It would be accurate to say this: “But the treaty has become *part of* New Zealand’s de facto constitution”, but no one would say it’s the whole constitution. Very obviously, it says nothing about elections, parliaments, etc etc. But it’s not “the constitution”. The actual Constitution Acts started some years after the Treaty:
===============
“The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 (15 & 16 Vict. c. 72) was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that granted self-government to the Colony of New Zealand. It was the second such Act, the previous 1846 Act not having been fully implemented.[1] The purpose of the Act was to have constitutional independence from Britain.[2] The definition of franchise or the ability to vote excluded all women, most Māori, all non-British people and those with convictions for serious offences.[3]
The Act remained in force as part of New Zealand’s constitution until it was rendered redundant by the Constitution Act 1986.”
===============
It’s also weird to say, “The Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an 1840 agreement between the British crown and more than 500 Maori chiefs, resulted in New Zealand’s Indigenous population being violently dispossessed of their lands, leading to disadvantage and disempowerment that continue today.” The 1840 Treaty explicitly said that (a) Maori should have the rights and privileges of British subjects, and (b) only the Crown could buy land from them. These were some of the provisions to protect Maori. So, the sentence should have said “(some) of NZ’s indigenous population were violently dispossessed of their lands, despite the Treaty”. Without the Treaty, the previous situation would have applied, which was random whalers and pirates and settlers making and breaking land deals outside of any governmental regulation.
Regarding the modern debate & the WashPo article:
– I think it would be true to say that David Seymour & supporters are motivated by (a) the idea that the meaning of the Treaty/”treaty priniciples” have become pretty much an exercise in free association, used to justify whatever the left wants at the moment; (b) in particular, two that were highly controversial were the last government’s attempt to split up important things by race — e.g., the national health service, the attempted “Three Waters” reform of water districts etc.; (c) Seymour’s also got an eye for building his own brand/notoriety and that of his ACT Party. ACT is often called “far right” but as far as I can tell they are socially liberal libertarians.
ACT is also starting to pay attention to the education and university mess. The dominant National Party seems to mostly avoid these topics, although there have been some improvements, and the National-ACT-NZFirst coalition plans to introduce academic freedom legislation sometime soon.
– As for the response, the National Party views ACT’s treaty principles bill as a headache; but they were forced into it to put the coalition together. They presumably will vote it down. However, it’s created a massive opportunity for both ACT and Te Pati Maori (the Maori Party – by no means do all Maori vote for this party) to rile up their base and get attention. Te Pati Maori is beset by other scandals, though, and even the haka-in-parliament stunt had mixed reactions locally and abroad (I recall seeing it mocked on the Jimmy Kimmel show) – if I had to bet, I’d say the coalition will win the next election, but who knows?
– While politically, ACT’s treaty principles bill might work for them, I don’t see it as the best approach myself. I think what we desperately need in New Zealand is some textual originalism, interpreting the treaty on its own terms in the context of its time, and not trying to turn it into either:
(a) a mandate for anti-democratic moves like making every institution, governmental or not, having a 50-50 power share between Maori and non-Maori representatives (the New Zealand Tertiary Education Union (TEU) rammed this through in early 2023 in the waning months of the Labour government. Very few people spoke out about it (many left long before this, the majority of faculty are not in the TEU), some left the TEU afterwards, for spending $850/year to make a mockery of democratic values is not everyone’s cup of tea.) or
(b) trying to turn the Treaty into a full mandate for the modern system, which is what Seymour is trying to do, also seems non-textual. One thing the National Party gets right is their basic claim that democracy is self-justifying, and that sovereignty resides with the people in a democratic system; and it’s been that way for 100+ years. The Treaty wasn’t a full constitution, and we shouldn’t try to pretend it was; and we don’t need it to be.
I think everyone on both sides should study the example of the Australian referendum on an “Indigenous Voice” for the Australian Parliament in late 2023. This initially had some support of both left and right, but when the actual proposal came out, everything fell apart, and it was voted down strongly—and probably fatally wounded the current Labour government. Part of the problem was that the proposal was supposed to be a major Constitutional change, but no exact statutory language was being voted on, and what was proposed was quite vague, with uncertain implications on how it would function and how much power it would have.
It is possible that New Zealand’s recent experience with “mission creep” and “language creep” was influential for some — e.g., many have the perception that in NZ, the modern Treaty discussion started with recognising its historical importance and creating the Waitangi Tribunal to address specific historical grievances between an iwi (tribe) and the Crown (the government), but in recent years many have tried to take it all the way to the requirement of mandatory co-governance of all government and nongovernment institutions and activities, including secondary schools, universities and including all subjects — with any opposition to any of this declared to be far-rightist racism. What activists mean by co-governance varies, but it’s pretty clear that what the activists really want is institutional power assigned by race, often 50/50 Maori vs. non-Maori, and they don’t merely mean “everyone gets to participate in governance, because this is a democracy and we can all vote and run for office, regardless of race”, which of course New Zealand has had for a long time.)
[News story from Australia: Why the Voice failed, October 16, Australian Broadcasting Corporation]
ADDENDUM FROM CORRESPONDENT:
If I could make a few clarifications on the material before the anonymous post:
1. I would be careful about referring to “the Māori”, especially about “their” political views. Like everyone else, there is considerable political (and religious etc) diversity among Māori. While you can say they are broadly supportive of the Treaty of Waitangi (there is a annual national holiday about it, after all), for any specific debate about what it means for particular questions like co-governance, science education, etc, there would be lots of diversity. Te Pati Māori (the Māori Party) currently represents the Maori activist position, but it doesn’t get a majority of even Maori votes, and there are ongoing scandals about misuse of census data to bring TPM voters to the polls during the last election, so it may be yet another episode where TPM gets a few seats one election, and loses them the next.
(Notably there is diversity between iwi/tribes as well as between individuals. After awhile in NZ you detect that some iwi had good relationships with the Crown at various historical points, others had wars with each other and with the Crown, some have longstanding grievances, others don’t, or did but have had their grievances resolved with Treaty Resolution agreements put together by the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal, endorsed by an iwi, and approved by Parliament.)
2. One way of showing the political diversity among Maori is to note that the current Centre-Right government is made of 3 parties: the National Party (headed by Prime Minister Christopher Luxon), the ACT Party (headed by David Seymour), and New Zealand First Party (headed by Winston Peters). Both David Seymour and Winston Peters are…Maori! Winston Peters, I believe, even once headed Te Pati Maori back in the 1970s and won a number of seats that way for some years.
3. The phrases about “changing the Treaty” are incorrect. There is no attempt to literally re-write the Treaty, and no mechanism for doing so. The Treaty is a historical document. It is rather like the US Declaration of Independence, or the Magna Carta. These documents provide inspiration and context, but they are not themselves law, except insofar as codified by laws passed by the legislature.
This is confusing because Americans think of “treaties” as detailed legal agreements with other countries, which are passed by 2/3 of the Senate and then become binding statutory domestic law. This sort of framework did not exist in New Zealand in 1840. It is nevertheless important of course, and the things specifically agreed in 1840 would probably be considered binding by modern courts, e.g. if, in modern times, the government tried to confiscate Maori land, a court would presumably rule it illegal and cite the Treaty (that this was often not the case for much of New Zealand’s history is a legitimate grievance, which the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal is supposed to help eventually resolve). However, detailed modern policy proposals, like splitting the National Health Service along racial lines (or even trying to effect some similar carving-up of intellectual space, e.g. in science education) goes far beyond anything one could call a legal mandate of the Treaty.
So the debate is really about the interpretation of the Treaty, in which language (English or te rep Maori) and what that says about what government laws and policies should be. The 2017-2023 Labour government accepted and pushed hard a postmodern, activist interpretation of all of these questions. Despite this, in 2023, Labour lost a number of crucial seats to Te Pati Maori anyway, and are in the minority. The new government is doing some retrenchment.
“… public opposition to the bill would seriously endanger people’s jobs or well being.”
I may have misunderstood something here, but shouldn’t that be “public support“, rather than opposition?
Yes, another typo, which I’ll fix. Thanks.
I am curious how the United States government reconciles many of the same issues with the varied independent native american tribes living on resevations in almost every state with the inevitable conflicts concerning science education, interpreting american history and legal definitions, etc., both in the designated territories and, most critically, outside of them when entering state grounds. Are there parallels to be made and if so, can these former British ruled countrys benefit from our solutions ( and compromises)? And, more ominously, is it possible that there is no way to reconcile or compromise with ingrained cultural bias on both sides of the divide?
The push by zealots of te tiriti for “co-governance” in New Zealand has its analogue in US university life: the insidious push by DEI committees to co-govern departments, including hiring decisions. (For the latter, see: https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/university-of-washington-violated-non-discrimination-policy-internal-report-finds ) This case, undoubtedly not an outlier, happened to be so blatant that it was caught.
My limited outsider view of this is that the treaty is a Maaori fetish (in the strictly religious sense) that validates their very existence, as well as being a legal document of varying importance historically. It is an agreement between the signatory chiefs and the British crown, which some of today’s Maaori want today’s Britain to do something about; Prince^H^H^H^H^H^H King Charles is thought by some to be a potential ally. IMO the chance of all this getting settled anytime soon is nil, given politicians’ (of any race) strong preference to avoid any accountability for anything negative.
(FWIW, IMO D Seymour is a one-note empty-suit Neoliberal ideologue, who is stirring the pot mainly for publicity and short-term political advantage; if the current PM were also not an empty suit then Seymour would already have been dealt with.)
A small clarification of [2] The definition of franchise or the ability to vote excluded all women, most Māori…
Most Maori were excluded because the franchise was based on individual land ownership but traditional, communal land ownership effectively excluded individual Maoris from the franchise. This was corrected in 1867 by setting aside as a temporary measure four seats exclusively for Maori voters who for a while had greater voting rights than non-Maori
The four temporary seats are now seven, show no sign of disappearing, and now contribute to considerable Maori over-representation (as measured by comparison of ethnic MP numbers to ethnic population numbers) in Parliament.
Edit: also FWIW, I disagree with the last paragraph of, #5, Barbara Knox, about David Seymour. He seems to me more of a conviction politician and is one of the few prepared to debate calmly and in specific detail issues from a traditional small government, free enterprise, enlightenment values perspective, not that he’s always entirely consistent.
Hmm. It seems I need to do some more research into Enlightenment values.
Pinker, maybe.
I’m a NZ’er who has studied this somewhat over the years. One problem with the treaty is that there is a lot of confusion around English vs Maori versions of the treaty, which is used to confect so-called Principles (designed to clear up this confusion). Recent re-interpretation of these principles, and other legal manoeuvres has also pushed a view that Maori never ceded sovereignty to the crown, so deserve massive redress. This has all led to a massive attempt to grift money and power to activists.
However, informed and reasoned debate with all available evidence shows this is just wrong.
In the late 90’s the so-called ‘Littlewood’ version of the treaty was discovered and validated as the final English-language draft that was used to translate the Maori version. The Littlewood treaty is very close to David Seymours Treaty Principles Bill, in that it essentially says that Maori keep their own lands and possessions, the Crown has pre-emptive rights to sell their land, and that everyone is subject to the law.
Similarly, translations by Maori in the late 1890’s and early 1900’s explicitly validated this Littlewood view of the treaty, and even in the 1980’s when the Waitangi Tribunal (a sort of truth and reconciliation commission) was set up, also affirmed that Maori ceded sovereignty to the Crown.
There’s also been a concerted attempt to re-interpret Maori words from the 1840’s. The concept of Tino rangatiratanga was invented at the time of the treaty to convey the concept of sovereignty. Similarly in 1840 the word Taonga was used in it’s then-meaning of Possessions, or ‘good procured at the point of a spear’, but has now been reinterpreted to mean treasures, and includes things like airspace, radio spectrum, water falling from the sky, and anything activists want a piece of.
What I find astonishing is how this whole problem has been confected out of lies and a concerted effort to tell a story so at odds with historical fact. It’s such a brazen attempt to seize power and so dishonest, and needs to be stopped.
Thank for the illumination. Very well explained.
Appreciate the explanation.
Thanks, Jerry, for your continued interest in some of what goes on in New Zealand. I find the contents of your updates clarifying and, from what I can see, accurate.
I wrote a haiku long ago when some people were saying that, maybe, a rugby match wasn’t the appropriate place for it. It’s called “A Haka Haiku” and goes as follows:
In praise of haka
It challenges all of us
To know who we are
I just watched the Bob Dylan movie, “A Complete Unknown”. In it, Bob Dylan’s character is trying to figure out just who he is, too. It’s not easy, but Kiwis have a way of figuring things out. It’s called #8 wire mentality. Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea and a lie down, let the dust settle, and remember that we’re all passengers on the same bus. We need to steer it carefully if we’re going to arrive at the same destination safely.
The Haka is an interesting topic in its own right (and surely a good topic for a thesis on cultural appropriation) and is a reflection of the complex relationship between the Maori and Pakeha New Zealanders. For a long time, it was generally only the NZ Rubgy team which performed it, starting back in the late 1800’s when a largely Maori team toured the UK. This was primarily its only manifestation outside of the military and other aspects of Maori life and culture.
In the past several decades it has been co-opted by other NZ sporting teams – both male and female whether they be predominantly Maori or not, including Soccer, Basketball, Netball and Rugby League (which is a different variant of Rugby played mainly in Australia, the South Pacific, the UK and France). It is also seen in some US football teams, notably Hawaii (which is more or less acceptable, since native Hawaiians are from the same cultural tradition), but less so, say in mainland US teams where it has been introduced by Polynesian players.
Other sporting teams from South Pacific countries now counter the Haka with their own war cries / dances, even though this is very new tradition. The Australian Rugby League Indigenous All-Stars also have their war dance, even though there is no consistent tradition of ceremonial dances prior to combat amongst the thousands of different indigenous tribes.
Also interesting is the incorporation the Haka into the traditions of NZ Military and Police forces which goes back at least 100 years. This is seen when NZ units are stationed overseas, when handing over commands, and when commemorating at the funerals of their comrades. It is recorded being performed by NZ soldiers in both world wars (although the short film by Isaac Lee https://www.youtube.com/@therealisaaclee, which incorporates aspects of the Christmas truce in WW1, while touching, is likely largely fictional). In these instances, the Haka moves beyond the performative and trite and is often deeply moving. Still more examples are found in most NZ schools, both at sporting events and also funerals of teachers and significant figures. The Haka is also performed at many weddings and other social events, again, even if many or most of the participants are non-Maori.
I can’t fact-check this but I did see the video from NZ television, with interviews with some of the participants.
During the many, many demonstrations against Israel around the world during the first year of the war, a pro-Hamas group announced plans to hold a big demonstration in, I think, Wellington. A group of mostly Maori motorcyclists, part of a club of reformed gang members and drug users/dealers who had adopted an evangelical Christian faith got wind of it and showed up a half hour before the demonstration was to start. They performed a haka at the venue in a public park.
The pro-Hamas demonstrators never showed up.
Trust me, Act is not centrist by US standards!
Winston Peters was originally a National MP (1979-1993), before resigning from the party and founding NZ First. He has never been a member of Te Pati Maori.
Forgive me! I badly misremembered this factoid: “In 1996, Winston and his party New Zealand First took out all six Māori seats.” So it wasn’t Te Pati Maori, it was the fact that Winston Peters’s party won all 6 Māori seats in an election. (Maori voters have to decide whether to enrol in to vote in a Maori electorate, or a general electorate.) – Anonymous Guy
Also on this day: “On March 10, Bulgaria marks the rescue of Bulgarian Jews during World War II and commemorates the victims of the Holocaust and crimes against humanity. The date has been chosen because of the so-called “Kyustendil Action” of 1943. Then, with the help of politicians and public figures from Kyustendil, the government opposed the deportation of Bulgarian Jews to Nazi concentration camps requested by the Third Reich. ”
https://bnr.bg/en/post/102126682/on-march-10-we-mark-82-years-since-the-rescue-of-bulgarian-jews-in-1943