WHY ARE LOUD MOUTHS AFRAID OF THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY?

It is astonishing to see how much energy is being put into attacking David Seymour and ACT over the Bill, which no one has seen yet, over the principles of the treaty. Four hundred religious leaders, Radio NZ, TV, the The New Zealand Herald Julia Gabel, the recently derailed Matthew Hooton, the Labour Party that should know better, the seriously weird Greens and the incomprehensible Maori Party all attack Seymour with arguments that range from the specious to the absurd. And for good reason. They all know that a majority of New Zealanders are sick to death of the endless new treaty claims that are being propagated every day. A poll found that 61% of Kiwis wanted Seymour’s bill, with many more still undecided. If a referendum were to be held, it is clear that the game would be up. No more absurd rulings from the courts reinterpreting parliament’s intentions in legislation. As the late King Tuheitia said: “There are no principles. The treaty is written and that’s it!”

In 1890, when the treaty was fifty years old, then the centenary in 1940, and on the 150th anniversary of its signing in 1990, the treaty that was celebrated was the original translation of three clauses of the Maori version, signed by the chiefs. Sovereignty was passed in perpetuity to Queen Victoria; in return she promised to guarantee the Maori ownership of their lands, villages and treasures, unless they sold them by an agreed process; and the Queen promised to protect the Maori and to give them the same rights and responsibilities of citizenship as the people of Great Britain. In other words, New Zealand was founded on an agreement between the Maori and Pakeha. It was not based on colonial conquest or an illegal invasion of settlers.

The current debate over the Treaty would not be taking place if it were not for those who have reinterpreted it. To serve their own interests, some jump up and down about the ills of colonialism; others claim that the Crown has made a continuing promise to provide special benefits to Maori. At least 400 have convinced themselves that the Crown owes Maori more than equal opportunity, and must guarantee the impossible – equal outcomes in life – regardless of whether many fail to seize the health and education opportunities that are placed right in front of them. Others claim that the Treaty gives Maori the right to co-government, and even to a Maori parliament, despite Article One.

There is currently a growing industry of Maori bush lawyers who claim that despite the fact that tribes or hapu sold land under the system set out in Article Two of the Treaty, the descendants of the original sellers still have rights over that same land. In Waikato, the Gore District, the Queenstown Lakes District Council and other parts of the country, stand-over tactics are being used by iwi who demand payment for “cultural impact assessments” to be carried out by the iwi on any plans a council or individual owner might have for development on land that has long since been disowned by Maori. The Treaty is being waved around in a threatening manner and councils and owners are expected to grease the palms of those who use these mafia-style tactics. This was never provided for in the original Treaty. Once it is sold, the application of Article Two to that land ceases. It is not surprising that the handful of Maori self-servers who are currently getting away with robbery want the status quo to continue and do not want David Seymour’s bill. It threatens their significant revenue stream. It is not clear to me that the additional language that Seymour recently announced he wants to add to his bill will clarify this issue, although it certainly should.

I have found that many of the new claims become repetitive and nonsensical and are parroted by people – Maori and Pakeha – who generally have not bothered to read the treaty. In the case of the mainstream media, they are promoted for political purposes. TV One and Radio NZ never miss an opportunity to quote false or misleading statements from Labour spokespeople. These days New Zealand Herald might as well fly the Labour flag from the masthead. Kiwis who just want to get on with their lives have had enough and see Seymour’s Bill as an opportunity to curb extremism while reminding our courts what the Treaty means and what it doesn’t mean. When push comes to shove, legislation can always override any contracts between robbers and councils, or anyone else.

Meanwhile, both National and New Zealand First are tossing and turning in the wind. They know the status quo is wrong. But because they didn’t think the treaty through properly before making their positions known, they are like bystanders, their eyes closed to the abuses being committed in plain sight.