Why They’re Afraid of the Principles

Michael Bassett
Political historian Michael Bassett CNZM is the author of 15 books, was a regular columnist for Fairfax newspapers and a former minister in the 1984-1990 governments.

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 Māori Party all attack Seymour with arguments that range from the hypocritical to the absurd. And for good reason. They all know that a majority of New Zealanders are sick to their stomachs of the endless new treaty claims being propagated every day.

A poll found that 61 percent of Kiwis wanted Seymour’s bill, with many others still undecided. If a referendum were held, it is clear that the game would be up. No more absurd rulings by the courts reinterpreting parliament’s intentions for legislation. As the late King Tūheitia said: “There are no principles. The treaty is written and that’s it!”

In 1890, when the treaty was 50 years old, then the centenary in 1940, and the 150th anniversary of its signing in 1990, the treaty being celebrated was the original translation of three clauses of the Māori version, signed by the chiefs. Sovereignty was passed on to Queen Victoria in perpetuity; in return, she promised to guarantee the Māori ownership of their lands, villages and treasures unless they sold them through an agreed process; and the Queen promised to protect the Māori and 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 Māori and Pākehā. It was not based on colonial conquest or an unlawful invasion by settlers.

The current debate over the Treaty would not be happening if it were not for those who have reinterpreted it. To suit 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 Māori. At least 400 have convinced themselves that the Crown owes Māori 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 Māori the right to co-government, and even to a Māori parliament, despite Article One.

There is currently a growing industry of Māori bush lawyers who argue that despite the fact that tribes or hapū 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 developing land long since sold out of Māori ownership. The Treaty is being waved around in a threatening manner and councils and owners are expected to grease the palms of those using 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 Māori self-servers who are currently getting away with robbery want the status quo to continue and do not want David Seymour’s law. 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 law 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 – Māori and Pākehā – 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.

This article was originally published by Bassett, Brash and Hide.