The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is an attempt to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi. Redefining it, not by what it says, not by what it means, but by what certain people want it to mean.
The irony is astonishing. Those who have tried to marginalise Māori have often attempted to change the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1869 the government realised the version Māori had been persuaded to sign didn’t say what the government wanted it to say. It failed to mention Māori had signed away their sovereignty.
Changing the terms of a contract 29 years after it was signed showed the questionable ethics of the settlers, but it was expedient to do so. (For those interested in further irony, the manufactured translation came about in response to questions in Parliament about who owned the foreshore next to Māori land.)
Even this didn’t go far enough and when in 1877 the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi could be ignored because it wasn’t part of New Zealand law, the then settler government did just that.
Māori never forgot the Treaty and spent the next century in time and resources trying to persuade the Crown and the government to uphold the Treaty.
In 1975, when the Waitangi Tribunal finally came into being, a problem was which version of the Treaty should be pre-eminent. In a compromise it was decided that the principles derived from both the English text and the original Māori text would hold sway.
This brings us back to the ‘‘Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill’’ and the attempt by Act New Zealand, under the pretence of democratic-decision making, to change the meaning of the Treaty.
I use the word pretence because having a referendum on the meaning of a document written in a language they do not understand makes as much sense as me voting on the meaning of the French national anthem. I know what I would like it to mean (the All Blacks are wonderful and we surrender to your superiority). However, this would be ludicrous, but if it succeeded, then in Act’s opinion it would at least be democratic.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon claims this is all irrelevant because he has promised the Bill will not get past the select committee stage. That has not stopped two protest hikoi heading from Bluff and Cape Reinga to meet in Wellington.
I did hear a radio host asking why Māori were bothering to protest when the Prime Minister says the Bill will go nowhere. The implication is we can and should just trust our politicians.
One of the sad facts of Māori relationships with politicians throughout history is that assurances, guarantees and promises made are usually contingent on politicians maintaining the support of their Pākehā constituents. Once that is gone all bets and promises are off, that is assuming that the PM even makes it to the end of their parliamentary term.
In my 63 years there has only been one prime minister, Helen Clark, who finished all the terms they started. Rob Muldoon lost a snap election called five months early and all the rest — Keith Holyoake, Norman Kirk, David Lange, Jim Bolger, John Key and Jacinda Ardern - resigned, died or were rolled before their last full term was complete.
Few politicians are honourable enough to even remember their predecessors let alone keep their promises. So excuse us if we are not convinced our politicians’ promises can be trusted.
My final point is: why do we need a full six months of select committee hearings for a Bill that is supposedly going nowhere, unless it is to foment dissent?
My initial response was to ignore it and let the racists and nonsense-spouters have their day in the sunlight so we can all see how ignorant they are, but that often leads to unintended consequences. So we are now stuck with having to participate - but why six months?
My suspicion is that Act has reached the maximum vote it could expect in the current political climate and the only way to gain more votes is to cause even greater polarisation, no matter how destructive it may be.
Unfortunately, the purpose of the Bill appears to be to deliberately inflict division, polarisation and harm, therefore, prime minister, please end this.
• Dr Anaru Eketone is an associate professor in the University of Otago’s social and community work programme.
