Suzanne Menzies-Culling: “The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is the latest iteration of settler skullduggery, cloaked in the language of fairness, equality and individualism.” Pictured: Te Pāti Māori challenging the Treaty Principles bill. (Image: Parliament TV)

Suzanne Menzies-Culling, a Te Tiriti o Waitangi educator, wonders whether parliament can have any “dignity” left after 184 years of actively trampling on Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

Each day, I watched and listened as the rangatahi-led hīkoi drew closer to Whanganui-a-Tara to confront the descendants of early settlers and colonisers sitting in our parliament.

I listened in disbelief as commentators repeated the view that Te Pāti Māori doesn’t uphold the dignity of parliament — because they’d dared to show their contempt for the latest attempt by these settler descendants to undermine the covenant between the British Crown and the numerous hapū rangatira.

And I’m left wondering why these representatives of ours are so ignorant of the egregious harm that’s been done to Māori whānau and hapū by parliaments ever since the Constitution Act of 1852.

If they knew our history, they might be more circumspect about parliament’s so-called “dignity”.

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill is the latest iteration of settler skullduggery, cloaked in the language of fairness, equality and individualism. It seeks to remove any Indigenous rights from the descendants of hapū, using the sacred cow of Westminster democracy introduced to these islands in 1852.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi, first signed at Waitangi on February 6, 1840, was very clear about the terms of the agreement between hapū and the British Queen Victoria. Her representative William Hobson was in attendance. Unfortunately, Hobson didn’t speak te reo — but along with the rangatira who signed on behalf of their people, he signed that document. There was no English document presented for signing that day or on subsequent days when Te Tiriti was discussed around the country.

Hobson’s English draft was only signed when the hui at Port Waikato hadn’t received the Māori text and resorted to signing the English draft, which arrived after the resident missionary appealed to Hobson for something to sign.

At this hui, the rangatira weren’t aware that the document they were presented with wasn’t what they’d discussed. Since then, successive settler governments have insisted that sovereignty was ceded when Te Tiriti was signed, which is palpably untrue. To give away your mana is unthinkable and impossible in te ao Māori.

But, of course, with imperial Britain, there was a deep-seated assumption that they were superior to all other races, and it would never have occurred to them that native peoples would find the idea of ceding their mana ridiculous.

For more than 130 years, Te Tiriti was consigned to the dustbin of history and declared a “nullity”. The New Zealand Parliament passed hundreds of laws that forcibly dispossessed hapū, breaking this covenant (as Māori saw it) or contract (as viewed by the Crown).

The tino rangatiratanga asserted in the 1835 document He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni and guaranteed in Te Tiriti o Waitangi was ignored by the settler governments and their offspring until the late 20th century.

Then, in the late 1980s, Justice Robin Cooke wrote at the end of the “Lands case” that the New Zealand government “had not treated with its partner in good faith” and instructed the Crown to “act in good faith” in the future.

It’s possible that most New Zealanders do not understand that the descendants of the early settlers were considered “the British” until after World War Two, and that in legal documents, including Te Tiriti, the term “New Zealanders” was the name given to the Indigenous people of these islands — that is, hapū Māori.

It’s also possible that New Zealanders don’t know that the courts in our land, when considering Treaty claims, are required to use both the reo Māori text and the English text when making their decisions, which means they are given the impossible task of trying to reconcile two conflicting documents which cannot be reconciled.

Justice Robin Cooke tried to rectify this issue by writing what he considered to be the Treaty Principles, which was his compromise when trying to reconcile these two different documents. This gave us what became known as the “three P’s”: Partnership, Protection and Participation. This compromise was his attempt to ensure that the disenfranchisement and marginalisation of whānau and hapū would end.

Of course, those of us who’ve studied and taught Te Tiriti o Waitangi and who are not constrained by a colonised worldview, who have listened carefully over the years to many Māori voices, know that there is one “P” that is glaringly obvious from these principles, and that is at the heart of the matter: Power.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is very clear and surprisingly simple. When the rangatira signed Te Tiriti with Victoria and her representative, they offered to share this land with Victoria’s people. In Article 1, they offered “kāwanatanga”, which would allow the British to appoint a governor to sit among the chiefs. This right would ensure the safety and rights of settlers.

This wasn’t what the British had in mind, because, as was their usual practice, they expected native peoples to agree to be annexed by Britain.

This Article 1 right is the Treaty right that those of us who do not whakapapa to whānau or hapū were given when Te Tiriti was signed. This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with sharing this place and making sure that subsequent arrivals are protected and governed by the Queen’s representative.

Her Governor would sit among all the other chiefs when they had their annual whakaminenga (gathering) at Waitangi. It was also seen as a solution to the unruliness of single men arriving in the Bay of Islands, who wouldn’t abide by the law of the land as determined by the hapū, and which had given rise to Kororareka (Russell) being known as “the hellhole of the Pacific”.

Article 2 of Te Tiriti guaranteed the existing ancestral rights belonging to the Indigenous peoples of these South Pacific islands: tino rangatiratanga, their paramount and ultimate authority over their lands, villages and everything else that is held precious.

Tino rangatiratanga was not given as a Treaty right. Article 2 acknowledges that this exists and will not be negated by any agreement with the British Crown. This article also stipulates that sales of land can only be conducted with a representative appointed by the Crown, and the price must be agreed to by both the seller and buyer. This reflects a belief by the chiefs that the Crown would act with “honour” and would protect hapū from greedy and unscrupulous land-grabbers and settlers.

Article 3 guaranteed that the Queen would care for all the Māori people of New Zealand and ensure that they had the same access to the laws and customs as the British people.

This was a guarantee for Māori that their agreement in Article 1 to allow a British Governor to be placed here for the protection of newcomers would not result in Māori becoming slaves — something that had happened to Indigenous people in other places that Britain had colonised.

Article 4, included in the Māori text but not in the English draft, was the promise by Hobson that the Governor would allow and protect freedom of all religions. This is possibly the first international document that enshrines freedom of religion.

This document, initially signed on February 6, 1840, had huge mana. It was signed by rangatiratanga using the tāmoko they wore, and unlike the English draft was also signed by Hobson, representing the British Crown.

Te Tiriti gave us Pākehā and other tauiwi the right to come here and settle and to have a governor to protect our rights. It was supposed to be the guarantee by the British that whānau and hapū would not suffer or be disadvantaged in any way by allowing “Victoria’s people” to come here and live among them.

In 1846, Governor Grey abolished the Protectorate Department, which was responsible for protecting Māori rights, and in 1852, 12 years after Te Tiriti was signed, the Constitution Act established a parliament of settlers consisting of British men with land (mostly under the age of 40) to establish control, to set up government, and to set about passing laws that stripped Māori of land, enabled the invasion of lands, war and confiscations. All to satisfy the demands of thousands of settlers fleeing from the hardships, famine, slums and deprivation of industrial Britain.

Te Tiriti was lost and then “nullified” by a judge from Southland, and settler domination and priorities were given the “dignity” of parliament.

That this “dignity” rests on a structure introduced less than 200 years ago, where members are required to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch who has no power but plenty of wealth derived from colonisation and slavery, is as ridiculous as it sounds.

Now members of this parliament are seeking to sideline the principles as articulated by the courts. These established principles, even though a poor compromise to Te Tiriti, are being attacked because they say it makes tauiwi unequal to Māori and we should all be the same.

I’m sure Māori would agree that they have always hoped to be treated the same as the newcomers and their descendants. Such as when their men in the 28th Māori Battalion received nothing for their service during World War Two. Or when Māori were paid half of the benefit when Seddon introduced support for the unemployed. Or when the hundreds of laws attacking Māori rights have been passed by parliament.

Now, this current coalition government, cobbled together after the 2023 election, has used urgency with little or no select committee process in an attempt to roll back any progress for tangata whenua that might contribute towards restoring the balance and bringing the hopes and promises of Te Tiriti to life, so there can be a better future for all who call Aotearoa home.

These new “principles” being pushed by a party representing only 8 percent of New Zealand voters are just another attack on Te Tiriti. They seek to remove the last protections we have as citizens against the neoliberal agenda that saw so much of the “commonwealth” of our country destroyed, and assets sold off to the highest bidder.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the only protection we have, as citizens, against the rapacious greed of international corporations and the billionaire class.

Tangata whenua, whānau, hapū and iwi are not going anywhere, nor will they sell up and move on. Their collective ancestral right to tino rangatiratanga is a safeguard for all our peoples.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi has huge mana. The Treaty principles, those already existing and those being proposed, have none.

Toitū Te Tiriti.

Suzanne Menzies-Culling: The Treaty principles bill “seeks to remove any Indigenous rights from the descendants of hapū, using the sacred cow of Westminster democracy introduced to these islands in 1852.” (Photo supplied)

Suzanne Menzies-Culling is the director of Tauiwi Solutions, which provides decolonisation and Treaty of Waitangi workshops for Pākehā and other tauiwi. She has worked in this field for more than 30 years. Suzanne is a mother and grandmother who was born and bred in Ōtepoti (Dunedin), where she still lives. Her ancestors hail from Ireland, England, Scotland, Antigua, and Guernsey.

• See also Hana’s haka shows up the House.

E-Tangata, 2024