John Murrie, an aviation lecturer who has submitted on the principles bill, pictured with his three children. (Photo supplied)

Submissions on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill are open, with those in te ao Māori’s legal and political arms urging opposition to the “false picture” it presents of Te Tiriti.

Submissions on the bill can cover any area of concern for the writer, in whatever style they like. In fact, submitters are advised to avoid template responses and simply write in their own words what they feel most deeply.

Here are a few submissions that have already been made.

John Murrie (Ngāti Kahungunu, Ngāti Apa) — Aviation Lecturer, Massey University. 

Submission excerpt:

“The bill represents an unacceptable risk of future privatisation of public assets against the wishes and best interests of the New Zealand public both Māori and non-Māori.

The 1987 Lands Case ruled that the sale of state or public assets under the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 was illegal where such sales contravened Te Tiriti. The court highlighted the problem of the state selling land and other assets that had been acquired illegally and where those assets were subject to outstanding claims before the Waitangi Tribunal. Since that case, a significant number of statutes as well as local and regional regulations have enshrined Te Tiriti at every level of New Zealand’s legislative system.

The overall intent of those clauses is to give voice to Te Tiriti by acknowledging the Crown’s, and by extension the government’s, obligations to Māori.

Outside of its impact on Māori and race relations in Aotearoa, a significant long-term consequence of this bill will be the removal of one of the most important protections the New Zealand public have to the unwanted and harmful privatisation of state assets, resources and public services by current and future governments.

Assets such as National Parks, the national road and rail network, public hospitals and schools exist thanks to the contributions of generations of New Zealand taxpayers, and they are rightly considered a birthright that belongs to all current and future generations.

The inclusion of Te Tiriti in our legislative framework plays a critical role in limiting and preventing a government’s pursuit of a privatisation agenda.

I believe strongly that one of the long-term objectives of this bill, particularly given its origins in a party (Act) whose founder was the originator of state asset sales in the 1980s, is to open the door to future privatisation of state assets.

That future action would be made possible not only by the bill’s gross misinterpretation of the meaning and intent of Te Tiriti but by parallel attempts to remove references to Te Tiriti from our existing legislation.

We have seen historically that the privatisation process is pursued even when it goes against the wishes and long-term best interests of the New Zealand public. For this reason, the passage of this bill represents an unacceptable risk and danger to current and future generations of Māori and non-Māori New Zealanders’ access to and ownership of public land, assets and services and should be opposed.

Finally, as a New Zealander of mixed Māori and European heritage, I regard this bill and the policy and ideological positions it supports to be incredibly harmful and hurtful to myself, my mokopuna and other Māori.

I remember full well growing up in 1970s and 1980s New Zealand as the adopted child of Pākehā parents. At that time, I had no knowledge of Te Tiriti, tikanga, te reo Māori or the true unabashed history of this country as it related to my Māori ancestors.

These things were not taught in schools, were not advertised and not a part of regular public discourse. I was taught by the attitudes, words and actions of my Pākehā neighbours, adopted relatives, social commentators, the media, art and entertainment industry, police and politicians of that time that being Māori was something to be ashamed of, something to hide, and at times something to actively hate.

We now live in an Aotearoa where my children, and I, can be openly proud of our Māori heritage. We can celebrate tikanga, get to see and hear positive Māori role-models across every part of our socio-cultural fabric and te reo Māori is now commonplace in public and private spaces.

Unlike me, my children do not have to feel ashamed or afraid to be Māori and they feel no compunction to hide their Māori ancestry. Although they, and all Māori, continue to experience societal backlash when they take being Māori “too far”, and act as Māori in ways the dominant Pākehā culture does not deem acceptable.

The response of many politicians to Te Pāti Māori’s parliamentary haka is a telling example of how Māori are consistently told we can be Māori — but only in a way that Pākehā find acceptable.

As a result of this bill, I have heard my own children (aged 12, 15, 17) express anger, concern and fear at the words, rhetoric and symbolism of the bill’s architects, its supporters and the current government.

My eldest in particular has been horrified at the language of supporters of the bill on the social media accounts of the responsible political party — language that this party does little to nothing to dissuade, discourage or disassociate itself from.

And when my youngest daughter at 12 begins to question whether she should be openly Māori, I am reminded strongly that the attitudes of far too many Pākehā in Aotearoa are the same as those I experienced in the 1970s and 1980s.

Te Tiriti was signed to recognise and begin a partnership between Māori and non-Māori. It is a foundational document that if honoured will only benefit all New Zealanders.

This bill serves only to divide.”

Joris de Bres (Supplied)

Joris de Bres — Former Race Relations Commissioner.

Full submission

“I served as New Zealand’s Race Relations Commissioner for two terms (10 1/2 years) from 2002-2013. During that time and since I have never seen a government bill which is so damaging to our race relations and so comprehensively inimical to the human rights of Indigenous people.

It is overwhelmingly opposed by members of parliament, including the vast majority of government members. It has caused an outcry from Māori, the largest ever political protest demonstration at parliament, and condemnation by past and present leaders from both sides of the political spectrum.

It has proceeded against the advice of the Ministry of Justice and the Waitangi Tribunal. It is in breach of the Treaty itself and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is dead in the water but while it remains in parliament it continues to do harm.

I urge the Select Committee to return the bill without alteration to the house as quickly as possible with a recommendation that it not proceed.”

Kaila Colbin (Photo: Stephanie Defregger)

Kaila Colbin — Founder and CEO of Boma.

Full submission

“I stand opposed to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill.

The stated purpose of the bill is to “build consensus about the Treaty/Te Tiriti and our constitutional arrangements that will promote greater legitimacy and social cohesion.” However, it is impossible to build consensus around a relationship between two parties when one party is trying to define the nature of the relationship by itself, without engaging with the other. Social cohesion cannot arise from the unilateral redefining of a relationship.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is widely accepted as the founding document of Aotearoa New Zealand, and the relationship between Māori and the Crown is the founding relationship of the nation. Not only is it reasonable and just for Māori to have a particular status in this country, it is what the Crown committed to in signing the Treaty. Because of this history and legal obligation, Māori enjoy a unique position in Aotearoa. As tangata Tiriti, I am not made less because of the unique position of Māori. I understand myself to live in a nation that was founded with a bicultural context, and to enjoy its benefits.

Te ao Māori is a rare thing Aotearoa New Zealand has that is truly unique. Other countries have landscapes and sheep. Embracing the unique relationship between the Crown and tangata whenua uplifts us all.

The bill suggests that unique rights of iwi and hapū will only be protected if these are set out in a historical Treaty settlement. This would unilaterally redefine those rights as they appear in multiple other Acts of Parliament, undermining protections that are already in place and breaching Te Tiriti.

When it comes to particular challenges Māori face, it’s important to understand that many explicit historical decisions, such as the Native Schools Act 1867 or the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863, deliberately suppressed Māori language and culture, confiscated land, disrupted social structures, and removed opportunity for Māori. The current overrepresentation of Māori in incarceration rates, home ownership rates, negative health statistics, and material hardship is a direct outcome of these decisions.

It may seem reasonable to think it isn’t fair for anything in our government to be particularly or exclusively designed to support Māori. But many laws are made that support specific groups, for many valid reasons. A flourishing society will include people with different needs and challenges. Flourishing societies understand how to balance individual freedom, drive and achievement with support for the rights of all persons.

It may seem reasonable to state that the New Zealand Parliament has the power to make laws that are in the best interests of everyone. But the text’s reasonableness hides the danger in its interpretation — a danger that was also reflected in the Act Party’s misleading slogan “End division by race.”

Te Tiriti is not about division by race. It is about a relationship between two peoples. Two peoples committed to this relationship, and one party does not get to redefine it on its own.

If David Seymour and the Act Party were truly serious about unity, they would be willing to do the hard work of actually engaging with Māori to gain greater clarity on the application of Te Tiriti to legislation.

Relationships are difficult — but that doesn’t give the Crown the right to decide on its own what the relationship means.”

Dayle Takitimu is one of the signatories of the submission from Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission. (Photo: Nikau Hindin)

Te Kāhui Tika Tangata Human Rights Commission

Submission excerpt

“While the Commission has a number of reasons to oppose the bill, our chief concerns are summarised as follows:

1. That the government has unilaterally developed legislation that directly and significantly affects its Tiriti partners, undermining the obligations that were jointly agreed, without meaningfully engaging with them, and in the face of strong opposition being voiced by Māori communities.
2. That the interpretation of Te Tiriti being advanced is flawed and ignores critical issues of historical context, language, and treaty interpretation, and the substantial body of jurisprudence that has been developed over decades by the courts and Waitangi Tribunal. It also ignores the Tribunal’s direct findings and clear advice, that it will breach multiple Tiriti obligations, amount to “the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty / Te Tiriti in modern times, and if not repealed could mean the end of the Treaty/Te Tiriti”. The interpretation being put forward under the bill departs further from the rights and obligations agreed under Te Tiriti than has ever been the case, flouting the unequivocal directions of the expert judicial body with the statutory mandate to interpret Te Tiriti.
3. Furthermore, the bill’s selective focus on some rights, while actively overriding others, most particularly the rights of Indigenous peoples that are fundamental to Te Tiriti, is an unhelpful and erroneous approach to human rights. This approach will undermine human rights, rather than advance them.
4. That even if the bill does not proceed beyond select committee to become law, progressing a bill that is based on and promotes such flawed interpretations and information, will not help to advance a constructive national conversation on these important issues, but rather is likely to foster misinformation, anti-Māori rhetoric and risks undermining the rights of Māori and Te Tiriti itself. A referendum would be similarly, if not more, divisive.
5. That proceeding in this manner contravenes international human rights standards, as set out most comprehensively in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (the Declaration) and elaborated on in other international human rights instruments.
6. That in proceeding with the bill, the government is unduly prioritising agreements between political parties over respecting, protecting, and upholding its obligations contained in Te Tiriti and New Zealand’s human rights commitments.”

The full submission can be read here.

If you’d like to make a submission to the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill but need some help, Kāhui Legal is running a free one-hour workshop tonight, Sunday 1 December at 6pm. They will walk participants through the submission writing process from start to finish, and you will be able to send your submission by the end of the workshop.