Connect with us

World

Why are New Zealand’s Maori protesting over colonial-era treaty bill?

Published

on

Why are New Zealand’s Maori protesting over colonial-era treaty bill?

A fight for Maori rights drew 42,000 protesters to the New Zealand Parliament in the capital Wellington on Tuesday.

A nine-day-long hikoi, or peaceful march – a tradition of the Maori – was undertaken in protest against a bill that seeks to reinterpret the country’s 184-year-old founding Treaty of Waitangi, which was signed between British colonisers and the Indigenous Maori people.

Some had also been peacefully demonstrating outside the Parliament building for nine days before the protest concluded on Tuesday.

On November 14, the controversial Treaty Principles Bill was introduced in Parliament for a preliminary vote. Maori parliamentarians staged a haka (a Maori ceremonial dance) to disrupt the vote, temporarily halting parliamentary proceedings.

So, what was the Treaty of Waitangi, what are the proposals for altering it, and why has it become a flashpoint for protests in New Zealand?

Advertisement
Thousands of marchers protesting government policies that affect the Māori cross the Auckland Harbour Bridge on day three of a nine-day journey to Wellington on November 13, 2024 in Auckland, New Zealand [Phil Walter/Getty Images]

Who are the Maori?

The Maori people are the original residents of the two large islands now known as New Zealand, having lived there for several centuries.

The Maori came to the uninhabited islands of New Zealand from East Polynesia on canoe voyages in the 1300s. Over hundreds of years of isolation, they developed their own distinct culture and language. Maori people speak te reo Maori and have different tribes, or iwi, spread throughout the country.

The two islands were originally called Aotearoa by the Maori. The name New Zealand was given to Aotearoa by British colonisers who took control under the treaty in 1840.

New Zealand became independent from the United Kingdom in 1947. However, this was after Maori people had suffered mass killings, land grabs and cultural erasure over more than 100 years at the hands of colonial settlers.

Advertisement

There are currently 978,246 Maori in New Zealand, constituting around 19 percent of the country’s population of 5.3 million. They are represented by Te Pati Maori, or the Maori Party, which currently holds six of the 123 seats in Parliament.

INTERACTIVE - New Zealand Indigenous Maori-1732000986
(Al Jazeera)

What was the Treaty of Waitangi?

On February 6, 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi, also called Te Tiriti o Waitangi or just Te Tiriti, was signed between the British Crown and around 500 Maori chiefs, or rangatira. The treaty was the founding document of New Zealand and officially made New Zealand a British colony.

While the treaty was presented as a measure to resolve differences between the Maori and the British, the English and te reo versions of the treaty actually feature some stark differences.

The te reo Maori version guarantees “rangatiratanga” to the Maori chiefs. This translates to “self-determination” and guarantees the Maori people the right to govern themselves.

However, the English translation says that the Maori chiefs “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty”, making no mention of self-rule for the Maori.

The English translation does guarantee the Maori “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries”.

Advertisement

“The English draft talks about the British settlers having full authority and control over Maori in the whole country,” Kassie Hartendorp, a Maori community organiser and director at community campaigning organisation ActionStation Aotearoa, told Al Jazeera.

Hartendorp explained that the te reo version includes the term “kawanatanga”, which in historical and linguistic context “gives British settlers the opportunity to set up their own government structure to govern their own people but they would not limit the sovereignty of Indigenous people”.

“We never ceded sovereignty, we never handed it over. We gave a generous invitation to new settlers to create their own government because they were unruly and lawless at the time,” said Hartendorp.

In the decades after 1840, however, 90 percent of Maori land was taken by the British Crown. Both versions of the treaty have been repeatedly breached and Maori people have continued to suffer injustice in New Zealand even after independence.

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent body to adjudicate treaty matters. The tribunal attempts to remedy treaty breaches and navigate differences between the treaty’s two texts.

Advertisement

Over time, billions of dollars have been negotiated in settlements over breaches of the treaty, particularly relating to the widespread seizure of Maori land.

However, other injustices have also occurred. Between 1950 and 2019, about 200,000 children, young people and vulnerable adults were subjected to physical and sexual abuse in state and church care, and a commission found Maori children were more vulnerable to the abuse than others.

On November 12 this year, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon issued an apology to these victims, but it was criticised by Maori survivors for being inadequate. One criticism was that the apology did not take the treaty into account. While the treaty’s principles are not set in stone and are flexible, it is a significant historical document that upholds Maori rights.

What does the Treaty Principles Bill propose?

The Treaty Principles Bill was introduced by Member of Parliament David Seymour of the libertarian ACT Party, a minor partner in New Zealand’s coalition government. Seymour himself is Maori. The party launched a public information campaign about the bill on February 7 this year.

The ACT Party asserts that the treaty has been misinterpreted over the decades and that this has led to the formation of a dual system for New Zealanders, where Maori and white New Zealanders have different political and legal rights. Seymour says that misinterpretations of the treaty’s meaning have effectively given Maori people special treatment. The bill calls for an end to “division by race”.

Advertisement

Seymour said that the principle of “ethnic quotas in public institutions”, for example, is contrary to the principle of equality.

The bill seeks to set specific definitions of the treaty’s principles, which are currently flexible and open to interpretation. These principles would then apply to all New Zealanders equally, whether they are Maori or not.

According to Together for Te Tiriti, an initiative led by ActionStation Aotearoa, the bill will allow the New Zealand government to govern all New Zealanders and consider all New Zealanders equal under the law. Activists say this will effectively disadvantage the Maori people because they have been historically oppressed.

Many, including the Waitangi Tribunal, say this will lead to the erosion of Maori rights. A statement by ActionStation Aotearoa says that the bill’s principles “do not at all reflect the meaning” of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Waitangi day
Maori warriors prepare to greet New Zealand government representatives including Prime Minister Christopher Luxon at Te Whare Runanga during a powhiri (welcoming ceremony) on February 5, 2024 in Waitangi, New Zealand. The Waitangi Day national holiday celebrates the signing of the treaty of Waitangi on February 6, 1840 by Maori chiefs and the British Crown [Fiona Goodall/Getty Images]

Why is the bill so controversial?

The bill is strongly opposed by political parties in New Zealand on both the left and the right, and Maori people have criticised it on the basis that it undermines the treaty and its interpretation.

Gideon Porter, a Maori journalist from New Zealand, told Al Jazeera that most Maori, as well as historians and legal experts, agree that the bill is an “attempt to redefine decades of exhaustive research and negotiated understandings of what constitute ‘principles’ of the treaty”.

Advertisement

Porter added that those critical of the bill believe “the ACT Party within this coalition government is taking upon itself to try and engineer things so that Parliament gets to act as judge, jury and executioner”.

In the eyes of most Maori, he said, the ACT Party is “simply hiding its racism behind a facade of ‘we are all New Zealanders with equal rights’ mantra”.

The Waitangi Tribunal released a report on August 16 saying that it found the bill “breached the Treaty principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, redress, and the … guarantee of rangatiratanga”.

Another report by the tribunal seen by The Guardian newspaper said: “If this bill were to be enacted, it would be the worst, most comprehensive breach of the Treaty … in modern times.”

What process must the bill go through now?

For a bill to become law in New Zealand, it must go through three rounds in Parliament: first when it is introduced, then when MPs suggest amendments and finally, when they vote on the amended bill. Since the total number of MPs is 123, at least 62 votes are needed for a bill to pass, David MacDonald, a political science professor at the University of Guelph in Canada, told Al Jazeera.

Advertisement

Besides the six Maori Party seats, the New Zealand Parliament includes 34 seats held by the New Zealand Labour Party; 14 seats held by the Green Party of Aotearoa; 49 seats held by the National Party; 11 seats held by the ACT Party; and eight seats held by the New Zealand First Party.

“The National Party leaders including the PM and other cabinet ministers and the leaders of the other coalition party [New Zealand] First have all said they won’t support the bill beyond the committee stage. It is highly unlikely that the bill will receive support from any party other than ACT,” MacDonald said.

When the bill was heard for its first round in Parliament this week, Maori party lawmaker Hana-Rawhiti Maipi-Clarke tore up her copy of the legislation and led the haka ceremonial dance.

Is the bill likely to pass?

The chances of the bill becoming law are “zero”, Porter said.

He said the ACT’s coalition partners have “adamantly promised” to vote down the bill in the next stage. Additionally, all the opposition parties will also vote against it.

Advertisement

“They only agreed to allow it to go this far as part of their ‘coalition agreement’ so they could govern,” Porter said.

New Zealand’s current coalition government was formed in November 2023 after an election that took place a month before. It comprises the National Party, ACT and New Zealand First.

While right-wing parties have not given a specific reason why they will oppose the bill, Hartendorp said New Zealand First and the New Zealand National Party would likely vote in line with public opinion, which largely opposes it.

Why are people protesting if the bill is doomed to fail?

The protests are not against the bill alone.

“This latest march is a protest against many coalition government anti-Maori initiatives,” Porter said.

Advertisement

Many believe that the conservative coalition government, which took office in November 2023, has taken measures to remove “race-based politics”. The Maori people are not happy with this and believe that it will undermine their rights.

These measures include removing a law that gave the Maori a say in environmental matters. The government also abolished the Maori Health Authority in February this year.

Despite the bill being highly likely to fail, many believe that just by allowing the bill to be tabled in Parliament, the coalition government has ignited dangerous social division.

For example, former conservative Prime Minister Jenny Shipley has said that just putting forth the bill is sowing division in New Zealand.

Advertisement

World

Somali minister says Israel plans to displace Palestinians to Somaliland

Published

on

Somali minister says Israel plans to displace Palestinians to Somaliland

Somalia’s minister of defence, Ahmed Moalim Fiqi, has accused Israel of planning to forcibly displace Palestinians to the breakaway region of Somaliland, denouncing the alleged plan as a “serious violation” of international law.

In an interview with Al Jazeera on Saturday, Fiqi called on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to withdraw his diplomatic recognition of the “separatist region”, calling the move announced late last year a “direct attack” on Somalia’s sovereignty.

Recommended Stories

list of 4 itemsend of list

“Israel has long had goals and plans to divide countries – maybe before 20 years – and it wants to divide the map of the Middle East and control its countries… this is why they found this separatist group in northwestern Somalia,” Fiqi told Al Jazeera.

“We have confirmed information that Israel has a plan to transfer Palestinians and to send them to [Somaliland],” he added, without elaborating.

Fiqi’s comments came amid a global outcry over Netanyahu’s decision in December to recognise Somaliland, a breakaway part of Somalia comprising the northwestern portion of what was once the British Protectorate.

Advertisement

The move made Israel the first country in the world to recognise Somaliland as an independent state and came months after The Associated Press news agency reported that Israeli officials had contacted parties in Somalia, Somaliland and Sudan to discuss using their territory for forcibly displacing Palestinians amid its genocidal war on Gaza.

Somalia denounced the Israeli move, with President Hassan Sheikh Mohamud telling Al Jazeera that Somaliland had accepted three conditions from Israel: The resettlement of Palestinians, the establishment of a military base on the coast of the Gulf of Aden, and joining the Abraham Accords to normalise ties with Israel.

Officials in Somaliland have denied agreeing to resettle Palestinians from Gaza, and say there have been no discussions on an Israeli military base in the area.

But Fiqi on Saturday reiterated that Israel “wants to create a military base to destabilise the region” on the Bab al-Mandeb Strait, which connects the Gulf of Aden to the Red Sea.

“I see it as an occupation to destabilise the area,” Fiqi added.

Advertisement

He also stressed that Israel has no legal right to grant legitimacy to a region within a sovereign state.

Somaliland first declared independence from Somalia in 1991, but it has failed to gain recognition from any United Nations member state since.

Israel’s world-first announcement triggered protests in Somalia and swift criticisms from dozens of countries and organisations, including Turkiye, Saudi Arabia and the African Union.

Fiqi told Al Jazeera that Israel’s move falls into a decades-long goal to control the Middle East and accused Israel of exploiting separatist movements in the region. Roughly half of the areas formerly known as Somaliland have declared their affiliation with Somalia over the past two years, he added.

The minister praised the countries that had condemned Israel and pledged that Somalia would lean on all diplomatic and legal means to reject Israel’s “violation”.

Advertisement

He also commended United States President Donald Trump’s administration for not recognising Somaliland.

Although the US was the only member of the 15-member United Nations Security Council that did not condemn Israel for the recognition on December 30, it said its position on Somaliland had not changed.

For its part, Somaliland’s governing party has defended its newfound relations with Israel after Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Gideon Saar travelled to Hargeisa, the region’s largest city and self-declared capital, earlier this week.

Hersi Ali Haji Hassan, chairman of the governing Waddani party, told Al Jazeera days later that Somaliland was “not in a position to choose” who provided it with legitimacy after decades of being spurned by the international community.

“We are in a state of necessity for official international recognition,” Hassan said. “There is no choice before us but to welcome any country that recognises our existential right.”

Advertisement

Hassan did not deny the prospect of a potential military base.

“We have started diplomatic relations… This topic [a military base] has not been touched upon now,” he said.

When pressed on whether Somaliland would accept such a request in the future, Hassan said only to “ask the question when the time comes”, calling the line of inquiry “untimely”.

Israeli think tanks say Somaliland’s location, at the gateway to the Red Sea and across from Yemen, make it a strategic site for operations against the Yemeni Houthi rebel group, which imposed a naval blockade on Israeli-linked shipping before the US-brokered ceasefire in Gaza.

The Institute for National Security Studies, in a November report, said Somaliland’s territory could “serve as a forward base” for intelligence monitoring of the Houthis and serve “a platform for direct operations” against them.

Advertisement

The Houthis said that any Israeli presence would be a target, a statement Somaliland’s former intelligence chief, Mostafa Hasan, said amounted to a declaration of war.

Continue Reading

World

Video: Owner of Swiss Bar Detained in Fire Investigation

Published

on

Video: Owner of Swiss Bar Detained in Fire Investigation

new video loaded: Owner of Swiss Bar Detained in Fire Investigation

Prosecutors in Switzerland ordered Jacques Moretti to be detained after investigators questioned him and his wife, Jessica Moretti. Officials are looking into whether negligence played a role in last week’s deadly fire at their bar, Le Constellation.

By Meg Felling

January 9, 2026

Continue Reading

World

Greenland leaders push back on Trump’s calls for US control of the island: ‘We don’t want to be Americans’

Published

on

Greenland leaders push back on Trump’s calls for US control of the island: ‘We don’t want to be Americans’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Greenland’s leadership is pushing back on President Donald Trump as he and his administration call for the U.S. to take control of the island. Several Trump administration officials have backed the president’s calls for a takeover of Greenland, with many citing national security reasons.

“We don’t want to be Americans, we don’t want to be Danes, we want to be Greenlanders,” Greenland Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen and four party leaders said in a statement Friday night, according to The Associated Press. Greenland, a self-governing Danish territory and a longtime U.S. ally, has repeatedly rejected Trump’s statements about U.S. acquiring the island.

Greenland’s party leaders reiterated that the island’s “future must be decided by the Greenlandic people.”

“As Greenlandic party leaders, we would like to emphasize once again our wish that the United States’ contempt for our country ends,” the statement said.

Advertisement

TRUMP SAYS US IS MAKING MOVES TO ACQUIRE GREENLAND ‘WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT’

Greenland has rejected the Trump administration’s push to take over the Danish territory. (Thomas Traasdahl/Ritzau Scanpix / AFP via Getty Images; Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Trump was asked about the push to acquire Greenland on Friday during a roundtable with oil executives. The president, who has maintained that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, said it was important for the country to make the move so it could beat its adversaries to the punch.

“We are going to do something on Greenland, whether they like it or not,” Trump said Friday. “Because if we don’t do it, Russia or China will take over Greenland, and we’re not going to have Russia or China as a neighbor.”

Trump hosted nearly two dozen oil executives at the White House on Friday to discuss investments in Venezuela after the historic capture of President Nicolás Maduro on Jan. 3.

Advertisement

“We don’t want to have Russia there,” Trump said of Venezuela on Friday when asked if the nation appears to be an ally to the U.S. “We don’t want to have China there. And, by the way, we don’t want Russia or China going to Greenland, which, if we don’t take Greenland, you can have Russia or China as your next-door neighbor. That’s not going to happen.” 

Trump said the U.S. is in control of Venezuela after the capture and extradition of Maduro. 

Nielsen has previously rejected comparisons between Greenland and Venezuela, saying that his island was looking to improve its relations with the U.S., according to Reuters.

A “Make America Go Away” baseball cap, distributed for free by Danish artist Jens Martin Skibsted, is arranged in Sisimiut, Greenland, on March 30, 2025. (Juliette Pavy/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

FROM CARACAS TO NUUK: MADURO RAID SPARKS FRESH TRUMP PUSH ON GREENLAND

Advertisement

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen said on Monday that Trump’s threats to annex Greenland could mean the end of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

“I also want to make it clear that if the U.S. chooses to attack another NATO country militarily, then everything stops. Including our NATO and thus the security that has been provided since the end of the Second World War,” Frederiksen told Danish broadcaster TV2.

That same day, Nielsen said in a statement posted on Facebook that Greenland was “not an object of superpower rhetoric.”

Greenland’s Prime Minister Jens-Frederik Nielsen stands next to Denmark’s Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen during a visit to the Danish Parliament in Copenhagen on April 28, 2025. (Liselotte Sabroe/Ritzau Scanpix/AFP via Getty Images)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller doubled down on Trump’s remarks, telling CNN in an interview on Monday that Greenland “should be part of the United States.”

CNN anchor Jake Tapper pressed Miller about whether the Trump administration could rule out military action against the Arctic island.

“The United States is the power of NATO. For the United States to secure the Arctic region, to protect and defend NATO and NATO interests, obviously Greenland should be part of the United States,” he said.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending