World
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?
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.
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.

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”.
“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.
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”.
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.

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”.
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.
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.
“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.
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.

World
South Korea, World’s Largest ‘Baby Exporter,’ Admits to Adoption Fraud

South Korea on Wednesday admitted for the first time that in its rush to send children to American and European homes decades ago, its adoption agencies committed widespread malpractices, including falsifying documents, to make them more adoptable.
The findings by South Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a government agency, which said children were sent away “like luggage” for profit decades ago, were a hard-won victory for South Korean adoptees abroad. Many adoptees have returned to their birth country in recent years, campaigning tirelessly for South Korea to come to terms with one of the most shameful legacies of its modern history.
Adoption agencies falsified documents to present babies as orphans when they had known parents, the commission acknowledged. When some babies died before they were flown overseas, other babies were sent in their names. The heads of four private adoption agencies were given the power to become legal guardians for the children, signing them away for overseas adoption.
The commission’s report was the government’s first official admission of problems with the country’s adoption practices, including the lack of oversight, even though such malpractice had been exposed in the past. The agency recommended that the state apologize for violating the rights of South Korean adoptees.
South Korea is the source of the world’s largest diaspora of intercountry adoptees, with around 200,000 South Korean children sent abroad since the end of the Korean War in 1953, mostly to the United States and Europe.
In its destitute postwar decades, South Korea promoted overseas adoptions to find homes for orphaned, abandoned or disabled children abroad rather than build a welfare system for them at home. The government left it to the adoption agencies to find and ship children abroad for fees from adoptive families.
“Numerous legal and policy shortcomings emerged,” said Sun-young Park, the chairwoman of the commission. “These violations should never have occurred.”
The findings carry repercussions beyond South Korea, as several receiving countries — including Norway and Denmark — have opened investigations into their international adoptions. The United States, which has received more children from South Korea than any other country, has not done so.
“This is a moment we have fought to achieve: the commission’s decision acknowledges what we adoptees have known for so long — that the deceit, fraud, and issues within the Korean adoption process cannot remain hidden,” said Peter Moller, a South Korean adoptee from Denmark who led an international campaign for the commission to launch an investigation.
The commission identified many cases where the identities and family information of children were “lost, falsified or fabricated” and where children were sent abroad without legal consent.
It cited the case of a baby girl it identified only by her last name, Chang, who was born in Seoul in 1974. Her adoption agency in Seoul knew her mother’s identity. But in the documents it sent to her adoptive family in Denmark, the agency said the girl came from an orphanage.
That agency, Korea Social Service, charged a $1,500 adoption fee, as well as a $400 donation, per child from adoptive families in 1988, the commission said. (South Korea’s per-capita national income that year was $4,571.) Some of these funds were in turn used to secure more children, turning intercountry adoptions into “a profit-driven industry,” the commission said.
South Korea’s export of babies peaked in the 1980s, with as many as 8,837 children shipped abroad in 1985. Children were “sent abroad like luggage,” the commission said, presenting a photo that showed rows of infants and young children strapped to airplane seats.
“While this is not news to us adoptees, it is a significant victory in the sense that we are finally receiving acknowledgment of what has happened to us over the years,” said Anja Pedersen, who was sent to Denmark in 1976 under the name of another girl, who had died while waiting for adoption.
The truth commission does not have the power to prosecute any of the adoption agencies, but the government is required by law to follow its recommendations.
The adoption agencies did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Since the commission launched its investigation in late 2022, some 367 overseas adoptees have asked it to investigate their cases, a majority of them from Denmark. On Wednesday, the commission recognized 56 of them as victims of human rights violations. It was still investigating the other cases.
Mia Lee Sorensen, a South Korean adoptee who was sent to Denmark in 1987, said the commission’s findings provided the “validation” that she had been seeking. When she found her birth parents in South Korea in 2022, they couldn’t believe she was alive. They told her that her mother had passed out during labor and that when she woke up, the clinic told her that the baby had died.
Those whose cases weren’t recognized among the victims on Wednesday expressed hope that the commission would be extended to carry out more investigations.
Mary Bowers, who was adopted by a family in Colorado in 1982, was still waiting for answers to many inconsistencies in her adoption papers.
“This is only the beginning,” Ms. Bowers said.
World
Houthis claim responsibility for strikes against US ships: report

Houthi militants in Yemen are claiming responsibility for recent attacks against U.S. warships in the Red Sea.
The terror group claimed in a statement published by the Jerusalem Post Tuesday that they had attacked the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and several U.S. warships in the Red Sea.
Early on Wednesday, the Houthis said they had targeted a U.S. vessel and Israeli military locations using drones.
Fox News Digital has reached out to the Department of Defense for comment.
TRUMP’S SIGHTS SET ON IRAN AFTER US AIRSTRIKES DECIMATE MORE THAN 30 HOUTHI TARGETS
The Houthis in Yemen claimed responsibility for alleged recent attacks against U.S. warships. (Gerard Bottino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
The Houthis had claimed earlier this month that they had attacked the Truman and its warship in response to U.S. attacks on Yemen, but offered no evidence to support their claim of retaliation.
The U.S. military had shot down several Houthi drones a short time before the group’s claim.
This comes after several Trump administration officials discussed plans for a forthcoming military strike against the Houthis in a group chat on the encrypted messaging service Signal in which they mistakenly added Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor-in-chief of The Atlantic, who said he received a request to join the group on March 11 from what appeared to be the president’s National Security Advisor Michael Waltz.
The group, called “Houthi PC Small Group,” featured top Trump officials discussing what turned out to be an upcoming attack on the Houthis, as many are criticizing the group chat as a massive breach of national security and note that senior officials are not supposed to discuss detailed military plans outside special secure facilities or protected government communications networks.
TRUMP OFFICIALS ACCIDENTALLY TEXT ATLANTIC JOURNALIST ABOUT MILITARY STRIKES IN APPARENT SECURITY BREACH

The Houthis claimed they had attacked the USS Harry S. Truman aircraft carrier and several U.S. warships in the Red Sea. (Gerard Bottino/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Goldberg reported that 18 people were listed in the group, including Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles.
The article noted that officials were discussing “war plans,” and Goldberg said he elected not to publish some of the highly sensitive information he saw in the Signal chat, including precise information about weapons packages, targets and timing, because of potential threats to national security and military operations.
The editor also said that Ratcliffe put the name of a CIA undercover agent into the Signal chat.

The Houthis said they had targeted a U.S. vessel and Israeli military locations using drones. (AP)
The White House has confirmed that the group chat “appears to be authentic,” although administration officials, including Hegseth, have sought to downplay concerns and discredit Goldberg as a reporter.
“I’ve heard how it was characterized. Nobody was texting war plans, and that’s all I have to say about that,” Hegseth said Monday.
Hegseth criticized Goldberg as “a deceitful and highly discredited, so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again, to include the, I don’t know, the hoaxes of Russia, Russia, Russia, or the fine people on both sides hoax or suckers and losers hoax. So this guy is garbage.”
World
No, Norway and Sweden haven't banned digital transactions

The claims appear to have sprung from reports that the Nordic countries have started advising citizens to keep a supply of cash at home in the case of a digital banking crisis.
A false narrative spreading online claims that Norway and Sweden are doing away with e-money and are returning to a fully cash-based society.
For example, one post circulating on social media says the countries are now going back to paying in cash because they’ve supposedly realised that it’s the most secure payment method, as digital accounts allow the authorities to block your transactions.
Another popular post says that Sweden is going back to cash because digital payments are potentially a threat to national security.
However, these claims aren’t accurate.
They appear to have their origins in news reports over the past few months that both countries are putting the brakes on their plans to become cashless societies, apparently over fears that fully digital payment systems could leave their financial and state institutions vulnerable to Russian cyber attacks.
For example, The Guardian recently reported that despite the Nordic countries’ ambitions to reduce their reliance on cash, they are now starting to see electronic banking as a potential threat to national security.
An image or link to this report is often shared by social media users alongside a claim that the countries are getting rid of e-money altogether.
As things stand, Norway and Sweden have the lowest amount of cash in circulation as a percentage of GDP in the world, according to recent figures from Sveriges Riksbank, the central bank in Stockholm.
Fellow Nordic country Denmark also ranks quite low, as does the UK, while the eurozone as a whole still has significantly more cash in circulation.
But now, Sweden is encouraging citizens to use cash regularly through a variety of different measures.
Over the past few months, the defence ministry released a brochure entitled “If Crisis of War Comes” in which it advised people to keep a week’s supply of cash at home to remain prepared.
Sveriges Riksbank also said that the country needs to make sure that no one is excluded and that everyone is able to pay in the event of a large-scale crisis or war.
Norway meanwhile recently brought in legislation that fines retailers if they don’t accept cash, and also advised people to keep some cash on hand in case digital payment systems are attacked.
Nevertheless, Sveriges Riksbank told EuroVerify it’s not abandoning digital payments, and that it’s continuing with its plans to bring in an “e-krona” — a digital version of Sweden’s national currency.
Norges Bank, Norway’s central lender, also fully denied the claims that the country wants to move away from an electronic payment system and back to cash.
“Increased use of electronic payment methods has brought great benefits to society as a whole, banks, and their customers,” a spokesperson for the central bank said. “However, there is still a need for cash. Cash is not an end in itself, but has properties and functions that other payment methods and instruments do not have, and which are important to ensure an efficient and secure payment system.”
There’s no evidence that either country is trying to phase out e-money and return to a 100% cash-based society.
The misleading narrative online appears to feed into fears of digital currencies, in particular the digital euro envisaged by the European Central Bank (ECB).
Opponents of the digital euro say it could damage privacy, financial control and security, and even fully supplant cash.
For example, they say that every transaction could be monitored by central authorities, leading to financial surveillance, and that the government would have more control over the currency, opening up the possibility of currency manipulation.
It’s also been suggested that the elderly or those in rural areas could lose out, as they wouldn’t have the same access to digital services as those in more urban areas.
However, the ECB and its president, Christine Lagarde, have repeatedly said that a digital euro would complement cash, not replace it, and that it would be safe, make payments more efficient, and be easy for all to use.
“The use of cash to make payments is declining and the shift towards online shopping and digital payments is accelerating,” the ECB says. “The digital euro would be an electronic form of cash for the digitalised world. It would give consumers the option to use central bank money in a digital format, complementing banknotes and coins.”
“Like cash, the digital euro would be risk-free, widely accessible, user-friendly and free for basic use,” it continues. “Moreover, the digital euro would strengthen the strategic autonomy and monetary sovereignty of the euro area by boosting the efficiency of the European payments ecosystem as a whole, fostering innovation and increasing its resilience to potential cyberattacks or technical disruptions, such as power outages.”
-
News1 week ago
Trump Administration Ends Tracking of Kidnapped Ukrainian Children in Russia
-
News1 week ago
Vance to Lead G.O.P. Fund-Raising, an Apparent First for a Vice President
-
Business1 week ago
Egg Prices Have Dropped, Though You May Not Have Noticed
-
Technology1 week ago
The head of a Biden program that could help rural broadband has left
-
Technology1 week ago
Dude Perfect and Mark Rober may be the next YouTubers to get big streaming deals
-
World7 days ago
Commission warns Alphabet and Apple they're breaking EU digital rules
-
News7 days ago
Trump’s Ending of Hunter Biden’s Security Detail Raises Questions About Who Gets Protection
-
News1 week ago
U.S. to Withdraw From Group Investigating Responsibility for Ukraine Invasion