World

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

Published

1 year ago

November 19, 2024

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?

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.

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”.

“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.

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”.

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.

Click to comment

World

Why Netflix Hiked Prices, Explained in One Chart

Published

23 minutes ago

March 27, 2026

Press Room

Why Netflix Hiked Prices, Explained in One Chart

Why did Netflix just impose a price increase across U.S. plans? As the “KPop Demon Hunters” Oscar-winning hit song “Golden” says: “We’re goin’ up, up, up.”

It’s not rocket science. The formula is pretty simple: Invest in more content (Netflix is eyeing $20 billion in content cash spending in 2026, up 10%) to attract and retain streaming subscribers, and keep your profit margins ticking upward by increasing the retail price.

Under the new pricing, effective March 26 for new users and rolling out to current customers depending on their billing cycle, Netflix’s Standard plan (which has no ads and provides streaming on two devices simultaneously) is rising by $2, from $17.99 to $19.99/month. The ad-supported plan is going up a buck, from $7.99 to $8.99/month, and the top-tier Premium plan (no ads, streaming on up to four devices at once, Ultra HD and HDR) is increasing from $24.99 to $26.99/month..

But the question is: Why now?

First off, it would be difficult to imagine Netflix would have pulled this pricing lever — hiking fees for its approximately 86 million U.S. customers — if the deal to acquire Warner Bros. were still in play. That deal would have required approval by the Justice Department and other regulatory bodies, amid allegations by David Ellison’s Paramount Skydance (the winning bidder for Warner Bros. Discovery) that the combo of Netflix + HBO Max would create a monopolistic entity in the streaming biz.

Netflix strongly disputed that, asserting it would have had a roughly 21% share of the U.S. subscription-streaming market with the addition of HBO Max. However, the optics of a Netflix price hike as the WB deal was pending would be terrible, especially after co-CEO Ted Sarandos testified at a Senate hearing that “We will give consumers more content for less” through the Warner Bros. deal. (Sarandos meant Netflix would have bundled its service with HBO Max at a price discount.)

Without the need to worry about such appearances in the midst of a massive M&A deal, the reason Netflix feels confident in ratcheting up prices in its biggest market is illustrated by this chart from Wall Street analyst firm MoffettNathanson. It estimates revenue streamers generated in 2025 as a function of total number of hours viewed.

In a nutshell, it shows that Netflix delivers the best bang for the buck of this cohort — it pulls in 48 cents per hour viewed, lower than anyone else. That indicates Netflix not only has upside in ad revenue relative to the others but also that has room to raise its pricing from a competitive standpoint.

Even with the new price increases, Netflix will still have a sector-low revenue/hour viewed metric (call it in the 50-cents-per-hour range). As the MoffettNathanson analysts put it: “Netflix delivers significant value to its subscribers that has room to be better monetized over time.”

Note that all of Netflix’s competitors have also recently hiked prices. Disney+ and Hulu, HBO Max and NBCUniversal’s Peacock upped pricing last year, and Paramount+ raised prices in January. Next month, Amazon’s ad-free Prime Video tier (now called “Ultra”) is going up to $5/month.

And Netflix’s new pricing, while higher, keeps it roughly in line with the rest of the field. Indeed, its ad-supported tier remains cheaper than those from Disney+, Hulu, HBO Max and Peacock (and is now the same as Paramount+ with ads):

Netflix’s launch of the cheaper, ad-supported option, first introduced in November 2022, gave it an important tool to mitigate churn as it raises the price on its Standard (no ads) plans. Instead of presenting customers a take-it-or-leave-it price hike, Netflix can now steer those on the Standard package toward the lower-cost package with ads. In theory, the company is agnostic about which plan someone chooses: The ad revenue should make up the difference in subscription fees.

Netflix execs once swore they wouldn’t implement an advertising model, asserting that it’s a subpar user experience. But it’s clear people are willing to sit through ad breaks if it means paying less — and in the U.S., Netflix’s Standard With Ads plan is half the cost of the no-ads tier.

The streaming giant’s U.S. price increases reinforce its long-range strategy, according to MoffettNathanson’s Robert Fishman: It maintains a “wide gap between its highest and lowest tiers to simultaneously maximize monetization of its least price-sensitive subscribers while nudging more price-sensitive customers toward its still-nascent ad tier, driving engagement and, in turn, advertising revenue,” the analyst wrote in a research note Friday. “The result is a ‘best of both worlds’ approach that captures value across the full spectrum of its subscriber base and should drive even higher margins for the leading profitable streaming service.”

Will some Netflix customers cancel over the latest fee increases? Yes, of course. But the math indicates that overall, it will yield higher returns — letting the company dig an even wider moat against competitors.

Pictured top: Sadie Sink as Max Mayfield in Netflix’s “Stranger Things” Season 4

SEE ALSO: U.S. Household Spending on Streaming Video Services Remains Flat at $69 per Month, as 68% Now Pay for Ad-Supported Tiers

World

The race against time to destroy Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program heats up amid fresh strikes

Published

1 hour ago

March 27, 2026

Press Room

The race against time to destroy Iran’s illicit nuclear weapons program heats up amid fresh strikes

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The Iranian regime’s retention of key nuclear weapons facilities and its material for building atomic bombs — highly enriched uranium — has led to new efforts by the U.S. and Israeli militaries to take out the last vestiges of the regime’s program.

On Friday, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) said in a statement that, that it’s “Air Force Struck the Arak Heavy Water Plant—A Key Plutonium Production Site for Nuclear Weapons.” The Arak plant is located in central Iran.

Prior to Friday’s attack, an IDF spokesperson told Fox News Digital concerning Arak, that there is a “high estimation” that attacks on “uranium enrichment sites are part of the plan.” The IDF declined to answer more specific questions about its target list and if any ground operations to retrieve the nuclear weapons-grade uranium were being considered.

NEXT MOVE ON IRAN: SEIZE KHARG ISLAND, SECURE URANIUM OR RISK GROUND WAR ESCALATION

An IDF infographic shows Iran’s Arak heavy water plant, described as a key infrastructure for plutonium production. (IDF)

Reuters, quoting regime media outlet Fars, reported that joint U.S.-Israeli strikes on Friday hit the Khondab heavy water research reactor.

A statement released by the IDF said, “Heavy water is a unique material used to operate nuclear reactors, such as the inactive Arak reactor, which was originally designed to have weapons-grade plutonium production capabilities. These materials can also be used as a neutron source for nuclear weapons.”

The IDF statement added that “The plant was a significant economic asset for the terror regime and served as a source of income for the Iranian Atomic Energy Organization, generating tens of millions of dollars for the regime each year.”

The regime’s foreign minister posted a condemnation of Israel and warned the Jewish state, “Iran will exact HEAVY price for Israeli crimes.”

According to an article published by the Washington, D.C.-based Institute for Science and International Security (ISIS), “The IR-40 Arak, aka Khondab, Heavy Water Reactor and Heavy Water Production Plant date to the early 2000s… The reactor core design was ideal for making substantial amounts of weapon-grade plutonium for nuclear weapons.”

STRIKES MAY SET IRAN BACK — BUT LIKELY WON’T END NUCLEAR PROGRAM, UN WATCHDOG CHIEF SAYS

Jason Brodsky, the policy director of United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI), told Fox News Digital, “The one nuclear site which hasn’t been hit to date has been Pickaxe Mountain, so striking that site as part of Operation Epic Fury will be important to further degrade the Iranian nuclear program.”

A White House spokesperson referred Fox News Digital to President Trump’s cabinet meeting comments about Iran’s nuclear weapons program. Trump said on Thursday, “We’re free to roam over their cities and towns and destroy all of their crazy nuclear weapons and missiles and drones that they’re building.”

A map shows damage to Iran’s Fordow nuclear site after being struck by the United States in Operation Midnight Hammer on June 22, 2025. (Fox News)

David Albright, a physicist, founder and president of the Institute for Science and International Security told Fox News Digital that with respect to key nuclear weapons facilities that remain, “The elephants in the tent are Natanz and Isfahan. There was an attack on Natanz that the Iranians revealed, but the Israelis said we are not aware of an attack. So it must have been the U.S.,” he claimed.

TRUMP SAYS US, ISRAEL SHATTERED IRANIAN MILITARY CAPABILITIES, PRESSES LEADERS TO SURRENDER: ‘CRY UNCLE’

He said that Natanz has enriched uranium. “The Iranians were doing recovery operations in the underground fuel enrichment plant there and continuing to build this pickaxe mountain tunnel complex, which could hold enriched uranium. Right next to it is another tunnel complex that was built much earlier, around 2007… And the Iranians sealed it up, fortified it. There is something obviously important there.”

Albright said U.S. and Israeli airstrikes “have not attacked the underground Isfahan site. We know, according to the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], highly enriched uranium is in that site.” He continued that, “There may be an enrichment plant under construction in that underground complex. We would like that site to be attacked.”

Iranian worshippers hold up their hands as signs of unity with Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during an anti-Israeli rally to condemn Israel’s attacks on Iran, in downtown Tehran, Iran, on June 20, 2025. (Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)

Albright warned that the war should not end like the previous U.S.-Israel war with Iran in 2025 with Tehran retaining the “crown jewels” of its atomic weapons program: highly enriched uranium and a number of centrifuges.

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

He warned, “You don’t want it to come out of this war with the same kind of nuclear weapons capabilities that it had at the end of June war with a higher incentive to build a bomb.” He added, that is why it’s so important “to finish the job,” in Iran.

Benjamin Weinthal reports on Israel, Iran, Syria, Turkey and Europe. You can follow Benjamin on Twitter @BenWeinthal, and email him at benjamin.weinthal@fox.com

World

US diplomat Marco Rubio denounces settler violence, tolls in Hormuz strait

Published

3 hours ago

March 27, 2026

Press Room

US diplomat Marco Rubio denounces settler violence, tolls in Hormuz strait

United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio has offered wide-ranging remarks upon his departure from the latest Group of Seven (G7) ministers’ meeting in France, denouncing Iran’s continued chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz as well as settler violence in the occupied West Bank.

Standing on an airport tarmac on Friday, Rubio fielded questions from journalists about reports that Iran plans to implement a tolling system in the strait, a vital waterway for the world’s oil supply.

Rubio calls toll plan ‘unacceptable’

The Strait of Hormuz is a key artery for the global transport of oil and natural gas, and prior to the start of the US and Israel’s war against Iran on February 28, an average of 20 million barrels of oil per day passed through the waterway.

That amounted to roughly 20 percent of the world’s liquid petroleum supply.

But since the outbreak of war, Iran has pledged to close the Strait of Hormuz, which borders its shores. The threat of attacks has ground most of the local tanker traffic to a standstill, though a few vessels, some linked to Iran or China, have been allowed to pass through.

Media reports suggest that Iran is setting up a “tollbooth system” that would require passing ships to put in a request through Iran’s armed forces, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). There would also be a fee to secure passage.

“ They want to make it permanent. That’s unacceptable. The whole world should be outraged by it,” Rubio said on Friday.

He added that he conveyed a warning about the polling scheme to his colleagues at the G7.

“All we’ve said is, ‘You guys need to do something about it. We’ll help you, but you guys are going to need to be ready to do something about it,’” Rubio said.

“Because when this conflict and when this operation ends, if the Iranians decide, ‘Well, now we control the Strait of Hormuz and you can only go through here if you pay us and if we allow you to, that’s not only is it illegal under international law and maritime law. It’s unacceptable, and that can’t be allowed to exist.”

The Trump administration, however, has struggled to rally allies and world powers to join the US in its offensive against Iran.

Legal experts have criticised the initial strikes against Iran as an unprovoked act of aggression, though the Trump administration has cited a range of rationales for launching the attack, including the prospect that Iran may develop a nuclear weapon.

Many of the US allies in Europe have maintained that they would limit their involvement to defensive actions. Trump, meanwhile, has accused members of the NATO alliance of being “cowards”, adding in a social media post, “We will REMEMBER.”

In a statement following the G7 meeting, member countries reiterated their stance that there should be an “immediate cessation of attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure”.

They also underscored the “absolute necessity to permanently restore safe and toll-free freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz”. But the statement fell short of pledging any resources or aid to the US and Israeli war effort.

Achieving goals ‘without any ground troops’?

It is unclear when the war might end. On Saturday, it reaches its one-month anniversary, having stretched for four weeks.

Rubio on Friday echoed Trump’s assessment that the war was going as planned and that the US was achieving its objectives, including to destroy Iran’s navy, missile stockpiles and uranium enrichment programme.

“ We are ahead of schedule on most of them, and we can achieve them without any ground troops, without any,” he said, addressing an oft-raised concern about the prospect of US troops being deployed to Iran.

Rubio also briefly addressed the increasing levels of Israeli settler violence against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank.

Footage has shown settlers this month torching Palestinian homes and vehicles, as well as assaulting residents.

On March 19, the United Nations estimated that more than 1,000 Palestinians have been killed in the West Bank since Israel began its genocidal war in Gaza in October 2023. The international body underscored that a quarter of the victims were youths.

“ Well, we’re concerned about that, and we’ve expressed it. And I think there’s concern in the Israeli government about it, as well,” Rubio responded, adding that it was a “topic we follow very closely”.

He suggested that the Israeli government may take action to stop the violence, though critics argue that Israel has largely turned a blind eye to settler violence.

“Maybe they’re settlers, maybe they’re just street thugs, but they’ve attacked security forces, Israelis, as well. So, I think you’ll see the government going to do something about it,” Rubio said.

Upon taking office for a second term in January 2025, President Trump also moved to cancel sanctions against Israeli settlers accused of grave abuses in the West Bank.