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
Meta appeals landmark jury verdict that found it to blame for social media addiction for young users
Meta, the parent company of Instagram and Facebook, has appealed the verdict of a landmark social media addiction lawsuit in Los Angeles, challenging the jury’s determination that the company designed its platforms to hook young users without concern for their well-being.
Lawyers representing Meta filed a notice of appeal Tuesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The lawyers will provide their arguments related to the appeal in subsequent court filings.
The case centered on a 20-year-old woman who said she became addicted to social media as a child and that it worsened her mental health struggles. The jury found that negligence by both Meta and Google-owned YouTube, which was also a defendant in the case, was a substantial factor in causing harm to the young woman, identified in court only by her initials, KGM, and her first name, Kaley.
The jury awarded her $3 million in damages and recommended an additional $3 million in punitive damages. Her lead attorney, Mark Lanier, said in a statement Friday that the legal team is expecting the appellate court to “continue the careful application of the law to this case, affirming the verdict of the trial court.”
A notice of appeal starts what can be a lengthy process. A Meta spokesperson provided a statement Friday that they also gave when the jury returned the verdict in March, saying that teen mental health is “profoundly complex and cannot be linked to a single app.”
José Castañeda, a spokesperson for Google, said in a statement Friday that YouTube plans to appeal and that “these are standard motions for this case to move forward.”
Meta and Google had each filed post-trial motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict — a routinely filed motion by defense lawyers asking a judge to toss out the jury’s verdict — and for a new trial. The trial judge, Carolyn B. Kuhl, denied those motions in early June.
Tech companies like Meta and YouTube are shielded from legal responsibility for content posted by third parties, based on Section 230 of the 1996 Communications Decency Act. To get around those protections, the plaintiffs focused on the design features of the platforms like “infinite scroll,” or the endless nature of feeds on the platforms, and autoplay functions.
Questions about encroaching into content-related territory were the subject of many objections from the defendants throughout the five-week trial.
The verdict in this case came during a time of legal woes for Meta. A jury in New Mexico returned a verdict finding that Meta’s platforms harm children’s mental health and safety just one day before the California jury reached its decision. The New Mexico jury, siding with state prosecutors who brought the case, landed on a penalty of $375 million. Meta has said the company disagrees with the verdict and will also appeal in that case.
“We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online,” a Meta spokesperson said in a statement at the time of the verdicts and again on Friday.
Kaley’s case was a first-of-its-kind lawsuit, and the verdict could influence the outcome of thousands of similar lawsuits accusing social media companies of deliberately causing harm. TikTok and Snapchat parent company Snap Inc. were also initially named as defendants in the case, but each settled for undisclosed sums before the trial began.
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
Israel’s leaders are publicly signaling that their country is prepared to strike Iran for a third time, while a U.S. official tells Fox News Digital that Washington remains closely coordinated with Jerusalem.
“The IDF is on high alert and prepared to resume the campaign, regain air superiority, and carry out an independent Israeli strike against Iran to eliminate threats — even for a third time,” Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Minister Israel Katz said Thursday at a graduation ceremony for the Israeli Air Force’s newest pilots.
“If we have to return, we will return with even greater force,” Katz added.
ISRAEL DEFENSE CHIEF WARNS STRIKES ON IRAN COULD RESUME SOON, SIGNALS CAMPAIGN NOT OVER
U.S. Central Command shared this footage in a July 8, 2026, press release about strikes against Iran. (CENTCOM)
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also warned Thursday that Israel’s campaign against Iran was not finished and said Tehran would not be permitted to obtain a nuclear weapon, regardless of any agreement reached with Washington.
“The war has not yet ended,” Netanyahu said at the air force ceremony. “Alongside the old challenges, new challenges are emerging. Axes are falling, and axes are rising. We are paying attention to this. We are prepared for every scenario.”
Two Israeli sources told CNN Friday that the Trump administration does not currently want Israel to participate in the latest U.S. strikes against Iran.
“Netanyahu would really want to join the U.S. strikes, but the U.S. doesn’t want Israel involved at the moment,” one of the sources told CNN.
A U.S. official denied the report, telling Fox News Digital, “This is fake news. The United States has a strong relationship with Israel, which contributed to the resounding success of Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury. We remain in close coordination with our Israeli partners.”
Israel first launched a major campaign against Iran in June 2025, with the United States later joining the fighting by striking the Fordow, Natanz and Isfahan nuclear facilities. On Feb. 28, the two allies launched a new, coordinated military campaign against Iran.
While Israeli leaders are openly presenting the military as ready for another campaign, some Israeli officials and analysts say there is little appetite for renewed fighting unless it produces a clear strategic result.
The public warnings may overstate Israel’s desire to reenter the fighting, said Israeli analyst and journalist for Israeli newspaper Yedioth Aharonoth, Nadav Eyal.
“On the record, Israel is signaling that it is prepared and even eager to strike Iran. But off the record, sources are saying that it is anything but that,” Eyal told Fox News Digital. “The reason is clear: Any Israeli strike in Iran will lead to Iranian ballistic missile attacks against Israel.”
US CLAWS BACK KEY CONCESSION TO IRAN AFTER FRESH ATTACKS ON COMMERCIAL SHIPS IN STRAIT OF HORMUZ
Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s prime minister, from left, US President Donald Trump and US Vice President JD Vance during a bilateral meeting in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, US, on Tuesday, Feb. 4, 2025. Trump insisted Egypt and Jordan will take in Palestinians from the Gaza Strip, dismissing the countries’ refusal to accept people from the war-shattered territory. Photographer: Shawn Thew/EPA/Bloomberg via Getty Images (Getty Images)
Eyal said the domestic political consequences could make Netanyahu reluctant to begin another round of fighting, particularly as Israel approaches another election.
“If these strikes are meant to provide meaningful, strategic change, it is something the prime minister can sell to the public,” Eyal said. “But if the intention is only to use Israel as leverage, why should Israelis again experience a couple of weeks or more of sitting in safe rooms and losing their summer vacations, children’s day camps and summer camps? That could play out badly for the prime minister politically.”
“The truth is that Israel was not really enthusiastic about another strike,” he added. “That doesn’t mean it is not going to happen. If President Trump demands that Netanyahu join, it is very hard to see the Israelis saying no. But right now, I don’t see any passion for it.”
The diplomatic outreach continued even as Trump declared that the ceasefire with Iran was over.
“The Islamic Republic of Iran has asked us to continue ‘talks.’ We have agreed to do so, but the United States has stated to them, in no uncertain terms, that the Cease Fire is OVER!” Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social.
A source with knowledge of the situation told Fox News that Qatari negotiators have traveled to Iran, in coordination with the United States, to meet with Iranian officials in an effort to de-escalate the situation and create the conditions for negotiations to resume.
On Thursday, Netanyahu and Trump spoke by phone, according to the Israeli prime minister’s office, which said the two agreed to continue coordinating across several regional fronts. Trump briefed Netanyahu on American operations in the Gulf, the statement said.
NETANYAHU REJECTS REPORTS OF A RIFT WITH PRESIDENT TRUMP, SAYS THE TWO REMAIN ALIGNED ON IRAN
A satellite image shows damage at the control tower in the port of Chabahar, Iran, July 9, 2026, after the U.S. military said July 8, 2026, it launched fresh strikes on Iran to keep the Strait of Hormuz open to shipping. ( 2026 PLANET LABS PBC/Handout via Reuters)
The military warnings came as the Wall Street Journal reported Friday that Israel had provided the United States with intelligence about what is described as a fresh Iranian plot to assassinate Trump.
The developments follow renewed attacks on commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz, where U.S. naval officials said the maritime threat remained “severe.” U.S. Naval Forces Central Command reminded commercial vessels Friday that an expanded southern route through the strait remained open and that no controlling authority could require ships to pay a fee for passage.
A U.S. official told Fox News on background that Iran’s attacks against commercial vessels were “acts of terrorism” and constituted failed performance under the memorandum of understanding between Washington and Tehran.
“The United States is still committed to finding a resolution, and technical talks continue,” the official said. “Iran can never possess a nuclear weapon.”
Brig. Gen. Yossi Kuperwasser, a former senior Israeli military intelligence officer who now heads the Jerusalem Institute for Strategy and Security, said Israel had never regarded the memorandum as an adequate guarantee.
“From Israel’s perspective, the MOU was never a good deal,” Kuperwasser told Fox News Digital, speaking of the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
CENTCOM shared footage of strikes against airplanes amid Iran war (U.S. Central Command on X)
“Israel should be on high alert, ready to face an Iranian attack and prepared to strike back if necessary,” he added.
For now, Israel’s leaders appear to be leaving Iran — and Washington — with little doubt that they are prepared to act. Whether the United States allows Israel to join the renewed campaign, however, could determine whether the latest confrontation remains limited or develops into another full-scale regional war.
Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment.
Published on •Updated
Belgium’s three regions announced on Friday that they would introduce a road tax next year that foreign drivers transiting the country would also have to pay.
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
The country does not currently charge drivers to use its highways and the issue of introducing some form of payment has been debated for years.
“Everyone who uses our roads must contribute fairly to their maintenance,” said the transport minister for the southern Wallonia region, François Desquesnes.
Starting on 1 May 2027 drivers will need to register their vehicle and pay the road tax, with day passes available for drivers driving across the country.
An annual pass for a zero-emission car will cost €90 and up to €125 for higher polluting vehicles.
Road cameras that catch cars that haven’t paid for a pass will incur a fine of €70.
In Belgium, the individual regions are responsible for maintaining roads and motorways.
Currently, drivers can use almost all highways toll-free but the possibility of an introducing a charge has been under discussion for several years.
The revenue would be used for the operation and maintenance of the road network.
The proposed toll still needs final approval from the regions and European authorities.
According to the chairman of the liberal-conservative MR party, the government intends to offset the new toll by lowering other taxes for Belgians.
Additional sources • AFP
-
Idaho2 minutes agoClaremont Fire evacuation zones drop to Level 1 as crews work to clear spot fire
-
Illinois9 minutes agoIllinois Senator opposes Shah Senate bid, cites 2015 Legionnaires’ outbreak
-
Indiana12 minutes agoIndiana State Police sergeant recovering, suspect killed in Michigan City
-
Iowa17 minutes agoGelita USA opens new wastewater treatment plant near Sergeant Bluff after Iowa DNR violations
-
Kansas24 minutes ago
Kansas Lottery Mega Millions, Pick 3 winning numbers for July 10, 2026
-
Kentucky26 minutes ago
Trooper still recovering 1 year after fatal Lexington shooting spree
-
Louisiana32 minutes ago6 Best Out-of-State 529 Plans for Louisiana Residents (Beyond START Saving) – Big Easy
-
Maine39 minutes agoMaine Resiliency Center launches survey to gauge Lewiston shooting’s impact
