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

Live updates: Tracking Venezuela oil tankers as US seizes Russian-flagged vessel

Published

on

Live updates: Tracking Venezuela oil tankers as US seizes Russian-flagged vessel

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab

Kylie is the Global Live Pages Editor, leading a team providing real-time multimedia coverage of the biggest breaking stories worldwide. She previously worked on the UK Breaking News team, and spent eight years in Westminster as a UK political correspondent – a period which included the Scottish independence referendum, Brexit and several general elections. She originally joined Reuters as a graduate trainee and has also covered investment banking.

Farouq Suleiman

Farouq is a Live Page Journalist, covering Reuters international news stories. He previously worked as a correspondent on the UK Breaking News team, reporting on general news across the United Kingdom.

Vanessa Balintec

Vanessa Balintec is a Live Page Journalist based in Toronto, Ontario. She helps create and curate multimedia posts for Reuters’ Live Pages — a scrolling feed of multimedia posts for some of the biggest stories of the day. She previously worked at various bureaus for CBC News. Contact: vanessa.balintec@thomsonreuters.com

Continue Reading

World

Iranian protesters rename Tehran street after Trump, plead ‘don’t let them kill us’ amid crackdown

Published

on

Iranian protesters rename Tehran street after Trump, plead ‘don’t let them kill us’ amid crackdown

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Iranian protesters intensified nationwide demonstrations over the past 24 hours, directly appealing to President Donald Trump while chanting anti-regime slogans. Footage published Wednesday showed a protester in Tehran symbolically renaming a street after Trump, while other videos captured handwritten appeals reading, “Don’t let them kill us,” Iran International reported.

Holly Dagres, a senior fellow at the Washington Institute, posted the video on X stating, “Since Trump’s comments about the Iran protests, I’ve seen numbers videos of Iranian protesters either thanking him or, in this case, renaming streets after the US president.”

The appeals came as demonstrators faced a widening security crackdown, including the deployment of armed units and tear gas near major civilian sites in Tehran.

TRUMP SIGNS ‘MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN’ HAT ALONGSIDE LINDSEY GRAHAM

Advertisement

Exiled Iranian opposition leader Reza Pahlavi said the current unrest represents a historic opportunity to end Iran’s Islamic Republic.

“In all these years, I’ve never seen an opportunity as we see today in Iran,” Pahlavi said in an interview aired Tuesday on “Hannity.”

“Iranian people are more than ever committed to bringing an end to this regime, as the world has witnessed in the last few days, the level of demonstrations is unprecedented in Iran,” he said.

Pahlavi said protests have spread to more than 100 cities and emphasized the role of Iran’s traditional merchant class, describing developments inside the country’s bazaars as a turning point. “We are beginning to see more and more defections,” Pahlavi said, adding that “Either way, the regime is crumbling and is very close to collapsing.”

IRAN ON THE BRINK AS PROTESTERS MOVE TO TAKE TWO CITIES, APPEAL TO TRUMP

Advertisement

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., posted a photo of himself posing with President Donald Trump, who is holding a signed “Make Iran Great Again” hat. (Lindsey Graham / X)

Over the past 24 hours, Iran International reported continued protests and strikes across the country, including in Tehran, Tabriz, Qazvin, Kermanshah, Kerman, Shiraz, Falavarjan and Bandar Abbas. Tehran’s Grand Bazaar remained a focal point of unrest, with large crowds chanting against Iran’s leadership as authorities responded with tear gas and armed deployments.

Security operations expanded into sensitive civilian locations. Videos published by Iran International showed tear gas used near or inside Tehran’s Sina Hospital and the Plasco Shopping Center.

Protesters hold signs during a demonstration in Iran amid ongoing unrest, according to images released by the Iranian opposition group National Council of Resistance of Iran. (NCRI )

Casualty and arrest figures continued to rise. The Human Rights Activists News Agency, cited by Iran International on Wednesday, reported at least 36 people killed since protests began, including 34 protesters and two members of Iran’s security forces, with more than 2,000 arrests nationwide. Iranian authorities have not released updated official figures.

Advertisement

New footage from the past day showed demonstrators lighting fires in the streets of Shiraz and chanting “Death to Khamenei,” referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. In Qazvin, protesters were heard chanting, “Law enforcement, return to the side of the nation.”

Iranian protesters try to take control of two cities in western Iran as nationwide unrest continues, with demonstrators chanting ‘Death to Khamenei’ in the streets. (Getty)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Workers also joined the unrest, with strikes reported at the South Pars gas refinery and widespread shop closures at major markets in Tehran and Tabriz.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

How Ukraine is shaping Europe’s response to Trump’s Greenland threats

Published

on

How Ukraine is shaping Europe’s response to Trump’s Greenland threats

For the past year, staying in Donald Trump’s good graces has become a top priority for European leaders, who have gone the extra mile to appease the mercurial US president, rein in his most radical impulses and keep him firmly engaged in what is their be-all and end-all: Russia’s war on Ukraine.

Though Europe is by far the largest donor to Kyiv, nobody on the continent is under the illusion that the invasion can be resisted without US-made weapons and come to an eventual end without Washington at the negotiating table.

In practice, the strategic calculus has translated into painful sacrifices, most notably the punitive tariffs that Trump forced Europeans to endure.

“It’s not only about the trade. It’s about security. It is about Ukraine. It is about current geopolitical volatility,” Maroš Šefčovič, the European Commissioner for Trade, said in June as he defended the trade deal that imposed a sweeping 15% tariff on EU goods.

The same thinking is now being replicated in the saga over Greenland’s future.

Advertisement

As the White House ramps up its threats to seize the vast semi-autonomous island, including, if necessary, by military force, Europeans are walking an impossibly thin line between their moral imperative to defend Denmark’s territorial integrity and their deep-rooted fear of risking Trump’s wrath.

The precarity of the situation was laid bare at this week’s meeting of the “Coalition of the Willing” in Paris, which French President Emmanuel Macron convened to advance the work on security guarantees for Ukraine.

The high-profile gathering was notable because of the first-ever in-person participation of Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, the chief negotiators appointed by Trump.

At the end of the meeting, Macron hailed the “operational convergence” achieved between Europe and the US regarding peace in Ukraine. By his side, British Prime Minister Keir Starmer was equally sanguine, speaking of “excellent progress”.

But it did not take long for the elephant in the room to make an appearance.

Advertisement

Hard pivot

The first journalist who took the floor asked Macron whether Europe could “still trust” America in light of the threats against Greenland. In response, the French president quickly highlighted the US’s participation in the security guarantees.

“I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of that commitment,” Macron said. “As a signatory of the UN charter and a member of NATO, the United States is here as an ally of Europe, and it is, as such, that it has worked alongside us in recent weeks.”

Starmer was also put on the spot when a reporter asked him about the value of drafting security guarantees for a country at war “on the very day” that Washington was openly talking about seizing land from a political ally.

Like Macron, Starmer chose to look at the bright side of things.

“The relationship between the UK and the US is one of our closest relationships, particularly on issues of defence, security and intelligence,” the British premier said. “And we work with the US 24/7 on those issues.”

Advertisement

Starmer briefly referred to a statement published earlier on Tuesday by the leaders of France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, the UK and Denmark in defence of Greenland.

The statement obliquely reminded the US to uphold “the principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity and the inviolability of borders” enshrined in the UN Charter – precisely the same tenets that Moscow is violating at large in Ukraine.

The text did not contain any explicit condemnation of the goal to forcefully annex Greenland and did not spell out any potential European retaliation.

“Greenland belongs to its people. It is for Denmark and Greenland, and them only, to decide on matters concerning Denmark and Greenland,” its closing paragraph read.

Conspicuous silence

The lack of censure was reminiscent of the European response to the US operation that just a few days earlier removed Nicolás Maduro from power in Venezuela.

Advertisement

Besides Spain, which broke ranks to denounce the intervention as a blatant breach of international law, Europeans were conspicuously silent on legal matters. Rather than condemn, they focused on Venezuela’s democratic transition.

Privately, officials and diplomats concede that picking up a fight with Trump over Maduro’s removal, a hostile dictator, would have been counterproductive and irresponsible in the midst of the work to advance security guarantees for Ukraine.

The walking-on-eggs approach, however, is doomed to fail when it comes to Greenland, a territory that belongs to a member of both the EU and NATO.

Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen has warned that the entire security architecture forged at the end of World War II, which allies have repeatedly invoked to stand up to the Kremlin’s neo-imperialism, would collapse overnight in the event of an annexation. The worry is that trying to stay in Trump’s good graces at all costs might come at an unthinkable price.

“Europeans are clearly in a ‘double-bind’: Since they are in desperate need of US support in Ukraine, their responses to US actions – whether on Venezuela or Trump threatening Denmark to annex Greenland – are weak or even muted,” said Markus Ziener, a senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund.

Advertisement

“Europeans are afraid that criticising Trump could provide a pretext for the US president to conclude a peace deal at Ukraine’s and Europe’s expense. Is this creating a credibility gap on the part of the EU? Of course. But confronted with a purely transactional US president, there seems to be no other way.”

Continue Reading

Trending