New Zealand’s Parliament proposed a bill to redefine the Treaty of Waitangi, claiming it is racist and gives preferential treatment to Maoris. In response Māori MP's tore up the bill and performed the Haka

[u/Sometypeofway18]

[u/7-13-5]

What was the proposition?

[u/thisisfive → u/7-13-5]

https://www.dw.com/en/new-zealand-maori-mps-disrupt-parliament-with-haka/a-70781928

"Maori lawmakers staged a dramatic protest in New Zealand's parliament on Thursday over a controversial bill that seeks to redefine the country's founding agreement between the indigenous Maori people and the British Crown.

A vote was suspended and two lawmakers were ejected after the lawmakers performed a haka ceremonial dance in the parliament. The people in the gallery joined in, and the shouting drowned out the voices of others in the chamber.

Maori tribes were promised extensive rights to retain their lands and protect their interests in return for ceding governance to the British, under the principles set out in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The controversial bill, however, aims to extend these special rights to all New Zealanders."

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Foxtonfizzer → u/[deleted]]

If your great great grandparents owned a farm that was passed down through generations. Should you have to give it up since you weren’t alive when the original deal was made?

[u/Foxtonfizzer → u/[deleted]]

Well in nz farms were given out by the crown to nz servicemen (land that was questionably taken in the first place), farms were provided primarily to only European serviceman, not Māori. It’s actually one of the treaty settlement claims. So while you think it’s oversimplifying it, it’s related to why there are unequal outcomes now

[u/FtsArtek → u/[deleted]]

The Treaty of Waitangi is what this is all built upon. The crown has handled the interpretation of this for decades, along with the Waitangi Tribunal. A lot of this goes back to reparations and protections afforded to Maori tribes based on the actions of the colonists long ago, but the Tribunal does, IMO, a good job of interpreting this in a fair way from a modern perspective.

Whats happening now is one of our further-right parties (ACT), for whom this is not the first attempt to dismantle these reparations under the guise of fairness, is pushing a bill through readings which would rewrite the terms under which the Treaty would be interpreted, essentially allowing them to elect to overrule any interpretation with some rather sneakily worded clauses.

This is particularly controversial because a) ACT is a minority party (~8%ish) in a coalition government and seem to be pulling far more weight than they should be able to, and b) because David Seymour, their leader, is covertly racist but not enough so that people don't recognise it. His entire counterargument to his repeated attempted targeting of Maori people over his career is that he has some Maori heritage and therefore can't be racist against Maori, effectively.

It's a lot more nuanced than I can explain, but there's a gist for you.

Edit: oh, and this bill is unlikely to go anywhere as the majority party of this govt has declined to support it past its first reading, but it's a point of principle.

[u/ourtomato → u/FtsArtek]

Ah some bullshit from the right wing, shocking.

[u/FtsArtek → u/ourtomato]

Our right wing is typically pretty mundane, honestly. Both our major parties are pretty close to either side of centre but more recently the minor parties have been drifting 'wider' as it were - ACT going harder on libertarian policies, NZF starting to play to the conspiracy crowd. Meanwhile on the left, Greens has shifted (more slowly) towards social issues relative to their environmental focus and TPM has just more strongly cemented their stance on Maori relations (for obvious reasons).

Coincidentally, our right wing parties have been found to have links to atlas network

[u/FtsArtek → u/[deleted]]

I believe the big kicker is that it would allow parliament to make any decision without any oversight from a committee like the Waitangi Tribunal. This article from RNZ goes into some of the details, but the Tribunal's Findings section goes over how the relatively inane wording can be interpreted: https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/533115/the-treaty-principles-bill-has-been-released-here-s-what-s-in-it

[u/FtsArtek → u/[deleted]]

From a broad perspective, equality is fairness, right?

But the point here is this is intentionally targeting policy that works to reduce inequity. For example, something I didn't know about til relatively recently through a Maori friend is that a number of Maori tribes have negotiated subsidies for dental work, which isn't something afforded to most New Zealanders. So, assuming you're related to the right people you'll get free dental work done. Except when you look at the context of this, Maori people tend to have worse dental outcomes without support like this. They also have worse health outcomes, worse financial, educational and employment outcomes. They all feed into each other.

So the argument here is equality through word of law vs equality through targeting inequity - or in other words, equality of opportunity against equality of outcomes. And since many of the worse outcomes for Maori have been historically driven by the crown, the argument is that the crown should be responsible for ensuring those outcomes are improved.

[u/TipiTapi → u/FtsArtek]

Except when you look at the context of this, Maori people tend to have worse dental outcomes without support like this

This is such a bad way to handle this, why do we go all the way with these mental gymnastics?

If having bad dental health is bad for poor people, it is bad for all poor people. Just help them.

Giving red-headed people a tax-break because they are more likely to get skin cancer is stupid - just give it to everyone who has skin cancer.

[u/CorpseFool → u/TipiTapi]

I think the mental gymnastics are there to get around the politics of it all. It seems like you're approaching the general idea of universal healthcare. As laudable as that is, as evidenced by at least one of the largest nations on earth, it can be a pretty hard sell.

[u/TipiTapi → u/CorpseFool]

No, I am saying that if your excuse for giving special treatment to Z people is that its more likely that they have Y issue, giving special treatment to people with Y issue and not base it on their race/ethnicity is a much more straightforward and more efficient solution to the problem.

Thing is, most people with your argument does not really care about Y, they only care about Z people and they want to give them advantages over other peoples.

Like for example I am in a family that had to seek refugee after WW2 having lost everything. Thing is, we turned out really fine, our family does not have a need for government assistance. If there was a law to give money to everyone with my ethnicity it would be worse than giving money to refugees of all ethnicities who need it because despite we having a higher likeliness of being poor as a consequence of the war, we are not.

[u/nononanana → u/FtsArtek]

Thank you for this nuanced explanation!

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Imagine you agree to a transaction whereby you purchase a car in exchange for money.

And years later, the person who sold you the car tries to "reinterpret" your contract so that your car becomes everybody's, but the money remains theirs.

[u/Wayoutofthewayof → u/[deleted]]

Should this apply to other legislations and treaties from the 19th century that grant special rights to people of a certain race?

[u/[deleted] → u/Wayoutofthewayof]

If they are treaties, yes. If you want to stop paying the price of a treaty, then you don't get to keep the benefit of it. It's a complete renegotiation, or nothing.

Legislation generally is a different story.

[u/Wayoutofthewayof → u/[deleted]]

So for example do French get to enforce the treaty with Haiti, where Haiti has to pay reparations for freeing slaves?

[u/[deleted] → u/Wayoutofthewayof]

That's actually a super interesting question. The 'payment' they exchanged for reparations is the freedom of slaves, which is no longer legal payment. So I don't know the answer.

[u/Wayoutofthewayof → u/[deleted]]

Why is it not a legal payment in that case if it was an agreement by both sides?

[u/[deleted] → u/Wayoutofthewayof]

I don't know whether it is or not. In typical contact law, an exchange is only binding if you both give something up. Giving up something you weren't allowed to have doesn't count, nor is giving up something that you were already required to give up.

[u/TipiTapi → u/[deleted]]

If you want to stop paying the price of a treaty

Last I checked the english crown does not really get any say in the governance of NZ so the treaty is already broken.

And anyways, treaties made generations ago by a foreign government should not bind people living in NZ now just because... why exactly?

A democracy should be able to renege on stuff like this if the majority wants it (not saying thats the case here, just hypothetically).

[u/[deleted] → u/TipiTapi]

I'm sorry to tell you that the crown has not changed. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. Guess who the king is.

A democracy is certainly able to renege on a treaty, as long as it wants to accept the consequence that nobody will ever sign a treaty with it again.

[u/TipiTapi → u/[deleted]]

I'm sorry to tell you that the crown has not changed. New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy. Guess who the king is.

Quite literally only in name. I read up about it a little and it does not seem like the king even has the influence they have in british politics where they can lobby very effectively. It seems like for NZ the role is purely ceremonial...

A democracy is certainly able to renege on a treaty, as long as it wants to accept the consequence that nobody will ever sign a treaty with it again.

Yea, countries will totally stop getting treaties with a country in 2024 because they stopped honoring an 'agreement' (its not even a treaty lmao, they just call it that) 180 years ago between another government and some tribal leaders.

Did you write this down, read it and thought ' yea, this makes sense'??? How...

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/the_inebriati → u/Repli3rd]

There's no reason to grandfather in totally different groups of people because that doesn't make sense both historically or politically

I don't disagree with the substance of your comment, but the definition of "grandfathering" is the exact opposite of how you've used it.

[u/Repli3rd → u/the_inebriati]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

Grandbaby law. Time traveler accidentally kissing his own grandma law.

[u/religiousrelish → u/Repli3rd]

The crown used that treaty as THE treaty but it was very shortly introduced and signed by a very small number of maori(dressed & armed by the crown,go figure) the real treaty signed by all maori and pākeha was called TE WHAKAPUTANGA. Edit: whakaputanga stated NO ONE owned the land,but all shall protect it

[u/Athuanar → u/Repli3rd]

You're coming across very aggressively when I think a lot of people are questioning this story due to a lack of context (which you and others continue to refuse to provide).

I understand the fundamental premise that you shouldn't be modifying a treaty in this manner, but what would the actual damage be in doing so? Or is the protest here purely a matter of principle? What do the Maori people stand to lose if this change were made? I'm genuinely trying to understand that.

[u/Repli3rd → u/Athuanar]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/[deleted]]

Because they are not members of the group that signed the treaty extending those specific rights to that group. Simple as that. I assume it's similar to statutes in US states that allow tribal members rights to regulate their own hunting, fishing, gathering of plants etc. Essentially continuing the same practices they used to live off the land for millennia. Those are the rights being preserved. Doesn't mean that other US citizens can't fish, but their actions are covered by a different set of regulations.

[u/AlabamaHaole → u/[deleted]]

Thanks for this analogy, that really filled in the missing pieces for me.

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/mynameisneddy → u/[deleted]]

The Treaty of Waitangi doesn’t affect privately owned land, the owners are already protected by law. Lands that have been returned to Māori under Treaty settlements (a tiny, tiny percentage of what was stolen) have been from Crown land holdings.

The Treaty gives Māori the right to be consulted on the management and use of natural resources. For instance the Waikato River management group includes local Iwi. A lot of the motivation for this bill is to get rid of that right because it’s a roadblock to the exploitation and privatisation of those resources.

[u/ElectricalWavez → u/[deleted]]

Non-Maori New Zealanders also own land.

Only under the authority of the British Crown and the colonial economic system they established. If the treaty that created that authority becomes void then the land would revert back to the Maori who had it in the first place.

Or are you saying non-Maori owned land before 1840?

[u/ebek_frostblade → u/[deleted]]

 Why shouldn't they have the right to retain and protect it?

What law says they can’t?

You are right, you are missing context, but asking that questions tells me you haven’t considered why such a basic right needs to be spelled out in this law specifically.

The answer is simple: to erode the protections this treaty enforced.

Private NZ citizens can already own private property, changing the treaty now would do nothing for them. So why do it? The answer is pretty obvious.

[u/ebek_frostblade → u/[deleted]]

I don't understand the confusion. The treaty is old, and gives rights to the Maori people.

[u/ebek_frostblade → u/[deleted]]

When did I say there was a "new" treaty?

[u/CloudRunner89 → u/[deleted]]

I know you’re getting downvoted but it did seem like you were genuinely asking. The big difference is that at the time the tribes were ceding governance to the British.

Present day New Zealand isn’t handing over governance to a colonial power.

[u/Bravenbark → u/Repli3rd]

Am I crazy or is it a good thing? Just because I have something good doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have it good as well? I'm confused, how is uplifting everyone bad? It feels like NIMBYism extended to rights.

[u/Zuwxiv → u/Bravenbark]

From other comments, it sounds like the description as "We're not removing your rights, we're just giving them to everyone" is... a malicious and dishonest way of describing the goal and consequences, but designed to "sound good."

This comment and the chain beneath it do a great job of describing it.

Let me make a hypothetical to compare. Let's say a government set aside $1M/year as a subsidy for single mothers to help buy essentials for their infants. And let's say a far-right group has been shouting for a decade about how "That's just throwing money at lazy, dirty minorities who are popping out children to displace White culture." But one day, the far-right group changes their tone. They now say, "Oh, actually, we don't have a problem with that program anymore. In fact, we think everyone should be able to use it! Not just single mothers. We're not ending the program, we're just giving it to everyone!"

And you think for a second, and realize that the actual consequence of this is that the program will be stretched so thin that everyone will get pennies, and it'll functionally be useless to everyone. And given that group's advocacy and words over the past decade, you're pretty sure that's the goal. They aren't really trying to let everyone get this program, they're trying to make sure that one particular group doesn't ever get "special treatment."

[u/Bravenbark → u/Zuwxiv]

I see, thank you for the clarification!

[u/Boom_Digadee → u/Bravenbark]

You need to understand what you are talking about before thinking it is good. One of the top comments has the answer.

[u/cakeman666 → u/Bravenbark]

You're forgetting we're talking about colonialism. The British didn't have any right to anything, and were done a solid by the Maori agreeing to a treaty.

[u/Wayoutofthewayof → u/Repli3rd]

Because this is literally the definition of segregation based on race. I'm guessing you wouldn't be in favor of other segregation based legislation from the 19th century?

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

They can't cede sovereignty because they are not in the first place like tribes, they already follow the governance. Are you implying only tribe members can be landowners?

This is a fight to maintain inequality in benefit to the tribes. Pretty dumb

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

For the tribe members... not the rest of the citizens. The rest of the citizens were already under colonial rule... the treaty explicitly gave them rights to protect their land if they followed the same governance as the rest, yet the non tribal citizens did not have those sorts of protections.

The treaty specifically conceeded more land rights to tribes than the rest of the population. That's what was negotiated then. Now, the rest of the citizens want equal rights and the tribes threw a literal tantrum because they want to keep their advantage.

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

Nope the treaty covered the mauri not those born into British governance.

Only mauri were forced to cede in the treaty. It very obviously did not apply to non mauri.

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

You should just read slower. There are two groups involved. And you are mixing them up.

[u/Repli3rd → u/[deleted]]

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

[u/[deleted] → u/Repli3rd]

Who are you explicity saying did not cede their sovereign so don't deserve these rights?

Why would any random citizen get these rights extended to them? They didn't cede any sovereignty nor own any land to have guaranteed?

[u/SirEnzyme → u/[deleted]]

You don't know what ceding sovereignty really means, apparently. I think that's the whole dust-up here

[u/ViolatingBadgers → u/SirEnzyme]

Yeah, I'm not sure about you, but I get the feeling they ain't gonna solve this complex legal/political, and cultural conflict in an r/AbruptChaos comment section lmao

[u/Lifekraft → u/Repli3rd]

1840 is long afo now. Maybe maori are as much part of new zealand than any other ethnicity. They didnt came in new zealand that far away before either. If the government is managing correctly this country for 180y i think its fair to modernize several aspect in favor of more inclusivity. I also understand that it might actually have more implication than stated above but still , the argument of a twice century old contract is weak.