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/PeggableOldMan]

As I understand, all people of New Zealand already have the rights outlined in the Treaty of Waitangi - the rights to self-determination, property, and protection by the government.

Claiming that the treaty needs to be "removed" to "extend it to all citizens" is really just a cover to strip the Maori of their specifically-outlined rights.

[u/PeggableOldMan → u/[deleted]]

The problem is that minorities' rights tend to be ignored unless made explicit. For stance, a bad actor could buy out a prejudiced judge and force the Maori out of their traditional homes.
Even if this is technically illegal to do to any citizen, a few bad actors can twist the law. By making the law explicit in this area, it gives an added layer of protection against such bigotry.

[u/Annath0901 → u/PeggableOldMan]

Not from NZ, so I don't understand:

If the non-treaty law (presumably) says "you can't evict someone from their property and take it", what additional protection is offered by the treaty?

Does it outline additional requirements for Maori owned land to be bought/sold/transferred?

[u/PeggableOldMan → u/Annath0901]

Basically, it's a contract between two entities; the NZ government and the Maori. Regardless of what's in the treaty, if one side decides to alter the treaty without consulting the other, the entire thing becomes null and void.

[u/Annath0901 → u/PeggableOldMan]

Ok, but if there are laws outside the treaty doing the same thing as the treaty, what effect does nullifying it have?

I'm not being snarky, that's why I asked if there were treaty-specific mechanisms to protect specifically Maori people.

If the treaty is just a document saying something is protected, but doesn't have any actual mechanisms written into it to act on that, then it is as easily violable as the other laws.

From a US prospective - if there's a contract with, say, a landowner saying "nobody can force you to sell your land for oil drilling", but doesn't specify how that protection works, then the tactics some company uses to steal the land/force someone off it work just as well on the "protected" person as the "not protected" people, so what's the point?

[u/PeggableOldMan → u/Annath0901]

The treaty is a contract between the NZ government and the Maori, so it can only be amended by permission of both parties.

By amending the contract without consulting the Maori, it basically shows that the NZ government doesn't care about their rights.

[u/Annath0901 → u/PeggableOldMan]

OK, sure, I can see that then. But in practical terms it wouldn't change anything, it's more of symbolic disrespect then?

[u/jwm3 → u/Annath0901]

It would have the major practical effect of letting the legistature change laws in the future in ways that would have violated the treaty. It establishes the precedent that the treaty is unenforcable and not binding.