Or are the Act New Zealand drafters of the proposed "Treaty Principles Bill" delusional?
Or perhaps just stupid?
Te Tiriti says bluntly that its wording is "not supported by either the spirit of the Treaty or the text of the Treaty".
The draft extracts a part sentence from each Article to construct distorted "principles", suggesting that "ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou whenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa" (Article 2) meant "The NZ government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property", and that "a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi" (Article 3) meant "all New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties".
It’s clear from the Preamble to Te Tiriti, in both Māori and English versions, that the agreement is between Crown and tāngata whenua. Those with whom the Crown is making the agreement are described as "the chiefs and the subtribes of New Zealand" and "the chiefs of the Confederation chiefs of the subtribes of New Zealand and other chiefs," (translated te reo version), and as "the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand" and "the Aborigines of New Zealand" (original English version). Articles 2 and 3 don’t apply to pākehā settlers (except, perhaps, the few "Pākehā Māori" who’ve been absorbed into a hapū).
And giving "the ordinary people of New Zealand ... the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England" (English version "the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects") doesn’t mean that all have equal rights, but that Māori receive those citizenship rights in addition to the guarantees of Article 2 — otherwise Article 3 makes Article 2 meaningless.
If Act really believes that Articles 2 and 3 applied, in 1840, to the non-Māori settlers in New Zealand perhaps it’s delusional.
Is Act honestly mistaken? There’s no excuse for adopting, without validation from historical research, such a position on Te Tiriti, at odds with 184 years’ understanding that Te Tiriti was an agreement between Crown and Māori. Civis can’t bring to mind any reputable research supporting the view that the references to "nga Rangatira ki nga hapu", or "nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani ("ordinary people of New Zealand" in Prof Kawharu’s translation) included non-Māori settlers (they weren’t "ordinary" then).
If Act honestly believes that pākehā settlers were parties (rather than spectators, questioners or advisers) to Te Tiriti, then it needs some education, perhaps based on Ned Fletcher’s magisterial The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi (it’s only 723 pages), to clear its collective mind of the nonsense currently occupying it.
Another explanation for Act’s claims is that it is cynically playing word games to promote a false interpretation of Te Tiriti which will attract voters opposed to tino rangatiratanga. It wouldn’t be the first example of this (remember Winston Peters’ claim that Maori aren’t the indigenous people of New Zealand?), and far right politicians in other countries have a history of doing so. But such divisive behaviour is inexcusable.
Thankfully the National Party, leading the coalition government, seems to be slightly more rational than its partners regarding Te Tiriti, and although in coalition negotiations it agreed to allow the Treaty Principles Bill to progress through a first reading to the select committee stage, it has said that it doesn’t favour the Bill going any further (so what a waste of Parliament’s time and resources!). In December, Prime Minister Christopher Luxon said "that’s as far as it will go", and Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith has, since the Bill was leaked, confirmed that position.
National mustn’t renege from that promise.
