WRC Submission to; Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

WRC Submission to;

Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

The Waikato Regional Council voted to make a submission regarding this Bill and the submission was formally approved by Council on 19 December 2024.

How does the WRC have a mandate to act as a lobbyist to government?

I would have thought that this would be so far out of their scope of legal duties that they would be prevented from doing so.

This to me is just another example of far out of touch with the ratepayers that the WRC has got. They are responsible for managing and protecting land, water, soil, air, coastal and geothermal resources in the central North Island, including the South Waikato and also manage land transport, biosecurity and civil defence.  

What part of that scope includes becoming a lobbyist to government?

The Waikato Regional Council (WRC) submission opposes the Bill and advocates for its abandonment.

They state that the Bill seeks to eliminate the principle of partnership with iwi and hapū, undermining the foundations of co-governance, co-management and collaboration.

They state that their submission reflects the council’s commitment to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi and fostering robust co-governance and co-management partnerships with iwi and hapū.

They state in their submission that these partnerships have provided significant environmental, social, and economic benefits, which are recognised nationally as exemplars of successful collaboration.

So let’s just check the facts in their statements.

1. 1. They state that their submission reflects the council’s commitment to upholding the Treaty of Waitangi and they state that the Bill seeks to eliminate the principle of partnership with iwi and hapū.

• a) So where in the Treaty document does it mention a partnership between the Crown and Maori? It doesn’t.

2. Waikato Regional Council’s operational success relies on building partnerships with iwi and hapū, including those established under Treaty settlement legislation. These relationships underpin co-governance arrangements and collaborative initiatives such as the Healthy Rivers / Waiora. The Bill risks eroding these partnerships by:

• Marginalising unsettled iwi.

     • Undermining statutory requirements for iwi engagement.

     • Creating barriers to effective decision-making and joint initiatives.

• a) There is no reason why the WRC should not be able to continue to build partnerships with iwi and hapū as they are doing so at present.

3. Their submission claims that Bill’s clear disregard for consultation and collaboration on constitutional matters marginalises the role of iwi and hapū as Treaty partners. Such exclusion contradicts established jurisprudence, undermines the foundational partnership commitments enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi, and neglects the necessity of working alongside iwi and hapū to uphold the principles of equity and partnership.

The principle of equality, insists that all claims for different treatment by race must be removed from all legislation as everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.

• a) This submission relies on the claim that Maori are partners with the Crown under the Treaty of Waitangi and makes many references to that claim but in fact this is an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty document as shown by that renowned Maori Statesman Sir Apirana Ngata, MA, LL.B, LIT. D, in his book explaining the Treaty of Waitangi. Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had “cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands”.

                        The standard translation used by the Waitangi tribunal in the early                                  1990’s had been made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu. Here is his full                translation of the Treaty:

“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”

Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in this time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen.

There never was a partnership under the Treaty!

In their conclusion the WRC state:

The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill undermines established jurisprudence, weakens partnerships, and risks significant operational and social costs. We urge the Crown to abandon this Bill and prioritise meaningful engagement with iwi and hapū to uphold the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and achieve equitable, sustainable outcomes.

This whole statement sets out loud and clear, the erroneous thinking behind the WRC’s position. One classic example of this has to be the statements made by the Maori King at the National Hui held in Ngaruawahia at Turangawaewae Marae in in January 2024 in which he said that iwi did not want to see any change in the Treaty and that there were no principles under the Treaty of Waitangi. 

There was no mention of any principles until the decision by parliament to include in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act legislation, the word ‘principles’.

In that legislation, ‘principles’ referred directly to the meaning, value, and purpose of the Articles in the Treaty of Waitangi. The word ‘principles’ was tied to the Articles. It had no referent outside those Articles.

Given that parliament did not provide a meaning of the term “Principles”, such vacancy of meaning, opened up opportunities for those with vested interests to insert their own meaning. In inventing and consolidating their version of “Principles”, advocates for a partnership-based co-governance structure have used traditional ideology to provide an almost spiritually authorised quality to their interpretation of the term.

In light of this fact a national debate, however divisive, is needed to sort out what sort of constitutional future might be best for New Zealand and such matters lie properly within the remit of voters.

Taking the above into account and given the recent history of New Zealand (post the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi legislation) and the ill-informed interpretations of the Treaty document, it is definitely time we held a referendum to identify the meaning of the term “Principles” as it applies to the Treaty of Waitangi legislation.

Yes it may hurt some of the riders on the Treaty gravy train but it will give all New Zealand citizens the opportunity to calmly and reasonably discuss the interpretation of the Treaty and any attendant principles that we may wish to have with the Treaty. 

Government has a duty to uphold the Rule of Law and protect the democratic rights of “all” New Zealanders and any failure to uphold the equal application of the laws, on the grounds of the long-established principle of “one law for all”, could be taken as proof that the government intends to change profoundly the constitutional arrangements of the New Zealand state.

Such a fundamental change to the manner in which New Zealand is administered, especially one predicated on ethnic and cultural considerations, could have no legitimacy without having first secured the endorsement, by way of referendum, of a majority of New Zealand citizens.

The current interpretation of the “Principles” of the Treaty have actually significantly changed the terms of the Treaty and the way the Treaty is enacted, yet they have never been officially put before the public to be ratified.

The suggestion of holding a referendum regards the Treaty Principles that was put forward by the ACT Party, was to allow the voters of New Zealand to have a reasoned and rational discussion related to the content of any such principles and then to ratify the result of those discussions through the democratic processes.

The proposed referendum is not about changing the Treaty it is about only two things;

1. 1. Whether there should be a set of principles under the Treaty, and if so
2. 2. What those principles should contain.

Here’s a radical thought. How about we leave it to the people to decide?

If the result is not genuinely better than at present, people will reject it. If it is, then we end up with an improved outcome which is compliant with the New Zealand Bill of Rights.

The WRC should have no place in lobbying government and should be told to stay within their mandate of managing and protecting land, water, soil, air, coastal and geothermal resources.