What's right and wrong with the new wording of The Treaty Principles Bill

David Seymour, via his Treaty Principle’s Bill, is calling the country back to the original intention and meaning of the Treaty.

We need to get behind him and his Bill. By this I mean his original 3 principles which were:

1. that the New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders;

2. the New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property;

3. and that all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.

Seymour was forced by Luxon and his cabinet to change these original 3 principles so they now read as follows (these are the revised 3 principles). The following is a picture of the actual Act.

What are we to make of this new wording in light of what the Treaty actually says and means?

Principle 1: This is a clear reference to Article 1 of the Treaty, and thus a incontrovertible acknowledgment by the Government that in 1840 the Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty. What does ‘ceding sovereignty’ mean? It meant that the chiefs gave up the government of their country completely and forever to the British. By this we mean that all the resources of New Zealand, including all land, forests, and minerals on the ground and under the ground, fisheries, rivers, lakes, mountains, all things material and non-material etc (.e.g air waves, radio waves, the air above the land etc ) were given over to the British to be managed by them on behalf of all New Zealanders. The chiefs also gave to the British the right to set up and run a judicial system, a postal system, a police force, and every other branch of government needed to run a successful country. There was nothing they did not cede.

However, there is a caveat.

Included in the concept of ‘government’ is the reality that the possession / ownership of privately owned land would be protected by the government (Treaty Article 2, sentence 1).

What does this mean?

First up, the British considered that Maori ‘owned’ all the land in New Zealand in 1840, except that which the chiefs had already sold to speculators or settlers. This meant that if a Maori chief, Iwi, or Hapu (i.e. from hereon in referred to as “Maori”) owned land, and on that land were rivers, mountains, forests, lakes etc, the land owners would retain the same in their possession until such time as they wanted to sell that land. If Maori owned land with a coastal boundary, the British agreed to protect the right of those Maori to continue to use that coastline.

The truth of the matter is that many tribes had a coastal boundary because fish and shellfish were an important and vital source of food for Maori.

Tribes would mark out on the beach their territorial boundaries with sticks. These sticks would mark where a tribe could fish and not fish. They were strictly policed by each tribe, the infringement of which would incur the wrath of the offended neighbouring tribe. The British, in the Treaty, were simply saying to Maori “we will protect your right to continue to fish your traditional fishing grounds.” That is all.

The British, in the Treaty, gave Maori the right to gather food from the coastline, but not to own it. The same ‘right’ was granted to all British citizens. That Maori have special rights over our coastline, with some even suggesting they own it,

or even that they have so called “customary rights” is a modern-day invention of Maori activists. How do we know this?

According to British law, which was the law imported into New Zealand in 1840 by the British, the sea and the coastline belonged to all the citizens of a country.

Here I quote Dr Hugh Barr: “That all New Zealanders “own” the foreshore and seabed, the water and air in a Western Society “was a principle first written down, as far as records exist, by the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, about 530 AD. He is famous for compiling and rewriting Roman law, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His Law Of Public Commons states (in English) “By natural law itself these things are the common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea.”1 As I said, this law was imported by Britain into New Zealand in 1840, and was implicit (not explicit) in the Treaty.

The fact of the matter is that Maori in the decades following 1840 went on to sell 92% of their land. As we all know, when land is sold the right to govern that land is passed on to the new owner. 2

Principle 2: The only ‘rights’ Maori were given in 1840 via the Treaty were as I have just described. That is to say, they were free to live out their traditional Maori way of life on the land they owned, within the bounds of British law e.g. slavery, cannibalism, infanticide, and murder were outlawed. That was all. In this respect, and in every other respect, they were no different from other British citizens. Remember, in Article 3, the chiefs were granted British citizenship. When this happened, “one law for all” and “equality of citizenship” were triggered.

It’s supposed to be the same today (i.e. that Maori are treated the same as all other citizens), only it’s not the same today, which is what Seymour’s Bill is attempting to correct.

OK, back to the Treaty Principles Bill. Principle two, sentence two says, “However, if those rights differ from the rights of everyone, sub-clause (1) applies only if those rights are agreed in the settlement of a historical treaty claim under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975.”

What does this mean? It simply means that if the Waitangi Tribunal advises the government to grant Maori some special privilege or right not afforded other New Zealanders, the government will consider the advice, but the government does not have to take that advice. It can reject it.

Now here is the crucial point. The Waitangi Tribunal is only an advisory body. It is not a court. It has no mandate to make laws. The government is free to take or reject the advice of the Tribunal.

Why is this important? It means that if the Bill became Law, the government could / would act as a filter. It alone could / would decide what special rights Maori can and can’t have. Up until now, Maori have been able to claim many rights, “as of right,” via their version of the Treaty.

This Bill would, therefore, end special Maori rights “as of right.”

Effectively, potentially, this Bill puts a handbrake on so-called “Maori rights.”

But once again though, there is a caveat. The door is still open for Parliament to continue giving Maori special privileges and rights through the back door. Each political party will decide how much privilege to dish out to Maori, and how often, and to what degree. Given the high degree of Treaty ignorance which exists among MPs, it is highly likely that special privileges for Maori would continue, unabated. Why? Because most MPs don’t have sufficient knowledge of our history to fact check the recommendations put before them by the Waitangi Tribunal. They just approve them, and move on.

For example, Luxon believes (wrongly) that the Treaty is a partnership. For this reason he has put dishing out privileges to Maori on turbo.

Conclusion? Principle two leaves the door wide open for political Parties of the day to continue with apartheid, separatism, and racism. Under the guise of “Treaty settlement arrangements” it is literally mind-boggling to imagine what privileges a Green/Labour/Maori Party coalition would give to Maori, especially when we already know that the Tribunal is infested with activists. It literally makes up what the Treaty says and does not say to suit its purpose, and it colludes with the Labour, Greens, and Maori parties and with organisations like the Iwi Chairs Forum.

Principle 3:

“Everyone is equal before the law. Everyone is entitled, without discrimination, to—(a) the equal protection and equal benefit of the law; and (b) the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights.”

1 Dr Hugh Barr. Twisting The Treaty. The Tribal Grab For Wealth and Power. Tross Publishing. 2014. Page 196 2 https://issuu.com/esisite/docs/did_maori_have_all_their_land_stolen

What are we to make of this? On the one hand this principle says that everyone is equal, but principle two says some citizens will be treated with special privileges and rights not afforded other citizens, when the government of the day sees fit.

This is George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” being out worked, where all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. It’s the Crown lawyers and politicians trying to please everyone, which is very Luxonion. The truth of the matter is that we are all equal or we are not. It’s one or the other, but it cannot be both at the same time. What I am saying is that Principle 2 contradicts Principles 1 and 3. Frankly, on the basis of this observation, I am surprised that the Bill’s wording was acceptable to the Crown law office.

What Gary Judd KC says about ‘contradictions’ in legal documents is relevant here. He said “In law, there is what is called ‘a contradiction principle’. It’s saying one thing, and at the same time saying another. It’s speaking out of both sides of one’s mouth. In law, contradictions are impossible. So the Treaty could not contain a contradiction, or it would be a nonsense and therefore, to be completely disregarded.” 3

This Bill is therefore a nonsense, because it contains a glaring contradiction.

So is the Bill worthless? Answer? Yes and No.

If it was passed into Law in its current form, then yes, it’s worthless.

It represents a continuation of the status quo.

However, the Bill is not completely worthless. How so?

The Bill’s worth with its latest wording is that it has the potential to create great debate and discussion. Debate and discussion are vital steps on the road to reform.

This is the whole point of having a long six-month period for the government to receive submissions.

Seymour wanted a long time for people to tell the government about what they really thought i.e. that they were sick of apartheid, racism, and separatism, with Maori being treated with special privilege, first-class citizens.

They are tired of Maori activists being able to fraudulently manipulate the Treaty to make it mean what they want it to mean, without anyone being able to object or challenge them.

How should be respond?

There are two approaches to our response.

1. Make submissions.

2. Trigger a citizens Initiated referendum.

1. Making Submissions

It’s therefore an absolute must for all of us to make a submission, commending Principles 1 and 3, but in no uncertain terms pointing out the total unacceptability of the contradiction established by the wording of Principle 2.

Principle 2 leaves the door open for Maori to continue to receive privilege, which is not equality.

Our submissions ought to insist that the Bill’s original wording be reinstated and made Law because these original 3 principles contain no contradictions.

Most importantly, they correct the tripartite problems of racism, apartheid, and separatism in NZ, which is what the Bill was intended to do in the first place.

Just to refresh, the original 3 principles were:

1. that the New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders;

2. the New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property;

3. and that all New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.

If you make a submission, you need to word it something like this:

“We approve of principles 1 and 3 of this Bill because they mandate that all people should be treated equally, without

3 https://www.stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Treaty-does-not-trump-democracy-if-it-did-it-would-be-self-contradictory-andmeaningless.pdf

exception.

However, Principle 2 establishes a glaring contradiction. Principle 2 leaves the door open for Maori to continue to receive special privileges, not afforded other citizens. This is not equality, as detailed in principles 1 and 3.. This is an open door, a loop hole, for the continuation of apartheid, separatism, and racism. It’s a vote for the continuation of Treaty fraud and corruption. Therefore, this door must be slammed shut. To accept this Principle is a vote for the continuation of the status quo. As such, principle 2 is completely unacceptable and must be rejected.”

2. Triggering A People’s Initiated Referendum

The other approach is to ‘making submissions’ and rally together to launch a Citizens Initiated Referendum, the same as Australia just had with “The Voice.”

Although a Citizens Initiated Referendum is not binding on the goverment, it would put pressure on Luxon. It’s vital that we put pressure on him, to flush him out, get him off the fence, forcing him to do the right thing. History ignorant, and lacking a moral compass, Luxon will be crossing his fingers, hoping Seymour’s Bill will just blow over and peter out.

To know more about what I mean by “putting pressure on Luxon” watch THIS video.

I can assure you, we are not going to let David Seymour’s Treaty Principle’s Bill just peter out.

Not a chance.