The hīkoi to Parliament brought Māori and non-Māori to the capital in November to oppose Act's Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill.
The hīkoi to Parliament brought Māori and non-Māori to the capital in November to oppose Act's Treaty of Waitangi Principles Bill.
Descendants of Henry and William Williams oppose the Treaty Principles Bill, citing threats to te Tiriti.
Martin Williams emphasises the need to honour the original Treaty promises to Māori.
David Seymour argues the bill aims to clarify Treaty principles and promote national discussion.
A descendant of one of the original translators of the Treaty of Waitangi says the guarantees of the treaty have not been honoured.
A group including 165 descendants of Henry and William Williams has collectively submitted against the Treaty Principles Bill, saying it was a threat to the original intentand integrity of te Tiriti.
The Williams brothers translated te Tiriti o Waitangi and promoted it to Māori chiefs in 1840.
William Williams’ great-great-great-grandson, Martin Williams, told Morning Report they want to see the promises of the Treaty upheld.
“Fundamentally, it’s time that we as Pākehā stood up and be counted ... we prefer a future for our nation that isn’t premised on the idea that Māori were told a big lie in 1840.”
The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi. Photo / via Alexander Turnbull Library
“It’s very concerning that the Waitangi Tribunal has described this bill as the worst, most comprehensive breach in modern times so it’s time for us to stand up and be counted and stand alongside tangata whenua.
“We need to honour Te Tiriti not tear it up and scatter it to the wind.”
The two versions of the Treaty – English and Māori – have become the source of debate and confusion over the intervening centuries because of varying content and wording.
Williams said his ancestors had faithfully followed the instructions of Governor Hobson and James Busby when translating the Treaty into te reo Māori.
“We don’t think that there was anything wrong about the way the Treaty was prepared and Henry did it under enormous time pressure, but the outcome was exactly as intended by those instructing him.”
“In essence, the Crown was conferred the right to govern for peace and good order and Māori retained their full rights as chiefs, Tino Rangatiratanga.
“That was the essence of the bargain and we’re wanting that bargain because that was the version that was signed by Māori to be honoured today, and we think it can be. If it is the future for our nation is bright and if it isn’t the opposite applies.”
Williams said he and his whānau disagreed that the bill would make all New Zealanders, including Māori, equal under the law.
“Ask Māori who are involved in abuse in state care, whether they enjoyed equal rights during that time of their lives.
“Equality before the law is a great legal principle, but it’s not a Treaty principle.”
Act leader David Seymour
“Māori very much, I think, as a result of systemic breach of the Treaty by the Crown again over decades, are in a position where they have to start from way behind the line to have any hope of catching up with Pākehā for things that they take for granted.”
Williams said equity and equality were not the same thing.
The bill’s architect, David Seymour, argues the interpretation of the Treaty principles has been developed through the Waitangi Tribunal, courts and public service, and “New Zealanders as a whole have never been democratically consulted on these Treaty principles”.
The principles have been developed to justify actions many New Zealanders feel are “contrary to the principle of equal rights”, he says, including co-governance in the delivery of public services.
The purpose of the bill, says Seymour, is to provide certainty and clarity and to “promote a national conversation about their place in our constitutional arrangements”.
Act would argue the principles have a very influential role in decision-making, political representation and resource allocation that has gone too far. Seymour believes it is necessary to define the principles “or the courts will continue to venture into an area of political and constitutional importance”.
People expressed frustration and outrage this week after persistent technical issues stopped them from submitting online feedback about the bill before the midnight Wednesday deadline.
