In brief
- Selective support for Treaty amendments suggests bias in New Zealand’s political landscape.
- The petition to add a “fourth article” affirming Māori religious rights is welcomed, while ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, advocating equality, faces strong opposition.
- Dr Alistair Reese and many others paradoxically support the fourth article, citing Māori customs, yet oppose ACT’s bill, calling it “treacherous.”
Selective support for Treaty amendments hints at bias
In the debate over various proposals to amend the Treaty of Waitangi, there appears to be a selective reception. On one hand, the petition to add a “fourth article” affirming or expanding Māori rights is welcomed by Māori activists, many in the media, and their supporters. On the other hand, proposals advocating equality, such as ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, are labelled as controversial.
Notably, this analysis does not endorse any particular Treaty amendment but rather examines the selective reception of different proposals. Just to clarify, we think that there may be valid reasons to oppose the forthcoming Treaty Principles Bill. We also note that there is no indication that the committee has taken further action or made a formal decision regarding the petition.
Calls to add a fourth article to the Treaty of Waitangi
Theologian and historian Dr Alistair Reese’s submission to Parliament’s Petition Committee proposes including an unofficial “fourth article” of the Treaty.
This is based on a verbal assurance given by Governor Hobson in 1840 to Bishop Pompallier, ensuring Crown protection for Māori Catholics and followers of all faiths.
Reese argues that this addition recognises an agreement the original Māori signatories accepted as part of the Treaty. He has the support of several church leaders, who argue that the oral nature of this “article” aligns with Māori customs.
Religious rights already guaranteed in New Zealand
Yet, critics argue that New Zealand’s Bill of Rights Act already guarantees freedom of religion.
The issue is that formally recognising this somewhat ambiguous “fourth article” could arguably strengthen Treaty claims against the Crown, and legal arguments for separate Māori cultural and religious rights. This could deepen divisions in a nation already strained by a contentious ongoing Treaty debate.
ACT’s principles amendment
On the other side, the ACT Party has faced a barrage of criticism for its Treaty Principles Bill, which they say aims to clarify what the Treaty represents in a modern, democratic society.
ACT argues that current interpretations, crafted largely by the Waitangi Tribunal, the courts, and academics go beyond the Treaty’s original language and give Māori a privileged status over other citizens.
According to party leader David Seymour, the intent of his proposal is to simplify the principles, focusing on equality before the law for all New Zealanders. For the most part, the so-called Treaty principles are loosely defined and are the source of a lot of controversy.
Seymour’s proposal has provoked protests from iwi leaders and activists who claim it undermines the Crown-Māori relationship.
A selective approach to Treaty amendments
Reese himself has been a leading voice in opposition–along with several other religious groups and leaders–against ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, calling it “treacherous” and have written a formal letter voicing their opposition.
Reese gave the homily at the Waitangi dawn service this year where he described the Bill’s supporters as follows:
“They are like those who pick the scabs on an unhealed wound – exposing our nation’s scars to further infection and the wounded to further trauma.”
Though this “fourth article” was never formally documented, they frame it as reinforcing the Treaty’s original intent.
Perhaps hypocritically, incorporating this addition would broaden the Treaty’s scope, contradicting their opposition to “reinterpretations” in the Principles Bill.
