��һ�ǿ�����

David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill is unfair, discriminatory and needs to be abandoned, a scathing Waitangi Tribunal report has found.��

The Waitangi Tribunal has been considering two issues relating to the Treaty of Waitangi under urgency: the proposed Treaty Principles Bill, a commitment under National’s coalition agreement with Act, and the Treaty Clause Review, a part of National’s coalition agreement with NZ First.��

The 189-page interim report canvassing the tribunal’s findings was released today. Seymour, who is Associate Justice Minister, and in charge of the Treaty Principles Bill, welcomed the report, saying New Zealand needed a��“national conversation about our founding document.”��

Seymour believes there is a need to clarify the meaning of the Treaty’s principles and is concerned it provides different people with different political and legal rights. Prime Minister Christopher Luxon has said National would support the bill to the select committee stage, but not beyond that.��

The Waitangi Tribunal described the bill “as a solution to a problem that does not exist”.��

“Despite the constitutional significance of defining the Treaty principles in legislation and the importance of this to Māori, the Crown agreed to pursue the policy without any engagement or discussion with Māori.��

“Māori did not want this policy and in fact many have been strongly opposed to it from the beginning.”��

Many of the policies from the Government have been described as anti-Māori – a charge the Government rejects – and have prompted protests. In May, thousands of people took part in a nationwide day of action,��described at the time by organisers��as a “unified Aotearoa response to the Government’s assault on tangata whenua [Māori people] and Te Tiriti of Waitangi”.��

The tribunal report, released today, detailed various ways the Treaty Principles Bill was a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi.��

“We have found that the Treaty Principles Bill policy is unfair, discriminatory, and inconsistent with the principles of partnership and reciprocity, active protection, good government, equity, and redress, and contrary to the article 2 guarantee of rangatiratanga.”��

The tribunal referenced ministerial briefing documents to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith in which Ministry of Justice officials had warned such legislation risked impacting social cohesion and damaging the relationship between Māori and the Crown.��

“They advised that there was a ‘substantial risk the Bill could generate further division, which poses a threat to social cohesion and could undermine legitimacy and trust in institutions’.��

“This advice from the ministry responsible for administering the justice system points to extremely serious consequences for the whole society. Further, officials warned that there was a significant risk of damaging the Māori–Crown relationship because the Bill ‘could be seen as an attempt to limit the rights and obligations created by the Treaty’.��

“The damage caused by the Bill could have ‘flow-on’ effects on all aspects of the relationship.”��

In a statement, Seymour said New Zealand had a “bright future” if it cast off “the divisive notion that the Treaty is a partnership between two classes of New Zealanders each with different rights”.��

“I welcome the Waitangi Tribunal’s contribution to the debate about the principles of the Treaty.��

“We need a national conversation about our founding document. Are there are two classes of New Zealanders in partnership, each with different rights? Or are we a modern democracy where all citizens have equal rights? I look forward to having that discussion over the next several months.”��

Treaty Clause Review��

The tribunal also considered the proposed review of references to the Treaty of Waitangi within current legislation, a commitment under the��NZ First coalition agreement with National.��

Based on the wording in the agreement, all such references would be replaced “with specific words relating to the relevance and application of the Treaty, or repeal the references”. Treaty settlements would be excluded.��

Although it was called a review, the outcome was “predetermined” and the Government had not appropriately engaged with Māori, the tribunal found. It agreed with the evidence submitted by legal expert Natalie Coates, in that the purpose of the review was to limit or remove Treaty clauses rather than strengthen them.��

“We also consider that the Crown has not to date acted honourably and in good faith in pursuing the review. It has not consulted with Māori on a matter of great significance to them.��

“This contravenes Te Arawhiti’s own Engagement Guidelines and Framework. The failure to fulfil these duties already constitutes a breach of the principle of partnership and fails to provide for Māori tino rangatiratanga.”��

The “predetermined outcomes” of the Treaty clause review would prejudice Māori across all the sectors governed by legislation that has a reference to Treaty principles, the report found.��

“The prejudicial impacts for Māori will be far reaching if the Treaty provisions in some, many, or all of these statutory regimes are weakened or removed.”��

The tribunal found the two policies when considered together were consistent “with an alarming pattern of the Crown using the policy process and parliamentary sovereignty against Māori instead of meeting the Crown’s Treaty/te Tiriti obligations”.��

��