Anne Salmond: Of treaties, cabbages and kings

Opinion: During his speech to introduce the Treaty Principles Bill, David Seymour made a number of statements that are either disingenuous or ignorant. 
Early in his speech, he asked: ‘Where in the world is it a good idea to give different rights based on ancestry? Where in the world has that approach been a success?’
One answer, at least, is obvious – the House of Lords in the UK, which has endured since the early 11th Century.
Around the world, in fact, leadership based on ancestry is common. That is the case in New Zealand, for instance, where King Charles III, a hereditary monarch, is our head of state.
The same is true in many other countries.  In 2024, 43 countries have kings or queens as heads of state – 13 in Asia, 12 in Europe, 9 in the Americas, 6 in Oceania, and 3 in Africa.
If different rights based on ancestry are repugnant to Act, presumably they are equally appalled by King Charles III’s role as the head of state in New Zealand. 
No mention was made of this issue about hereditary rights in our constitutional arrangements, however.
In his speech, Seymour stated that ‘all New Zealanders deserve tino rangatiratanga.’ This is equally disingenuous.
In the Preamble, Te Tiriti states that the Queen of England is ‘concerned to protect the rangatira and hapū of New Zealand’ and ‘to preserve their chieftainship and their lands to them.’
Accordingly, in Ture 2 she ‘agrees and guarantees to the rangatira and the hapū the tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all their treasures.’
Those are specific rights promised by the Queen.  Without that promise, the rangatira would never have signed Te Tiriti. 
In democracies, it is commonplace for citizens to have different rights. Ratepayers, for instance, have a right to vote for representatives that is not shared with non-ratepayers or those who live in other places.
Collective rights are also common, for corporations and many other groups, for example.
Why, then, is Act is so troubled by the idea that rangatira and their hapū have specific collective rights to the tino rangatiratanga of their lands, dwelling places and all their treasures?  
Is it because those rights might stand in the way of privatising further state assets, or projects that might be subject to Treaty claims?
In his speech in reply, Willie Jackson called David Seymour a liar.  Although this is unparliamentary language, the Treaty Principles Bill is extremely provocative and misleading. 
As Rawiri Waititi, the co-leader of Te Pāti Maori, put it, ‘The only people who can make changes to the Treaty are the parties who signed it.’ 
Having identified the monarch and the rangatira of the hapū as the signatories, he asked, “Tell me David Seymour, which one of those is you?”
The vote on the Treaty Principles Bill provoked a haka in the House, and two Māori MPs were expelled from the chamber.
If a small party with only 8 percent of the vote is allowed to introduce a crude, misleading bill on a key constitutional issue, those who did the deal should accept responsibility for the disorder.
Neither Christopher Luxon nor Winston Peters were in the House to face the music, however.
If the New Zealand Parliament has been brought into disrepute over this Bill, it is a self-inflicted wound. 
As 42 KCs have written in an open letter to the government: “By imposing a contested definition of the three articles, the Bill seeks to rewrite the Treaty itself.
“Even if Parliament can legislate in this way (which is uncertain), it should not do so because it is not for the Government of the day to retrospectively and unilaterally reinterpret constitutional treaties.
“This would offend the basic principles which underpin New Zealand’s representative democracy.”
Kei te tika rawa atu – well said.