Victory? Not quite.
“National will not support the Treaty Principles Bill past first reading,” - PM Luxon
Although the Treaty Principles Bill may fail to pass its second reading, Seymour has already won.
While it’s seeming unlikely that his goal of passing the bill into legislation will go ahead, Luxon’s support thus far has legitimised the ‘debate’ around the role of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in today’s political landscape.
Because Luxon gave him a platform, Seymour has been able to spread ahistorical and false narratives, ignoring decades of work to define the bilateral Te Tiriti.
ACT’s culture war has now been legitimised.
Distracting us from issues of wage theft, government corruption, and other impacts of capitalism, ACT’s goons have caused confusion around Te Tiriti o Waitangi and made it out to be undemocratic.
The bill is, to its core, a Crown assertion against Māori without the involvement of Rangatira - the other partner of the signing.
Here’s what the Treaty means…
Context and leadup:
Before the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Treaty of Waitangi (the English translation), there were growing concerns around land sharking through the New Zealand Company, the lack of efficient settler laws, and threats from other countries like France officially expanding their influence over the region.
He Whakaputanga showed clearly that Māori did have a concept of sovereignty, despite an 1877 court ruling that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was ‘worthless’ because it had been signed ‘between a civilised nation and a group of savages’ who were not capable of signing a treaty.
In 1833, a number of Māori Rangatira had reached out to the British King asking for ‘friendship’ and independence. He Whakaputanga was signed in 1834, but went largely overlooked by colonial settlers.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi was one of only a few treaties ever signed in the native language of the non-British partner.
Māori outnumbered settlers 40:1 at the time of the Treaty signing. Now, that is 1:5 against Māori, and one partner of the signing wants to strip the agreement of all its influence.
Through analysing this relationship between the British Crown and Māori at the time, it’s clear that the Treaty was viewed as mutually beneficial. This is because it granted Māori the same rights (not duties) as British settlers, as well as protection from additional unwanted influences.
British Common Law was presumed to apply everywhere until a local custom could be proved. The Treaty established a pathway for British laws to govern British settlers, of whom there were already many.
Article 1:
Māori agree to the Crown’s right of governorship (‘Kāwanatanga’) over settlers.
‘Kāwanatanga’, which the majority of Māori rangatira agreed to, meant something different at the time. The Governor’s representative, James Busby, had minimal authority in his position, thus the depth of the term ‘governorship’ was less authoritative at that time.
Article 2:
The Crown guarantees that Māori will continue to exercise their absolute, complete, and independent authority and self-determination (‘Tino Rangatiratanga’) over their teritories, homes and all things they highly value and treasure (‘taonga’. such as reo and tikanga). This wasn’t a new right: it’s an existing one that the Treaty recognises.
However if Māori wish to sell their land, they can only do so directly to the Crown (‘preemption’).
Article 3:
The Crown guarantees to protect Māori, and in addition to the guarantee to Māori under Article 2, the Crown also guarantees to Māori all the rights and privileges of British subjects.
Not responsibilities.
Article 4 (oral):
The Crown guarantees that Māori have the freedom to practise religion, including their own customs (eg; tikanga).
So what’s the issue?
Historically, the Crown has continuously breached Te Tiriti o Waitangi, even nullifying it in 1877. The documents sat in the basement of parliament for generations to be eaten by rats. It wasn’t even mentioned in any legislation until 1975 with the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and Seymour wants us back to pre-1975, pre-1877, and pre-1833.
Because of the urbanisation of Māori after the Second World War to fuel the economy, degrading tikanga and cultural connectedness, and neglect from successive governments to uphold their end of the agreement, Māori are behind in almost every outcome.
People like David Seymour think it’s ‘racist’ to establish targeted initiatives to support Māori.
The Māori Health Authority, though needed as part of a wider effort to end poverty as the root cause of these issues, was branded ‘divisive’ and ‘racist’ by Seymour.
It’s obvious that the Fast Track legislation acts as a driving force behind this bill, as it further entrenches private property by removing the few barriers currently upholding elements of Māori sovereignty.
The assertion of Māori as custodians over their whenua and moana inherently undermines Lockean, capitalist concepts of private property of which Seymour serves.
The bill sets out to fast track the fast tracking of selling whenua and moana directly to the interests of capital - local and foreign. This is already happening (see the Taranaki iron sands, oil exploration in Te-Whanau-a-Apanui, etc) but would be completely legal and just should the Treaty Principles Bill be passed.
“History is the study of the past, not the study of documents,” Marc Bloch.
Seymour wanted to create confusion around what the articles said, neglecting to consider the conditions they were signed in. The translation differences between the multiple versions mean nothing when we take a second to understand the conditions they were signed under.
Māori did not cede sovereignty. Why would they?
With the necessary context, we know that the terms used throughout all versions of the Treaty do not have the same meaning that they do today. Different understandings and applications of ‘chieftainship,’ and ‘sovereignty’ mean we have to study the conditions and sentiment of the time as well as what was written.
“You do not need to be personally responsible for the historic dishonouring of Te Tiriti o Waitangi to benefit from that horrific legacy today,” Chlöe Swarbrick.
Seymour’s characterisation of the Treaty as a ‘thing of the past’ and ‘racist’ because it gives Māori different rights to Pākehā is ahistorical. It was not our land, our language, or our country to take. It is a privilege to be here, and neglecting the history of our country in favour of playing politics should never be accepted or welcomed when there are still injustices that need to be addressed.
The Prime Minister, before a week or so ago, owned seven properties, each worth over $2 million, a total of $21.145 million.
His property portfolios grew by $4.3 million in 2021, and he made $90,000 in capital gains every week in 2022, more money than he made as CEO of Air New Zealand.
He was the wealthiest MP as Leader of the Opposition, and once Prime Minister, he chose to give $3 billion in tax cuts to landlords.
This month, he sold one of his Auckland properties.
On that property, that he bought for $650,000 in 2015, it was listed at a set price of $945,000. That’s a capital gain of $295,000, which he paid no tax on.
Earlier this year, the government repealed the old bright line thresholds, opting instead for two-year period.
The bright line test has gone back to its initial two-year period, as was firt introduced in October 2018.
The new bright line test applies if you have sold a property on, or after, 1 July 2024.
That means any residential property sold within two years of it purchase date with be subject to tax on any profit made from the sale. Property owners buying after this date will only have to pay tax within in that two-year period.
That’s just under the amount of time that he’s owned the property, meaning he’ll pay no bright line and no capital gains tax.
New research from Victoria University has found that the richest people in Aotearoa are paying less tax than others in nine similar OECD nations.
We are one of only a few who have no tax on capital gains, no kind of wealth tax, and have the most pathetic income tax rate.
The Prime Minister and almost every other sitting member of Parliament own multiple properties and have investments in businesses, giving them all an interest in keeping the tax system stuffed and the housing market in favour of landlords.
They don't work for us. We work for them.
UPDATE (4 December, 2024):
The PM has sold his third house this year after changing the brightline test, meaning he made $300,000 tax-free on this sale - likely over $760,000 in profit on all properties sold this year.
Luxon just sold a two-bedroom unit in Onehunga for $930,000 - more than $309,500 than he paid for it in the first place ($620,500).
Had his latest property sale been the same as his asking price, he would have made total capital gains of $769,500 from the three sales. But he won’t actually tell us.
Original images sourced from NZME, RNZ, 1News, Three News, unless stated otherwise