The government's proposal to weaken legal obligations to the Treaty of Waitangi has sparked intense debate and raised concerns among legal experts and indigenous communities alike. This move, initiated by NZ First in the coalition agreement, aims to limit the obligations to 'take into account' the Treaty principles, a significant departure from the current standard of 'give effect to'.
The decision, according to Justice Minister Paul Goldsmith, is driven by the desire for consistency in how Parliament references the Treaty. However, this interpretation is met with skepticism by legal scholars and officials within his own Ministry of Justice. They argue that the proposed threshold is too low, potentially undermining the Treaty's significance and the Māori-Crown relationship.
Associate law professor Andrew Erueti warns that diluting Treaty clauses is a major step backward, allowing for the subordination of Māori interests by other competing interests. This perspective is shared by the Greens' justice spokesperson, Tamatha Paul, who criticizes the government's secretive approach and the conflating of the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Independent Advisory Group, established to provide advice on Treaty matters, recommended the use of terms like 'give effect' to ensure a higher standard of Treaty obligation. Yet, Goldsmith's proposal diverges from this advice, opting for the lowest threshold possible. This decision has been met with criticism for its lack of consultation with Treaty partners, including iwi and hapū, and the potential negative impact on Māori interests.
The proposed changes, if enacted, could have far-reaching consequences, affecting decision-making processes and the relationship between the Crown and Māori. As the bill is expected to be introduced before the general election, the debate surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi's legal obligations is set to intensify, with many questioning the government's commitment to honoring the Treaty's principles.
