The OUSA Exec has submitted in opposition to the controversial Treaty Principles Bill. On Thursday, February 27th, President Liam and Politics Rep Jett presented an oral submission to the Justice Committee based on the written submission Liam hastily penned in January on behalf of the wider Exec.
The Treaty Principles Bill, spearheaded by ACT leader David Seymour, has been a national (and international) subject of controversy. At its most basic interpretation, it proposes to redefine the Treaty principles and put them out to referendum for confirmation. Seymour says the Bill would ensure all New Zealanders have equal rights. But as Critic’s Ētita Māori Heeni explains, from a Māori perspective it is a “blatant attempt to strip Te Tiriti from the law, severing Māori rights from the foundations of the nation.”
The Bill has been the subject of widespread controversy since its inception, manifesting in a nine-day hīkoi mō te Tiriti (“march for the Treaty”) across the motu in November last year. On November 19th, Te Ao Māori News reported that over 42,000 people descended on the steps of the Beehive to rally in opposition to the Bill. According to Stuff, the Bill has received over 300,000 submissions – at least three times more than any other Bill has received. There were so many submissions that Parliament’s website crashed. A voice among those submissions was OUSA.
Speaking on behalf of OUSA, Liam regarded his submission to be representative of the 20,000 tauira attending various campuses across the motu. “Particularly relevant to this submission are the approximately 2,400 Māori students studying at Ōtakou Whakaihu Waka,” he wrote. Aside from tauira Māori o Ōtākou Whakaihu Waka, Liam felt he was “representing the opinion of the vast majority of Otago students.”
Liam admitted to Critic that the submission was written almost solely by him following the 2024 Exec’s approval and given the short time frame and timing (the semester was over and everyone was on holiday). “I thought it would be best to say, ‘okay, I’ll just proceed with this.’ That process probably isn’t great, but we’ve done it a couple of times.” In an interview, Liam assured Critic that there shouldn’t be any issues with the current Exec, citing having “too much on the agenda” as the only reason why it hadn’t been formally approved yet. “I mean, it aligns with all my values, there’s no issue there. I don’t think [Jett and myself] stepped out of our area,” Liam explained, with Jett humming in agreement. However, at their next Exec meeting Clubs and Socs Rep Deborah pointed out some inconsistencies in the submission.
When asked about his expertise on the matter, Liam referred to his time spent in POLS319 (Treaty/Te Tiriti politics) as “helpful.” He also ran the submissions by Te Rōpū Māori Tumuaki Takirua (co-presidents), and invited them to sit in alongside him for the submissions. Scheduling conflicts unfortunately did not allow for this.
In a nutshell, OUSA’s submission took issue with the Bill’s favoring of the text of the Treaty of Waitangi as opposed to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This is “significant” because there is “inconsistency between the principles outlined in the current iteration of the Treaty Principles Bill and Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Building on this, OUSA (read: Liam) expressed concern that the Bill would depart from the “standing judicial interpretations” of the Treaty principles – an “inappropriate” result, as OUSA regarded Parliament as not being in a position to “redefine the relationship between the Crown and Mana Whenua as articulated in both Te Tiriti and the Treaty.”
By introducing a Bill that redefines the Treaty principles, OUSA is critiquing Parliament’s place in going back and one-sidedly redefining the relationship between mana whenua and the Crown, shutting the door on Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal. OUSA’s submission opposes this, saying it is not right and would “[fail] to preserve the unique rights afforded to Māori as the Indigenous people of Aotearoa.”
Liam and Jett told Critic they felt “unprepared” when they were called on by the Justice Committee to speak to the submission. They knew they were opposed, but like many Kiwis, when grilled on the nitty-gritty seemed to come up tongue-tied. Instead of the usual five minutes for presentation, they wound up with ten due to being shoulder-tapped by MP Francisco Hernandez and “not reading the email properly.” “And then James Meager, who is the chairperson of the Justice Committee, said we had some question time. And I look over at the Parliamentary clock and it says seven minutes,” said Liam. The pair ended up getting grilled worse than the questions your mum asks after you get caught sneaking back in after an unapproved night out.
Jett and Liam explained that the majority of the questions were about why they considered the unelected Courts should have a say on the Treaty principles compared to democratically elected Parliament’s supremacy. After the pair kicked each other under the table a few times (“[there wasn’t] an easy answer”), they settled on the consensus that the court's incremental and relatively well-informed precedent had aided the development of some solid ideas about what Treaty principles were. And the grilling continued, but at least OUSA had said their piece.