Submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

 

Submission on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

 I am Mohan Dutta, Dean’s Chair Professor of Communication at Massey University, Director of the Center for Culture-Centred Approach to Research and Evaluation (CARE). I am a Fellow of the International Communication Association, a Distinguished Scholar of the National Communication Association, and recognized among the Top 2% of social scientists globally (Stanford University rankings). One of my areas of research and that of my research team at CARE explores the impact of disinformation on social cohesion and human health. Broadly within this theme, I study the roles of marginalising discourses, foreign interference, and organised campaigns designed to threaten democracy on health and wellbeing of communities that are systematically disenfranchised because of structural inequalities. I begin by noting that my family and I love Aotearoa, and that when I was considering multiple international appointments, Aotearoa stood out because of Te Tiriti and the hope it offers. I write this submission in the spirit of dialogue, noting the difficulties of writing a submission that is foreclosed from discussing the underlying issues of disenfranchisement because of the rules around what can be included.

 In the first part of this submission, I will outline the misinformation and anti-Māori rhetoric that has proliferated online since the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill. The research carried out by our team documents that this rise in anti-Māori rhetoric is directly connected with far-right sources of misinformation and hate online and poses significant threats to social cohesion. Of critical concern is the activation of foreign far-right influencers and hate groups that have documented evidence of producing and propagating extremism. The potential harm that is caused by the proliferation of this rhetoric to Māori, to various marginalized communities, and to the state of democracy in Aotearoa are of critical concern.

In the second part of the submission, I will draw on my methodological expertise as a critical theorist to unpack the rhetoric of (a) equality, (b) the full power of the Government of Aotearoa New Zealand to govern, and (c) the recognition of the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed Te Tiriti put forth in the Treaty Principles Bill. I will argue that the rhetoric of equality, power, and recognition that rights that hapū and iwi had as depicted in the Bill, when deployed within a disinformation ecosystem, is directed to communicatively invert—turn materiality on its head, thus potentially undermining Te Tiriti. Communicative inversions such as the ones evident here risk creating further polarisation, marginalise those who are already being marginalised, and foreclosing meaningful education, conversation, and engagement with Te Tiriti.

 I will then wrap up this submission with recommendations that are directed at addressing the harm to the social fabric of Aotearoa that the Treaty Principles Bill has already done. Throughout, the submission, I will draw on notes and observations from our research on the topic.

1.     Communicative inversion of objective: At the onset, I will note that on the website, the objectives of the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill are positioned as seeking to “create greater certainty and clarity to the meaning of the principles in legislation,” “promote a national conversation about the place of the principles in the country’s constitutional arrangements,” ‘create a more robust and widely understood conception of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, and each person’s rights within them,” and “build consensus about the Treaty/te Tiriti and New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.” Yet, over a three-month period, what our research documents is that the Bill has (a) created greater divisiveness, (b) threatened social cohesion, and (c) fed online extremism that has potential brick-and-mortar ramifications. At least in the effect it creates, the Bill has so far accomplished the exact opposite of what it proposed it sought to accomplish. This inversion is to be expected,

2.     Proliferation of anti-Māori discourse: The digital platforms our team has studied (X, Facebook, and Telegram) have witnessed significant proliferation of already existing anti- Māori rhetoric since the introduction of the Treaty Principles Bill. Particularly salient here are the dehumanization of Māori, uses of marginalizing frames such as “primitive Māori” and “ethnonationalist Māori,” circulation of the “Great Replacement Theory” narrative that has been directly linked with extremist attacks carried on marginalised communities, and explicit calls for violence directed at Māori. I also note here the proliferation of anti-immigrant rhetoric on digital platforms around the Bill.

3.     Foreign extremist influence: It is of critical concern that foreign extremists, with known far-right linkages, started producing and circulating anti- Māori discourse in the backdrop of the introduction of the Bill. Such discourse contained White nationalist language, drew comparisons to South Africa (referring to murders of white farmers), used the trope of reverse racism, pushed the globalist conspiracy narrative, and amplified the “white genocide” narrative.

4.     Māori experiences of disenfranchisement. In the backdrop of the introduction of the Bill, in-depth interviews our research team has carried out with Māori community members point to feelings of sadness, anxiety, and depression. These feelings are often anchored in the sense of being disrespected, being undermined, and being targeted with negative messages. Participants report in large majority the exposure to hateful discourse online and offline, with impact of such discourses on health and wellbeing.

5.     Designing communication that honours Te Tiriti: If the Bill indeed sought to promote a national dialogue, create greater public understanding, and generate consensus around Te Tiriti O Waitangi, it should have done the following:

a.      Not use language that undermines the robust body of evidence and scholarship around Te Tiriti O Waitangi, the definitive document in te reo Māori, devalues Māori voice, and erases the context in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi was signed. Article 1 of Te Tiriti O Waitangi spells out the Kāwanatanga (Governorship) it accorded to the Crown as limited. Article 2 spells out Tino Rangatiratanga (Sovereignty), guaranteeing Māori authority and control over their lands, resources, and taonga. Article 3 of Te Tiriti guaranteed all the rights and privileges of British subjects of the Crown to Māori.

                                                    i.     I note here the communicative inversion in Principle 2 of the Bill, reflected in the statement, “The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti,” erasing the principle of Tino Rangatiratanga. Note here that Kāwanatanga (Governorship) is defined within the broader context of Tino Rangatiratanga. 

                                                  ii.     Note further the observation of the 2014 Waitangi Tribunal Report He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti that the rangatira “who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty.” The Bill further constrains Māori rights to treaty settlements.

b.     Not use the language of equality as a communicative inversion, turning on its head the material inequalities in outcomes that Māori have systematically experienced. I note here the convergence of the rhetoric of equality here with far-right campaigns that have targeted diversity, equity, and inclusion.

c.      Uphold the evidence-based around Te Tiriti O Waitangi and promote substantive engagement with the scholarly and legal evidence base.

d.     Promote dialogue that centers Māori voices and leadership.

Recommendations

Based on these observations, I offer the following recommendations:

1.     Withdraw the Principles of Treaty of Waitangi Bill. The Bill has already caused significant harm to social cohesion in Aotearoa New Zealand, feeding far-right extremist networks and activating foreign far-right influencers. The online ecosystem that has been activated by the Bill has led to the proliferation of anti- Māori discourse that is dehumanising and promotes violence. The immediate withdrawal of the Bill is a necessary first step toward starting to address the polarization and threat to social cohesion the Bill has created.

2.     Center Te Tiriti education and literacy. The polarization that has been seeded by the Bill and the misinformation around it must be countered with evidence-based education on Te Tiriti. Such education should be publicly available, incorporated into formal education structures, in civics education, as well as in public education programmes that are made accessible broadly. Moreover, new migrants to Aotearoa ought to be offered compulsory Te Tiriti education.

3.     Support community-led culture-centered social cohesion programmes. It is critical that in the aftermath of the thriving disinformation and hate catalysed by the Bill, communities, with critical Māori leadership are empowered to lead social cohesion initiatives that counter disinformation and hate.

4.     Build media literacy. Culture-centered media literacy infrastructures are critical to countering the proliferating disinformation and hate. Given the rise of anti- Māori and anti-immigrant rhetoric emergent from the far right, it is particularly critical that communities are engaged dialogically in developing interventions.

5.     Empower Māori leadership. Māori play critical role in Aotearoa in building spaces for love, connection and community. Māori values pay key roles in building dialogic spaces that are healing, empowering and inclusive. It is vital that policy frameworks invest resources into Māori leadership in promoting democracy, peace, and social cohesion in Aotearoa.

6.     Create research infrastructure for mapping disinformation. The far-right threat to Aotearoa is significant, and so is the threat from foreign influencers and networks. It is critical that a robust research infrastructure be created and sustained for mapping and responding these sources of risks to social cohesion and democracy in Aotearoa New Zealand.