Professor Ananish Chaudhuri: Oral submission on the Treaty Principles Bill

My name is Ananish Chaudhuri. I am Professor of Economics at the University of Auckland. My views are my own and not those of my employer.

Thank you very much for giving me an opportunity to speak this morning.

I was born in India and did my undergraduate studies there. I studied further and then taught in the United States for many years. I am a citizen of New Zealand and have called this place “home” for more than two decades. I have two daughters, 19 and 16, who were born here.

I support the Treaty Principles Bill introduced by ACT. I believe the debate around this bill is fundamentally important if New Zealand is to remain a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation.

I acknowledge the discrepancies between the Maori and English versions of Te Tiriti Waitangi.

But I believe that the debate on whether Maori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown is sublimated by a long list of subsequent acts (and laws) that hold New Zealand to be an independent sovereign state.

Parliamentary sovereignty has long been considered a foundational constitutional rule.

I may be wrong.

But to those espousing the “Maori did not cede sovereignty” view, I wish to highlight TWO issues.

First, is it really possible to have separate laws, separate schools or separate health systems for one ethnicity?

I think a lot of people are of the view: what is wrong with the status quo? Why rock the boat? But the problem is that demands for separate treatment tend to expand and encompass more and more areas of social interaction.

A liberal democracy cannot survive unless everyone is treated equally, subject to the same laws.

I have just returned home from an extended visit to India, the country where I was born.

I got back yesterday, and I am seriously jetlagged. It is 1:00 AM in India right now.

But I felt compelled to speak here today.

This is especially because if you want to see the pernicious effects of different policies for different groups, then India’s experience provides a cautionary tale.

India has one rule for one set of religions and another one for other religions; some states are treated differently from others. There are extensive reservations in education and jobs based on ethnicity.

The result is outright hostility between groups. This often prevents mutually beneficial exchanges between them.

It has led to the demise of parties with broad national appeal and seen the rise of numerous small issue-based political parties that cater to the demands of the specific interest groups.

There are other examples in other countries. In all such cases these divisions are seriously detrimental to social and economic progress.

I am afraid that we, in New Zealand, may be headed down this path of ethnic tension and hostility.

The second issue I wish to highlight is this.

According to the 2023 census, as much as a quarter of the population identify as neither Pakeha nor Maori.

The 1987 Court of Appeals decision envisions the treaty as a “partnership” between Pakeha and Maori.

But if we accept this bicultural view of New Zealand citizenship; that the treaty indeed establishes a partnership between two out of many ethnic groups residing in the country, then what does this imply for the quarter of the population that is neither Maori nor Pakeha?

What loyalty or kinship can this quarter of the population, full-fledged Kiwis like my daughters, feel to a country where their very existence seems to be an afterthought?

Are they destined to be second tier citizens governed by an uneasy alliance between the Pakeha and Maori?

If the basic argument is about equity, then why are these people being excluded?

Why race? Why not need?

We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy where everyone counts, or we can become an ethnocentric nation based on identity politics and riven by ethnic tensions.

Make no mistake; the current path where particular ethnicities are granted “partnership” status can only lead to the eventual appearance of more ethnic parties fighting it out for a seat at the table as has happened in other parts of the world.

Thank you very much.

I am going to stop here.

I am happy to answer questions if any.

Ananish Chaudhuri is Professor of Experimental Economics at the University of Auckland. Besides Auckland, he has taught at Harvard Kennedy School, Rutgers University, Washington State University and Wellesley College. This article was first published HERE