The document ‘He Puapua’ is apparently, the roadmap for the implementation of ‘The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples’ (UNDRIP) into New Zealand Law by the Year 2040.
This implies that He Puapua should reflect the principles of UNDRIP. However, as I read both documents, it becomes apparent that this is not entirely the case. He Puapua, is using UNDRIP as a disguise, it is obviously a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
Here is the
Nub:
Article 46 Of UNDRIP
No:3 states:
- “The provisions set forth in this Declaration shall be interpreted in accordance with the principles of justice, democracy, respect for human rights, equality, non-discrimination, good governance and good faith.”
The He Puapua document clearly contravenes UNDRIP, since these principles have been violated.
To justify this statement,
I posit that:
In the section, VISION 2040 FOR DECLARATION
REALISATION of He Puapua:
Section 2. Participation
in kawanatanga Karauna,
Bullet-point
#2:
It states:
- “Maori will have a meaningful, and sometimes, dominant voice in resource management decisions”.
The word “dominant”
makes a mockery of the principles of democracy, equality and
non-discrimination.
This one word
sums up the key objective of He Puapua, namely: “Dominance
over the entire population of New Zealand”.
That is not democratic. That is not equal and that is not non-discriminatory, for starters.
Also:
In He Puapua - VISION 2040 FOR DECLARATION REALISATION
Within the topic of ‘EQUITY’, it is stated:
- “All Maori will enjoy equity in opportunity and outcomes...”
Does this mean
that the current lowered entry level and reserved places exclusively for Maori
in Medical School will be rescinded? I doubt it, and if it is to be retained
then the principles of equality and non-discriminatory will again have been
violated.
Also:
He Puapua - TE TIRITI /
RANGITIRATANGA FRAMEWORK
Item 14. “The rangatiratanga sphere reflects
Maori governance over people and places.”
Does “governance
over people” infer over all other New Zealanders?
I am inclined to
take it as such, since the reach of the power that Maori seek over lands and
resources currently vested in the Crown, would extend to all stakeholders.
Where are the
principles of democracy or equality in this?
Also:
Item 15. “Maori remain a minority with their
rights vulnerable to the majority”
In all true
democracies around the world, the voices of the majority determine the
outcomes.
The majority is not always determined by race, it is determined by the issue. The make-up of majorities and minorities are fluid as the issues change, so race is nothing more than one of the many elements that go into this melting pot. Right now, gender groups, human rights groups or environmental groups participate in democracy and those in the minority accept the outcome, if they are truly democratic.
Indeed, Maori are a minority, I am glad that they acknowledge that, and their agenda, not their rights, is vulnerable to the majority. Their rights are enshrined in the Treaty and in the Constitution, and if the truth be known, they presently enjoy more rights than other New Zealand citizens under our present race-based laws.
The above
reference in He Puapua is a declaration that Maori are
resentful of democracy, and that comes as no surprise, since feudalism with
its inherent privileges for the Ariki, was the norm for
them before the Treaty.
Today, it is the descendants of those Ariki who seek power, and democracy does not fit with their designs.
The terminologies
used in He Puapua are open to a variety of interpretations.
My own interpretations
are influenced by the themes that run through the He Puapua document, for
example:
He Puapua – ENGAGEMENT page
vii:
Item 23. “Public engagement and a strong public education campaign will be necessary to reach Vision 2040.”
Does “engagement” mean consultation or presentation?
Will “engagement” simply be be between Maori and a government that has removed the legitimate referenda on Maori wards within councils, or will engagement mean the call for submissions, or public meetings where the public have a voice.
On a matter of such import, true democracy would require a binding public
referendum, but that avenue has been blocked already, so the implementation of He Puapua, as it stands, would
certainly not comply with the principles of democracy and good governance.
I note that the authors
of He Puapua have not ventured to include referenda as part of
engagement. Funny that!
Woops! A referendum is a democratic mechanism.
Also:
Does “public education” mean propaganda?
After all, what was all that noise about ‘partnership with the Crown’
or ‘not ceding sovereignty’ or ‘burning Maori women and children
in the church at Rangiaowhia’.
Why would I possibly suspect that Maori Sovereignty proponents would use
propaganda?
Why would I consider that the UNDRIP principle of ‘good faith’ is at risk in He Puapua?
THE ROADMAP
TO DECLARATION CONSISTENCY
Item 26:
“In suggesting steps, we have sought to find a balance between providing concrete examples while not pre-determining matters that should be informed by a participatory engagement process, and/or are best determined by Maori through the exercise of rangatiratanga”.
Once again here
is the presumption that Maori regard the non-Maori perspective as irrelevant or
of lower significance than the Maori perspective. This does not accept that
non-Maori are equal to Maori.
It assumes
that Maori will hold the dominant view and power over decision-making.
This is just one more example that the UNDRIP principle of equality will not apply.
Under TIME FRAMES
– TO 2021
It is stated in bullet-point #4:
- “The government will have initiated a public education campaign to give all New Zealanders the tools to have informed discussions about our constitutional arrangements, and set up a process for the Crown to determine how it should partner with Maori in a Tiriti-based constitution.”
In consideration
of the track record of the Ardern Government, plus the Maori Sovereignty
Brigade to date; the public education campaign would be loaded in favour of
the Maori Sovereignty agenda.
The tools to have
informed discussions would be constrained by the proposed ‘Hate Speech Laws’.
The process for the Crown to determine how it should partner with Maori, would be a back-room deal, and any public information, whilst it is in progress, would likely have to be requested under the “Official Information Act’ and it would probably be incomplete and heavily redacted.
In view of how the He Puapua Document has eventually arrived in the public domain, this is not an unlikely scenario. It hardly meets the UNDRIP principles of ‘good governance’ or ‘good faith’.
In He Puapua under IMMEDIATE STEPS: A GOVERNANCE ROPU
Item 29 it mentions:
As an immediate action, we recommend the establishment of a high-level co-governance body comprised of equal numbers of government ministers and Maori representatives...
This section
gives 50% of governance to 15% of the population, and
even if this is just a transition step, the final fait accompli is still 50% of
governance to 15% of the population.
Where has the element of ’One man - One vote’ that typifies democracy gone?
Basic arithmetic shows:
- 50%
- 50%
- 3.33
- The voting power for a Maori is 5.66 times greater than that of a non-Maori.
To hell with that!
History shows that wars have been fought for the right of ‘One
man – One vote’.
So! Is this the
remedy for what is claimed in He Puapua about Maori
rights being vulnerable to the majority?
Does this satisfy the UNDRIP principle of democratic?
Referring back to
UNDRIP - PREAMBLE:
Paragraph 2:
Affirming that indigenous peoples are equal to all other peoples...
What has been
proposed in Item 29 above is, in the mind of any sane, honest
person, not making “indigenous peoples equal to all other peoples”,
it is raising them to a superior position of dominance over the general
public.
Does that sound
like democracy, or like feudalism?
We are supposed to have advanced since pre-1840 feudalism.
The apparent
discrepancies between the UNDRIP and the He Puapua
Declaration indicates that the token non-Maori ‘legal eagles’
appointed to the DWG, have obviously had their democratic and legal learnings
warped, in that the Maori perspectives and objectives are apparently the only
perspectives considered, Ie: the non-Maori perspective was either disregarded, or
not raised.
Perhaps their payment was linked to their responses. This type of intimidation is not new.[1]
Race relations and democracy in this country are at an all-time low and the He Puapua proposals could prove to be the spark that we all fear.
Jacinda! The ball is in your court!
References:
https://iwichairs.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/He-Puapua-for-OIA-release.pdf
https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf
[1] http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/articles/the-waitangi-tribunal/courts-vs-waitangi-tribunal/
Tony Sayers is a retired school-teacher, trained at Ardmore Teachers’ College, and has held the position of school Principal in Australia and New Zealand. His teaching experience spans new entrants level to 6th Form, in primary and secondary subjects including: Graphics, Design-Technology, Mathematics, Science, English and Physical Education. In addition to teaching, he has worked in a variety of other areas including Law Enforcement, Engineering, Maritime and Union sectors.
12 comments:
Implimentation of any of the document is quite clearly an act of treason against the country and citizens.
We must be assure that any anti democratic outcome will not stand.
The general public are not all fools and will eventually see and understand what all this means for them, personally and collectively.
Great piece of analysis. The Devil is in the Detail. The one-eyed separatist agenda is being illustrated by Maori lobbying in the Health sphere, justified by stats on poorer health outcomes for Maori compared to Pakeha. BUT, on all measures Pacifica people have poorer health outcomes than Maori, and, arguably should be prioritized over Maori. But the fundamental flaw in this is race-based analyis ignores the common cause of poorer health outcomes, which is poverty.
What is the true definition of a Maori. I have some maori ancestry going back to the early settlers but mostly pakeha. I am registered Ngapuhi. How many full blooded Maori are there in New Zealand. Most have Pakeha names. I have studied the Maori language as an adult with others who have maori ancestry and who have sucessfull jobs and trades. The treaty was never mentioned. Before the pakeha, maori enjoyed their enemies for breakfast and now they can have bacon and eggs. They can enjoy all the priviledges that pakeha have brought to New Zealand under British rule. They were lucky that the Dutch did not get here first as there would be no treaty now to talk about. It is a shame that we have a blame culture instead of taking personal responsibility in an equal opportunity country. How would maori deal with a communist regime because that is where we are heading if we all don't wake up soon. We are all equal on this planet. If you want better health outcomes get off your arse and get daily exercise and manage your your diet and smell the roses. We live in an era where self education is the easiest it has ever been with so much educational resource available at low cost. All it needs is motivation and that applies to all races. There is so much resource going to waste in this country. Maori have land and people that could be put to work in developing maori business enterprises. Ngapuhi have been sitting on their arses scabbling over the Treaty Settlement while Ngai Tahu have been building a well run commercial enterprise. I am retiring to Kaikohe in the far north next year and will strir the pot. Maori need leadership. Reduce the prison population by better management of local resources and develop a blue print for a better future and get rid of the notion of blame and dependancy. Pakeha and Maori are good partners. Look at how many have inter married. Lets get some real positive attitudes in our leaders to go forward and leave the past to history.
Great comment Kiwi-maker - you should turn your ideas into an article!
If you are interested, please email us on BreakingViews@nzcpr.com
Thanks,
Muriel
Well said Kiwi-maker! I'd like to think your views are those of most New Zealanders. Unfortunately for us, most NZders are not part of this government.
How to become an entitled pakeha, three steps to heaven
1) Have at least an iota, skerrick, smidgen, driblet, perhaps a small drop or more of Maori ancestry.
2) Choose a Hapu
and according to Justice Churchman
3) Listen to just one story told to you by another Maori.
Now you are fully qualified as tikanga but also retain matauranga, ‘which is the knowledge or wisdom passed down to you’ by the Maori who told you the story.
Next as one of just a few other tribesmen/women, you may now lord it over huge stretches of NZ coastline, making all sorts of important decisions while patrolling and controlling public activities and access.
Thank you Justice Churchman
Snitch: Your comment is appreciated, but to all those who have read the comment posted above, about the Court ruling by Justice Churchman, if you want to do more than talk about it, then donate a few dollars to the appeal fund as I have.
This court judgement is the thin end of the wedge.
This decision illustrates that NZ courts are no longer independent of politics.
I have been trying to work-out the end-objective of Ardern's elevation of Maori.
Could it be that she intends to expand the effect of the current Maori parliamentary seats ?
The Maori electorate tends to be left-leaning. If Maori are awarded fifty percent of the seats in Parliament and we add the usually substantial number of traditional Labour party seats then we have an unassailable bloc.
Effectively a one-party state.
Or is this a little too far-fetched ?
In the comment posted by Anonymous, above: You may well be right, but another motive has crossed my mind. Jacinda Ardern might be paving the way for an appointment with the United Nations. Perhaps she has been mentored by 'Aunty Helen'. Perhaps the New Zealand stage is not large enough to accommodate Jacinda's ego.
Who will represent Maori? How will these be selected? Will all Maori accept them, and how will this acceptance be demonstrated? A one person one vote referendum? And what say will the 170,000 living in Australia be consulted? And the 5,000 living in various other countries?
That is a bundle o fish hooks indeed.
Indigenous people all over the world have been superceded by civilised western culture. The 'west is the best' --like it or not. The Abos did not invent the wheel during 45,000 years of their culture. Tribal groups have been 'burning each others villages' through all of history. The 'west' ended slavery- bought in democracy -- the magna carta -- The US constitution ect. The constitution was written by white ,anglo saxon protestant land owning businessmen. The laws are written down. Not like in tribal societies or on modern day communist regimes for that matter. The principle is 'one law for all'. This is the fundamental 'gift' of the treaty of Waitangi. If you keep looking the gift horse in the mouth it will bite you.
You make the mistake of extrapolating the phrase "Maori will have a meaningul, and sometimes, dominant voice in resource management decisions" to mean "domination over the entire population of New Zealand". And again when you say "the rangatiratanga sphere reflects Maori governance over people and places", interpreting this to mean governance "over all other New Zealanders". Maori are only seeking influence over their own sphere. This is plain manipulation of the facts. Your dislike of Maori is clouding your judgement.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.