Tony Sayers: The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa

What is MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.

It is the name of the Independent Working Group On Constitutional Transformation.

It sounds like a quasi-official body but it is not.  It is an offshoot of the Iwi Chairs Forum and is funded by the J.R. McKenzie Trust. It is chaired by Professor Margaret Mutu. Moana Jackson is the convenor.

Their mission was to prepare the framework for what has morphed into the He Puapua proposal.

If you are still in the dark, this is a Maori driven agenda to replace our present form of Government, using a radical restructure, that is comprised of a Maori Government and a Government for Non-Maori.

The Maori Government will hold a power of veto over many of the other government’s functions, but there is not a reciprocal power of veto for the non-Maori Government and they talk of equality.

In effect, The Government for non-Maori cannot function without Maori approval.

In short ‘Two Governments for One Country’ this sounds like a recipe for trouble down the line.

The Working Group for He Puapua was commissioned by Te Puni Kokere on the Ardern Government’s watch.

Foreword:

The purpose behind me writing on this issue is to shine a light onto the thinking that lies behind  MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA  and subsequently He Puapua.

I liken this article to holding up a mirror for Maori Separatists to take a look at themselves, from the outside looking in.

In view of the bombshell document: He Puapua, and the revelation that the ordinary Kiwi in the street had no idea that this plot had been festering under their noses for a considerable time, I now see it as imperative that as many authors as possible draw the attention of the public to as much pertinent information as possible, prior to the next Parliamentary Election. This is in the hope that voters will make informed decisions about how to place their votes, to protect their futures and the futures of their children.

The laying down of arms at the end of the last war between Maori and Europeans was not regarded by Maori as the end of their struggle, as they infer in their document: MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.

What the Pakeha has mistakenly believed to be a time for recovery, has been in fact, a breathing space before the next confrontation.

Maori have laid down the taiaha, but have now armed themselves with the law book and the pen. They have excelled in this respect, just as they adapted their traditional methods of warfare against muskets and artillery, they have adapted to the new battlefield, namely the conference room and the court room. I admire their acumen.

They are in every respect a tenacious opponent, but I should also caution them that their opposing team has similar qualities and access to the same tactics, so they should not expect an easy home-run.

As a ‘Pakeha’ I bear no malice towards Maori, as I bear no malice toward my opponents on the sports field.

They have their objectives and I am in opposition. If I was a Maori, I too might have been brainwashed into thinking as they do.

My contempt is reserved for those non-Maori, who defect to the opposing side through undermining their own side from within. I refer to them as ‘white ants’. They are identified by their carved bone pendants and frequent substitution of English words with Maori words. 

Maori have stepped into the International forum and have learned about politics in its many forms. Some of their number have had contact with communist countries, and have learned the arts of destabilisation and the political value of propaganda. Their recruitment of ‘Useful Fools’ is evidence of those learnings.

Feudalism was the traditional structure of Maori governance before 1840, and democracy does not sit well with their aspirations. The alliance of Maori radicals with Jacinda Ardern, is a marriage of neo-Marxists. 

It is clear from the stance taken by those who have created MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA, that they follow the ‘revisionist’ interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. They, on one hand, seek the benefits of being British Subjects, whilst on the other hand, regard themselves as a separate entity, who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Ceding of sovereignty was a core function of the Treaty, and it was a prerequisite for Maori, in order to become British subjects, with the protection that it provided.

Any tribe that refutes ceding sovereignty should not be able to make claims under the Treaty if they did not sign it, so they need to decide where they stand.

Many people would be sceptical of the suggestion that Maoris who signed the treaty, did not cede their sovereignty to the British Crown. The British would have abandoned the treaty idea, had Maori not ceded the perceived sovereignty. The treaty was more about legitimising Britain’s annexation of New Zealand in the eyes of other powers, who also had their eye on New Zealand at the time. USA, France, Germany and Russia.

If you want to be pedantic, at the time of the Treaty signing, there was no Maori Sovereign around, so how could they cede a non-existent sovereignty?

Their sovereign did not show up until the Kingite Rebellion of the 1860s, so they do have a point.

Let’s compromise and say that they ceded the perceived sovereignty.

Anyway, Maori at the time, signed and chose to be under the protection of the British Crown in preference to any other foreign power. I mean, they could have continued to live in their professed ‘Utopia’ where they killed and ate their neighbours and temporary allies/partners, or else come under the delicate ministrations of the Germans or the Russians. Look at what the Germans dished out to the natives of Namibia in Africa. Would Maoris still have what they enjoy under the British Crown today? So that’s signing the Treaty and ceding sovereignty dealt with.

Development:

The objective of this article is to take a brief look at the document entitled: “The Report of MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA”. Henceforth I will abbreviate it to MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.  I say a brief look, because the document comprises 125 pages, so I will attempt to give readers a sample of the train of thought that runs through it.

-----------------------------------------------------------

(Pg 11).  “We believe that 2040 would be a good year to set as a goal for some form of constitutional transformation”.

·        This is the target set for implementation of He Puapua.

In MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA , The Maori Separatists complain about the lack of progress towards Maori-centred objectives and the Crown being the dominant ‘partner’. The foundation for their thinking is based upon the position that they did not cede their sovereignty Ie: twisting history and twisting of the treaty, so of course they will be opposed. Most people prefer the truth.

Let us take a look at some excerpts from MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA:

(Pg 14). “The Terms of Reference do not require the Working Group to draft a substantive constitution. That was rightly seen as a matter for further discussion after the initial Working Group process is completed. Neither were we asked to give detailed consideration to practical structural issues such as the franchise, the costings, the possible jurisdictional issues, nor the relative merits of a written or unwritten constitution. Those matters were discussed but often as part of a general kōrero about what was meant by a Tiriti-based constitution or the more philosophical debate about how to balance the authority of rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga”.

·     This section simply states the scope of the Working Group’s objectives, which is basically to set up the skeleton of what is to be fleshed out in subsequent phases. The focus being on the balance of power between Maori Authority and the Government/Crown.

·     A balance should be viewed as 15% of power to 15% of the population and 85% of the power to the remaining 85% of the population, on the basis of 1 person equals 1 vote. This is at odds with the Maori concept of ‘Co-Governance viewed as: the Maori 15% of population get 50% of power and the non-Maori 85% of the population get 50% of the power. Such a view highlights the ambition of the Maori Separatist Movement.

*********************************

 (Pg 7). This Report uses the term “constitutional transformation” rather than “constitutional change”.

·     Playing with words. They both mean alter. Transformation is gradual, change is immediate.

Either way, the intent is to govern the country the Maori Way, whether gradually or rapidly.

********************************

(Pg 7). One of the submissions received by the working group raised the topic of ‘The ongoing implications of the emigration of our people overseas’.

·        This is indeed a significant matter for Maori to address.

         I can see two negative effects from a Maori stand-point:

-     Firstly, the more intelligent, independent, confident and entrepreneurial young Maoris are eager to see other countries, but might not return to New Zealand, and represent a loss to their people;

-     I have spoken with a number of Maoris in Australia. Some of mixed-race marriages, who say they left “to get away from Maoris”. Perhaps they have a point. What does this say about the vaunted Maori Culture and political direction? They are concerned for the futures of their children in a divided nation.

 

-    It is periodically reported in Australian newspapers that Maori Gangs are a large part of the illicit drug distribution network in Australia, on the Gold Coast in particular. Clashes between Maori gang members and Aboriginals have occurred around Darwin. This does not endear them to the Australian public.

 

-     Under Australian Federal Law sections 116 and 501: Kiwis, whose activities in Australia are of a criminal nature are deported to New Zealand, and quite rightly so. Although NZ does not have a reciprocal arrangement. From what I have seen, it appears as though the majority of this cohort are Maori.

This does the Maori image no good at all on the international stage.

Indeed, in this regard, Maori need to make decisions for Maori and take some responsibility, without blaming the white-man and colonisation.

**************************************

(Pg 8). “It also recognises, as our people did, that there will be opposition to the ideas presented and that more work needs to be done”.

·     This statement acknowledges that non-Maori elements of the population will not be happy with what Maori propose.

Is this because they accept that there is incompatibility with what they propose and what non-Maori expect. The Maori minority wish to impose disproportional dominance over the majority.

How many non-Maori would not oppose that!

(Pg 8). “that prior to 1840 Iwi and Hapū were vibrant and functional constitutional entities. That is, they had the right, capacity and authority to make politically binding decisions for the well-being of their people and their lands”.

“well-being of their people “    

·        This is portrayed as though Maori Ariki were infallible seers. In reality, their decisions also lead to Utu, which was the foundation for the demise of many iwi, through deaths from inter-tribal warfare and the loss of their tribal estate to the victor tribe. Yes, confiscation of land was also a Maori customary practice, and part of their Tikanga, along with enslavement.

 

Their decision-making prowess also resulted in the decimation of their population through hunger, due to the disruption of agriculture because of war, and also because raids by their enemies upon their patakas left them without food. Is this what is meant by ‘vibrant and functional’. Is this what is meant by ‘well being of their people’.

 

Today Maori have attempted to paint a picture of pre-1840 Maori existence as being some sort of Utopia. This is nothing more than propaganda.

*********************************

(Pg 8). “On this matter our people were clear – they were fundamentally relevant because they all express the right for Māori to make decisions for Māori that is the very essence of tino rangatiratanga”.

·     ‘The right for Maori to make decisions for Maori’.

No worries, even the most extremist right-wing Pakehas would agree with that, as long as the decision applies only to Maori.

A problem would arise when elements of Maori decisions impinged upon the rights of non-Maori.

Introducing Tikanga to replace existing law for starters. I will not elaborate at length, since the list of potential scenarios would be extensive, but as a quick example is: having to pay for a Cultural Survey before you can erect a garden shed in your own back-yard, in the Auckland Region. Have to check for those pesky taniwhas again.

*********************************

(Pg 8). “For that reason this Report does not consider in any great detail the contrary views that the Crown has maintained since 1840, and especially its presumption that Iwi and Hapū ceded sovereignty in Te Tiriti”.

·     In other words, these Separatists are ‘hell bent’ on pushing through their agenda, regardless that their twisting of history and twisting the interpretation of the Treaty by the Waitangi Tribunal, is not acceptable to the Crown.

*********************************

(Pg 8). “the participants’ belief that a constitution had to be based on certain values. For example the equality provided for in Te Tiriti was itself seen as a value”.

·     “Equality”. Hooray! We agree on something. As long as Maori are not ‘more equal’ than everyone else.

**********************************

(Pg 8). “Others related to constitutional conventions such as transparency and mechanisms to ensure that the authority of Māori was not subordinated to that of the majority”.

·     This translates, that in the event that Maori disagree with the majority, which is often, that the Government will not have the final say. Yes, that sounds like a recipe for peace – not.

Oh! I get it! The Court will decide. Yep! And they will use Tikanga. Simple – Maori win again.

********************************** 

(Pg 9). ‘The underlying kaupapa behind each model is that tikanga and our own history always recognised the independence of each Iwi and Hapū”.

·     This gets interesting. Laws within laws. Not only do we have to abide with varying codes of tikanga from rohe to rohe, we also have to be conversant with multiple kawas from village to village.

Ahaaaaa! This is why we must learn Te Reo.

Will each Rohe have its own police force, and each village its own wardens?

That is one way of solving Maori unemployment. But who pays for that – need you ask?

 

*********************************

 (Pg 9).                                             Now to the Guts of it.

“We call those spheres of influence the “rangatiratanga sphere”, where Māori make decisions for Māori and the “kāwanatanga sphere” where the Crown will make decisions for its people”. “The sphere where they will work together as equals we call the “relational sphere” because it is where the Tiriti relationship will operate”.

·     “Māori make decisions for Māori -  the Crown will make decisions for its people”.  “Its People! ! !”  Wow!
Here it is, Maori do not consider themselves as subjects of the Crown. (But they want the Treaty).   
So, Maori now view it as Maori people and the Government’s people. 
Maori Government and Government-Government.
That is not what the Treaty infers.
It says nothing of two governments.                                                                        
So, what is the Treaty of Waitangi about?
It is incompatible with a two-government structure. 
The Crown is the government in the Treaty.

·     
“He iwi tahi tatou” or “He iwi kotahi  tatou”, they both infer unity, One Tribe/One nation. One not Two.  
But now that too has been twisted. So, it is now Two not One.
Maori will deny twisting the Treaty, they are re-interpreting it in a ‘transitional’ way. 
They wonder why “there will be opposition to the ideas presented”            

·     
Maori want to incorporate the Treaty into the proposed  constitution. 
The Treaty is about one Government not two.   
So why do Maori cling to the Treaty, to beat the rest of us over the head with it? 
Money?
This sounds like ‘wanting your cake and eating it too’.  
It’s called ‘cherry-picking’

(Pg 11). “In spite of all that has happened there is still good will and a belief that the many obstacles to transformation can eventually be overcome and a new constitution established. It would be fair to say that throughout the last four years of discussion people did not see that as some pious hope but as a legitimate treaty expectation”. 

·     So, “a new constitution established” and “as a legitimate treaty expectation”.               

I must have missed something in the Treaty fine print.

**************************************

(Pg 12). “The reasons for its formation have historic origins because ever since 1840 Māori have tried to ensure a respectful and equal constitutional relationship with the Crown as promised in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That has not occurred of course as the history and consequences of colonisation too clearly show”.

·     So, the Kingite Wars were respectful, as promised in Te Tiri o Waitangi.
Of course they were, we all know that.  All the trouble was caused by those nasty white-men.
Even all the school-children know that!

·     Propaganda!

************************************

(Pg 12). “Yet Māori have never abandoned the treaty promise. Whether it was the establishment of Kotahitanga or the Kīngitanga, or the discussions prior to the first sitting of the Māori Parliament at Waipatu in 1892, or even the establishment of Māori Congress nearly a century later, the kaupapa of constitutionalism as a way of Māori making Māori decisions was always present”.

·     “Māori have never abandoned the treaty promise”.  Maori Parliament? Maori Congress? New constitution?  Treaty promise?  What have they been smoking?  I am lost for words.                        

***********************************

(Pg 12). “After much consideration a sense in fact developed that the lack of progress in achieving specific Māori-centred objectives was not just due to Crown disinterest. Neither was it due to a disjunction between the policy aspirations of the Crown and Māori. Rather it was felt that a more fundamental imbalance existed between the Crown’s exercise of constitutional authority and the constitutional powerlessness of Māori”.

·     Of course a more fundamental imbalance existed between the Crown’s exercise of constitutional authority and the constitutional powerlessness of Māori “. The Government does what the Treaty and the present constitution requires. It has not yet been changed. Last time I looked.

************************************

(Pg 13). “Forum members were all acquainted with the long struggle against the exercise of unilateral Crown power ever since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Indeed the very notion of Crown breaches of the Treaty is at its base a question of constitutionalism and the use or misuse of the power taken by the Crown in 1840”.

·     Here again is evidence of a warped view of what the Treaty constituted, coupled with a twiste view of history. The reference to: “power taken by the Crown in 1840”, does not acknowledge that sovereignty was ceded.  

It is no use complaining about the Treaty, unless you acknowledge being a legitimate party to the  Treaty.  Legitimacy as a party to the Treaty was only gained through ceding sovereignty. Let’s have some clear thinking!  Naturally, if you cede sovereignty to the crown, then the Crown possesses ‘unilateral Crown power’.   It is not rocket science.

************************************

The Working Group Terms of Reference:

“The Terms of Reference given to the Working Group are deliberately broad – “To develop and implement a model for an inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa based on tikanga and kawa, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni of 1835, Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840, and other indigenous human rights instruments which enjoy a wide degree of international recognition”.

·     Basing a constitution on Tikanga and Kawa is not what the Treaty implied for the overall populace of New Zealand. Maori could apply it within their communities, but there was no intention that non-Maori should be subjected to Tikanga and Kawa. The Treaty relates to power held and administered by the Crown.                     
The proposal for two governments is incompatible with the Treaty, and the only purpose in trying to incorporate the Treaty into a new constitution is to prolong the gravy train for on-going Treaty settlements.    

No Treaty – No settlements. Full and final settlement was a myth.

********************************

(Pg 16). “ the sending of their young men and women into combat”.

·     So, what do we have here? It looks like, ‘One constitution -Two Nations’, each with an independent military agenda. Do we have two armies? Somewhere in the middle of this there is a Treaty of Waitangi. Very clear?

·     So, the Government’s people snuggle up to ANZUS and the Maori people snuggle up to whom?  The taniwha and the dragon?   What happens if each government’s allies are in conflict?

·     I like the idea of One Nation, One Government, One Kaupapa. “He iwi kotahi tatou” 
As far as alliances are concerned, I go with The Kiwi and the Kangaroo!  Right on cobber!    
Does Jacinda have some hesitancy on this point?  The ANZACs have stood the test of time.  

*********************************

(Pg 16). “The Working Group also accepted that some Pākehā would see the process as divisive and threatening. Most would probably dismiss it as “unrealistic”. On many occasions those views were conveyed to us”.

·     That writer has divided the Pakeha into two factions: Those who see it as divisive and threatening; and a greater number who thought it unrealistic. Let me correct that. Most pakeha regard it as all three – divisive, threatening and unrealistic. Call it one faction – a big one!

*********************************

Section 4. Peace and Mutual Respect – Kotahi Aroha

·     Under this section, there were many constructive and sincere sentiments expressed, which gives me hope that Maoris with common-sense will moderate the extreme views of the radical Maoris. Kia Kaha.

*********************************

APPENDIX THREE:

FINDINGS FROM MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA RANGATAHI.

“A key concern for many of our rangatahi countrywide was the lack of protection for our natural environment here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Rangatahi regularly identified multiple instances where our natural resources have been depleted, compromised or put up for sale. As such, they strongly opposed harmful processes that compromised our natural environment, whenua, forests and waterways, like fracking and mining”.

·     Good for the Rangatahi. I too, would like to see the resources of our coastlines protected from greedy people. Especially from those who gather kaimoana in violation of their own duty as kaitiaki, and take more than the limit, or undersized paua, as we have seen on TV – ‘Coastwatch”. Then there are those who seek Mineral Rights through gaining ownership of the foreshores and the territorial seabed, full of manganese and commercial fish species. You are the Kaitiaki.

**********************************

I have read on and on through the document and it was mostly a reiteration of the same basic themes, dealt with in the same monocular fashion. Basically, wants became rights. Everything Maori want was guaranteed by the Treaty.

Maori can do the job better than the government or scientists because of Maori Matauranga and Maori acknowledge atua and papatuanuku, and this over-rides any scientific thinking.

You have heard it all before and ho hum, it is past my bed-time.

 **********************************

When you go to vote, remember who brought the country to this juncture.

The power will lie in your hands to decide the future.

Reference:

The Report of MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.

***************************************************************

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.