The Crown’s claim to sovereignty in this country is built on myth and assumption, not on the rule of law!
So said Dr Claire Charters, Associate Professor of Law at the University of Auckland and author of the He Puapua report.
The originating document of Maori activists’ quest for Maori sovereignty by 2040 is the Matike Mai Report of 2016.
Matike Mai was commissioned by the Iwi Forum following the signing of UNDRIP in 2010 by the National government and was framed to clarify priorities for Maori self-determination and the pathways, including legislative, towards Maori sovereignty.
Matike Mai was to prepare the framework for what eventually morphed into the He Puapua Report.
He Puapua is a Maori activist-driven blueprint 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.
So where’s the equality there, Dr Charters?
In effect, the government for non-Maori cannot function without Maori approval.
In short, ‘Two Governments for One Country’. If this doesn’t sound like a recipe for serious trouble, I don’t know what is!
Activists’ goal is that New Zealand will have a new constitution in place by 2040 – the 200th anniversary of the Treaty.
The architects of Matike Mai are avid proponents of the spurious and fabricated fallacy that the treaty was signed as a partnership.
The call of Matike Mai starts with recognising He Whakaputanga (the parent document) which they say asserted the absolute sovereignty of the tribes of this country in 1835.
Are these the same tribes that were constantly at war with each other?
They refute the principle that the tribes were granted status as individual subjects under the Crown, with equal rights and responsibilities under One Law, the same as citizens of Great Britain.
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.
But activists claim, under British and international law, [that] as Maori didn’t cede sovereignty under Te Tiriti, therefore Maori authority remains!
They contend Te Tiriti (the child document) affirmed the parent authority (Matike Mai) and allowed England to establish a governor over English people, within a Maori country. Saying it was a message to the world and their trading partners that this country was, and is, a Maori country.
Matike Mai was to prepare the framework for what eventually morphed into the He Puapua Report.
He Puapua is a Maori activist-driven blueprint 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.
So where’s the equality there, Dr Charters?
In effect, the government for non-Maori cannot function without Maori approval.
In short, ‘Two Governments for One Country’. If this doesn’t sound like a recipe for serious trouble, I don’t know what is!
Activists’ goal is that New Zealand will have a new constitution in place by 2040 – the 200th anniversary of the Treaty.
The architects of Matike Mai are avid proponents of the spurious and fabricated fallacy that the treaty was signed as a partnership.
The call of Matike Mai starts with recognising He Whakaputanga (the parent document) which they say asserted the absolute sovereignty of the tribes of this country in 1835.
Are these the same tribes that were constantly at war with each other?
They refute the principle that the tribes were granted status as individual subjects under the Crown, with equal rights and responsibilities under One Law, the same as citizens of Great Britain.
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.
But activists claim, under British and international law, [that] as Maori didn’t cede sovereignty under Te Tiriti, therefore Maori authority remains!
They contend Te Tiriti (the child document) affirmed the parent authority (Matike Mai) and allowed England to establish a governor over English people, within a Maori country. Saying it was a message to the world and their trading partners that this country was, and is, a Maori country.
“…allowed England to establish a governor over English people, within a Maori country?”
Funny isn’t it, how activists, on one hand, seek the benefits of being British Subjects, whilst on the other hand, regard themselves as a separate entity, that never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.
Their intent is to govern the country the Maori Way, whether gradually or rapidly.
Certainly, Ardern is providing every assistance to the Maori caucus to get there rapidly!
Dr Charters maintains, “…without transformative change, New Zealand’s constitution will continue to perpetuate the fundamental injustice of colonial subjugation of Maori.
Matike Mai states, “It also recognises that there will be opposition to the ideas presented and that more work needs to be done”.
So, the writers acknowledge that the non-Maori members of the population will not be happy with what Maori propose.
No doubt they see the obvious incompatibility with what they propose and what non-Maori would accept.
But Ardern is championing the Maori minority imposing disproportional dominance over the majority!
Now I’m struggling with this one: “Prior to 1840 Iwi and Hapu 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.“
Part of activists’ propaganda is to portray the pre treaty, Maori lifestyle, as being some sort of paradise. Never citing inter-tribal warfare, the loss of their tribal estate to the victorious tribe and yes, what about the ‘never to be mentioned’, cannibalism?
Matike Mai expressed “Concerns related to constitutional conventions such as transparency and mechanisms to ensure that the authority of Maori was not subordinated to that of the majority”.
This is probably exactly where the country is now. Legislation being passed where, in the event that Maori disagree with the majority, the government will not have the final say.
The power of veto. It’s all interwoven through 3 Waters!
Matike Mai shows 3 spheres: “We call those spheres of influence the ‘rangatiratanga sphere’, where Maori make decisions for Maori and the ‘kawanatanga 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 partnership will operate.”
That is Maori sovereignty, a nation within a nation! Funded by who do you think?
And don’t forget, Maori will still retain the power of veto so the “relational sphere” is a fraud!
Prof. Charters deems NZ sovereignty to be a “myth” – but she is working at great speed to establish Maori sovereignty to be enshrined in law as soon as possible. Stating, “Aotearoa New Zealand needs to confront the injustices of our past and the ongoing impacts today. That starts with confronting the myth of sovereignty.”
We are living in revolutionary times. It is a coup, engineered by a small number of tribal elite, thanks to Ardern’s willingness to sacrifice New Zealand democracy for totalitarian tribal rule.
He Puapua is based on lies and deceit and is being implemented without electoral mandate by an immoral government.
John Porter is a citizen, deeply concerned about the loss of democracy and the insidious promotion of separatism by our current government. This article was first published HERE
2 comments:
There is a word to describe that structure.
Apartheid!
Another word, Treason!
MC
Post a Comment