Matariki was a great holiday and a worthy recognition of the very significant contributions of Māori to the New Zealand of today. Many of us enjoyed the celebrations and we appreciate Māori values and world views. They should be treasured. We support the preservation of matauranga Māori and Te Reo, and are happy for them to be taught at school, along with other minority world-views and languages, though not at the expense of other critical learning.
So – we were interested to read the recent piece from Professor Claire Charters in Stuff - Matariki is a mark of how far we have come, and how far we have to travel (Charters, 2023). Professor Charters expresses very strong opinions relating to the governance of our country, self-determination for one ethnic group only, and effectively to co-governance, that deserve a response.
Opinions and Responses
Here, Professor Charters’ assertions are given in italics and my responses follow directly.
The celebration of Matariki is a tremendous milestone in Aotearoa New Zealand’s history. It signals a turning point.
Matariki reflects the value that we now place on Māori culture and traditions after 180 years of colonisation. It manifests the maturing of our society, an embrace of our multifaceted and multicultural identity as New Zealanders built on the coming together of Indigenous peoples and those who followed.
We agree wholeheartedly that Matariki is a very worthy milestone and long overdue. However, Professor Charters – has colonization brought anything good or is it all negative?
As a Professor of Law at the University of Auckland, are you happy with your own salary? Who pays your salary and are you paid less than your peers because you are a Māori woman? Your precise remuneration is your own business but let me assure you that many highly-qualified white males would be thrilled to earn even half of what you are paid – in fact, by the New Zealand taxpayer.
We note that while you talk of our multicultural identity, the text of your article, and also that of He Puapua (Charters et al., 2019), speaks of Māori and Europeans almost exclusively.
How do we give effect to Māori political rights?
Professor Charters - how do we give effect to the political rights of Pacific People, Asian people and recent immigrants from North Africa and the Middle East?
What is required is more than a tweaking of the Westminster legal system, more than a Treaty claims process, more than a Waitangi Tribunal. All of these structures are grounded in, and subject to, the Crown’s (illegal) claim to sovereignty.
Professor Charters – on what basis is the Crown’s claim to sovereignty illegal? Perhaps, what is actually required is for you and others to recognize the good things that New Zealand offers to all of its citizens – not excluding yourself.
Professor Charters - we recognize present-day inequalities across demographic groups in education, health and socio-economic outcomes. To repeat what I have written several times – persistent inequalities are why in New Zealand today we see many initiatives designed to assist Māori, including various financial assistance; scholarships and other education-related incentives; financial support to help Māori landowners to build housing; preferential admission to medical school; Māori wards; heavily Treaty-centric, matauranga-Māori-based early childhood, primary and secondary education curricula; an increasingly Treaty-centric tertiary sector; a Treaty-centric and, apparently, bicultural, public service; naming of public institutions in Te Reo; funding of research on the basis of race and, of course, a dedicated health authority.
When will you, the Māori Party and others recognize the above initiatives and other advances that have been made to rectify present gaps in outcomes or, for that matter, the good things that New Zealand offers to every citizen today, irrespective of race, religion or country of origin?
Again, as I have written before - we see prejudice, in-group/out-group attitudes, greed, ambition and, indeed, racism in every community, including minority communities, and possibly even some Māori are not beyond criticism in this regard. However, when will we commit to addressing inequalities at their true sources – socioeconomic differences that underlie gaps in education and health, and both lifestyle choices and genetics that underpin disparities in health?
Finally, there’s the sovereignty question. As many scholars have explained, the Crown’s legal claim to sovereignty is at best confused. Before we can claim to be a nation founded on the rule of law, we must address the fundamental illegality of the state.
The Crown’s legal claim to sovereignty may or may not be confused, though many New Zealanders consider themselves clear on the matter. However, New Zealand was making good progress until the publication of He Puapua, a very dangerous document in the opinion of many. In any event, it is a great surprise to hear that our country is illegal.
The government has made some important progress in realising Māori political rights. The establishment of the Māori Health Authority, alongside Te Whatu Ora, are incremental steps in the right direction.
Professor Charters - the Health and Disability System Review: Interim Report (2019) tells us that of all ethnic groups in New Zealand, Pacific peoples are amongst those most affected by inequities in the socioeconomic determinants of health, including living in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation, being unemployed and having low weekly earnings. These factors can affect health directly (for example, through damp, cold, and overcrowded conditions, which increase the transmission of infectious diseases) and indirectly (for example, by limiting opportunities to engage in health-promoting behaviours).
My own analysis as a researcher and statistician is that the health and socio-economic wellbeing of Pacific People are in fact worse than those of Māori on many indices (Lillis, 2023a).
So, Professor Charters - do you support the creation of a Pacific Health Authority and special interventions for Pacific People or others, such as those initiatives listed above?
Professor Charters – did you know that more people of European extraction experience poverty than Māori? So – should we not address all individuals and families most in need, rather than prioritizing on the basis of ethnic or cultural affiliation?
Matariki illuminates the strength of Māori to keep alive, to retain and to practise our ways of doing things, despite assimilation and racism. It highlights the determination to ensure te Ao Māori is recognised.
Agreed in general, and it is recognized that some anti-Māori racism still exists. How severe is it? Does racism explain differences in health and education outcomes?
How racist are the proposed new early childhood, primary and secondary curricula? How about the Māori Health Authority or funding of research on the basis of Māori ethnicity? How racist is our heavily treaty-centric public service that embraces one particular form of traditional knowledge while ignoring others? Where is the evidence of racism in appointments to university faculty and promotions within the university system or within science? Actually, Professor Charters, that assertion has already been debunked (Lillis, 2023b).
To what extent are we reconfiguring our universities towards Pacific or Islamic world views or teaching Pacific or Islamic traditional knowledge within our degree programs? How often do we sing Asian, Pacific or Islamic songs before committee meetings?
Both Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence) express the right for Māori to govern ourselves in accordance with our law. This is the essence of tino rangatiratanga and our collective mana.
How will we identify those who are to be accorded the right to self-govern? For any cultural or ethnic group, arrival at a position of self-governance most certainly will involve a major constitutional upheaval. Who pays?
Professor Charters – do you support the right to self-govern for Pacific people and others too? If not – is that because their ancestors of a dozen or more generations ago were not present in these islands first? Is that a sufficient rationale?
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples includes the right to self-determination, the right to self-government, the right to autonomy, and the right to inclusion in state governance.
Apparently it does. So – one ethic group is to govern itself, but how much say is that group to have in the governance of others? Does it have veto rights only or is a self-identifying group that constitutes about 16% of the New Zealand population to hold 50% decision-making rights over all matters of national interest? Again - who pays for the legislative process that will give expression to self-determination of any ethnic or cultural group?
A Te Tiriti political partnership model is not just beneficial for Māori, as the frontline response from marae to our recent severe weather events illustrates.
Where is partnership mentioned in the Treaty of Waitangi? If indeed partnership is established – how will it benefit everyone else? Where is the cost-benefit analysis?
Before we can claim to be a nation founded on the rule of law, we must address the fundamental illegality of the state.
Many of us indeed claim that we are a nation that is founded on the rule of law. Are we all mistaken?
Aotearoa still refuses to repudiate the doctrine of discovery – the racist rule that permitted European powers to take land from “natives” because they didn’t qualify as humans.
The relevant papal bulls of the fifteenth century that underpin the Doctrine of Discovery had limited duration and relate in part to other historic events such as the defense of Catholic territories from the Saracens and to support Spain (at that time the strongest Catholic state in Europe) in its strategy to claim exclusive rights to certain territories visited by Christopher Columbus the previous year.
At that time the Vatican’s view was that territories not inhabited by Christians were open to claims of ‘discovery’ and some form of sovereignty, by whichever Catholic power first asserted sovereignty over these territories (Dr. Paul Moon, pers. comm.).
As had been the case for the preceding two centuries with respect to New Zealand, there was no reference to the Doctrine of Discovery by British officials, and neither did its tenets inform any aspect of British policy towards this potential colony. On the contrary, instead of arbitrarily asserting absolute sovereignty over Māori territory on the basis that Māori were largely not Christian (as the Doctrine of Discovery required), a limited form of sovereignty was applied (British jurisdiction sovereignty was to be confined to British subjects in the colony), and the sanctity of Māori sovereignty (rangatiratanga) and land ownership was promised through a treaty between the chiefs and the British Crown (Dr. Paul Moon, pers. comm.).
So - whether or not Britain exercised aspects of the Doctrine of Discovery when colonising New Zealand is open to debate. In fact, from the year 1768, British policy on settlement required the consent of Māori and thus, in a sense, represented the polar opposite of the Doctrine of Discovery.
Sadly, there is truth in the assertion of wrongdoing, just as there is truth in inter-tribal warfare, low life expectancy and cannibalism prior to colonization. In New Zealand, much land was sold legally to settlers and some land was stolen unfairly. That is why we have historic and existing claims under the Waitangi Tribunal.
We need a constitutional reset. We need to work towards a governmental structure that upholds and protects all our rights, including Māori political rights.
Indeed we need a governmental structure that upholds and protects all our rights, including Māori political rights. Do we not have that already? And why do you mention one ethnic group only when other groups are human too?
Professor Charters - do you seek equality for all or preferential treatment for one ethnic group only?
It requires a constitution that reflects our foundation in te Tiriti o Waitangi and our multi-cultural, multi-ethnic society. It requires a constitution established by law and under which power can be held in check by law.
We have that legislative structure already and much is being done to close gaps in outcomes. Is that not enough?
I suspect we are more ready for constitutional transformation than we realise. I can’t think of a better way to honour Matariki.
No, Professor Charters. Many of us are not ready for, and simply do not want, your proposed constitutional change because it is not necessary and because we fear that the constitutional change you want will empower one group alone.
Postscript
Professor Charters - the blind ambition of activists today knows no bounds. They will harm our children through degraded education and are doing harm already to science and community relations.
Nevertheless, it is good to see that Matariki has been covered by the New Zealand media and in the media of other countries. For example, The Guardian of 13 July 2023 features an article of interest - Indigenous renaissance: Māori hope Matariki holiday will help cement status of local knowledge (Graham-McLay, 2023).
Here, we are told that the festival of Matariki marks the mid-winter rising of a particular constellation – the Pleiades star cluster – and signifies a time of beginnings and endings, coming together, remembrance of the dead, and traditionally, the planning of crops and planting. We agree that this is a delightful and very charming idea, and all of us should remember those once close to us, but who are no longer with us.
The article informs us that Māori leaders are hopeful that the country can learn more of the celebration’s ancient roots, in which the positions of the moon and stars are the foundation for understanding almost every aspect of the natural world.
“This knowledge system explains weather patterns, understanding environments, planting patterns, and understanding nature and the movements of fish and eels,” says Rereata Makiha.
We agree that the country can learn more of the celebration’s ancient roots, but those of us who have undertaken advanced degree study in geophysics and astrophysics, as I have, can assure the casual reader that the positions of the moon and stars are most certainly not the foundation for understanding almost every aspect of the natural world. Indeed, traditional knowledge may record and help to understand weather patterns and environments, planting patterns, and to understand nature and the movements of fish and eels. However, no traditional knowledge provides much explanation as to how and why such phenomena occur and, unfortunately, whatever scientific understanding is present within traditional knowledge falls far short of explanations provided by world science.
We are told that many New Zealanders are hungry to know more about the Māori understanding of the country’s land, skies, and seas. Fair enough! Many of us really are keen to learn, but draw the line at taking any form of traditional knowledge as equal to science.
Professor Charters - your He Puapua document is already damaging our country. We support your efforts to close gaps in outcomes for minorities and we applaud your courage in advocating for Māori, but it is time that New Zealand stepped back from He Puapua and time we invoked the Treaty to assure equality for all.
References
Charters, Claire et al. (2019). He Puapua: Report of the working group on a plan to realise the UN declaration on the rights of indigenous peoples in Aotearoa New Zealand.
https://iwichairs.maori.nz/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/He-Puapua-for-OIA-release.pdf
Charters, Claire (2023). Matariki is a mark of how far we have come, and how far we have to travel
https://www.stuff.co.nz/opinion/132526949/matariki-is-a-mark-of-how-far-we-have-come-and-how-far-we-have-to-travel
Graham-McLay, Charlotte (2023). Indigenous renaissance: Māori hope Matariki holiday will help cement status of local knowledge
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/14/indigenous-renaissance-maori-hope-matariki-holiday-will-help-cement-status-of-local-knowledge
Health and Disability System Review: Interim Report (2019). Hauora Manaaki ki Aotearoa Whānui – Pūrongo mō Tēnei Wā. Wellington: Health and Disability System Review. URL:
www.systemreview.health.govt.nz/assets/HDSR-interimreport/5b33db77f5/H-and-D-full-interim-report-August-2019.pdf
Lillis, D. (2023a). Our Prioritised Health System and Pacific People
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/01/david-lillis-our-prioritised-health.html
Lillis, D. (2023b). Allegations of Racism in New Zealand Universities
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/03/dr-david-lillis-allegations-of-racism.html
Dr David Lillis trained in physics and mathematics at Victoria University and Curtin University in Perth, working as a teacher, researcher, statistician and lecturer for most of his career. He has published many articles and scientific papers, as well as a book on graphing and statistics.
10 comments:
Thank you David. Keep at it. Claire Charters is an embarrassment, along with Jacinta Ruru et al. I am ashamed of them.
Prof Charters always omits one key fact:
Article 46 of the UNDRIP Declaration states that adherence to this non legally binding document cannot dismember or impair the political unity (i.e. the sovereignty ) of the signatory country.
The original Treaty provides for the sovereignty of NZ and equality of all its citizens under the law.
So, to justify i)the re-interpretation of the Treaty as a partnership,ii) a new NZ Constitution based on partnership, and iii) the He Puapua agenda, it is vital to destroy or place in doubt the legality of NZ's sovereignty.
One this is done, it is easy to proceed with the argument for Maori self-determination and privilege - that is, the replacement of democracy by an ethnocracy where Maori have superior status and authority.
It is astounding that this simple fact is steadfastly ignored - so that Prof Charters and others can push their version of the facts.
It is urgent to challenge the views of Prof Charters by citing the facts.
Brilliant post Dr Lillis. I challenge Claire Charters to respond.
Very well commented David, but you are far too kind and conciliatory and, Ms Charters is not worthy of it. Whenever has she (and her kind) ever expressed any understanding of or compassion towards those than are non-Maori, or ever even hinted that there should be some gratitude for the prevention of the former internecine inter-tribal warfare, the cannibalism, slavery and infanticide that were all rife in earlier Maori culture, or for the knowledge, technology, peace and comforts brought by civilization?
No, for as long as the ideology of He Puapua exists, she can shove her Matariki to where the sun never visits, for it is nothing but astrology and BS, all predicated on a lie that Maori lived in a well-ordered Utopia, coming together as one and celebrating the past and the future. What a joke – and, as always, at everyone else’s expense.
Beats me how Charters and others like her hold their positions. Any balatant opposite observation, however mild, is a severe threat to the university career of a non trace maori.
Both Te Tiriti and He Whakaputanga o Te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (the Declaration of Independence) express the right for Māori to govern ourselves in accordance with our law. This is the essence of tino rangatiratanga and our collective mana.
Wrong Charters.
Britain obtained sovereignty six months before the Treaty was written and signed, with the issuing of Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patented dated 30th July 1839. This was the formal 'Law of Nations' document.
Do you think the Queen would have put New Zealand under the Laws and Dependency of New South Wales if the Maoris had sovereignty over all of New Zealand?
I think not.
Excellent post. The time and effort invested in formulating such a comprehensive response must be commended. But it also points to a more serious problem. It assumes that Clair Charters (and proponents of He Puapua more generally) are motivated by the same set of values that inform your response. I suspect they are not.
As anon points out above, implementing the He Puapua agenda requires undermining the legitimacy of our legal system - which is precisely what Clair Charters does. Discrediting the legal system and undermining the legitimacy of legal authority is straight out of Carl Schmitt’s playbook.
The postmoderns are correct to note that the values embedded in liberalism are neither self-evident nor universal. This does not mean we should abandon liberal values, but it does mean there is a generation for whom the principles of liberalism no longer appear self-evident. As a consequence, arguing on the assumption of liberal democracy risks presupposing what one sets out to prove. It is unlikely that someone who fails to recognise the principles of liberalism as self-evident will be convinced by an argument that presupposes its principles.
WOW! Reminds me of New Yorker articles in which the writers are paid by the word. Your line of reasoning is commendable but you really only need the last five lines.
Was it an oversight that “Matariki” did not warrant an entry in the 2006 Maori a dictionary? Or was I misinformed?
Winston Peters is correct in saying Maori are not indigenous to NZ.This means that UNDRIP does not apply here.Australian born, less than half Maori Claire Charters has used UNDRIP inappropiately to give Maori a false entitlement.We have not voted nor discussed joining UNDRIP & we need to pull out.Also Te Tiriti & Tikanga are being seen as a partnership with the govt.The TOW was never a partnership & it is being twisted to suit her narritive.There were people here in NZ when Maori arrived.Maori killed them off & ate them. This does not make them the tangata whenua.The Maori language week has been a disaster.People are fed up with it.Kelvin Davis Hokai Rangi restoritive justice system has been a failure.Gang membership has doubled & crime has increased. The economy is in a mess with all these failed "experiments"
Post a Comment