But in arguing that Te Tiriti requires a radical departure from democratic principles in favour of co-governance what they fail to explain is why their arguments differ so fundamentally from what nearly every authority on the Treaty has believed since 1840.
They fail to note that Governor Hobson said, as each chief signed the Treaty, “now we are one” – he certainly didn’t say “Now we are two and shall remain ever thus”.
They fail to quote any of the speeches made by Maori chiefs at Waitangi before the Treaty was signed, many of them strongly opposing the Treaty because they recognized that in signing it they would be surrendering power to a higher authority.
They fail to quote any of the speeches made by Maori chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860, speeches in which chief after chief applaud the benefit of the Queen’s sovereignty.
They fail to quote iconic Maori statesmen like Sir Apirana Ngata or Sir Peter Buck who had not the slightest doubt that Te Tiriti involved the surrender of sovereignty.
They fail to acknowledge more recent translations of Te Tiriti, such as that by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, who translated the three Articles of the Treaty as:
They fail to quote any of the speeches made by Maori chiefs at Waitangi before the Treaty was signed, many of them strongly opposing the Treaty because they recognized that in signing it they would be surrendering power to a higher authority.
They fail to quote any of the speeches made by Maori chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860, speeches in which chief after chief applaud the benefit of the Queen’s sovereignty.
They fail to quote iconic Maori statesmen like Sir Apirana Ngata or Sir Peter Buck who had not the slightest doubt that Te Tiriti involved the surrender of sovereignty.
They fail to acknowledge more recent translations of Te Tiriti, such as that by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, who translated the three Articles of the Treaty as:
1. The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.
2. The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.
3. For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.
There was absolutely nothing in Te Tiriti about guaranteeing equal outcomes (as claimed by some of those arguing why we need a separate Maori health authority), only a strong commitment to “the same rights and duties of citizenship”.
And have Maori been able to avail themselves of these equal rights? Certainly, and especially since the advent of MMP more than 20 years ago. Two years ago, the Leader and Deputy Leader of the National Party, the Leader and Deputy Leader of New Zealand First, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, the Co-Leader of the Greens, and the Leader of the ACT Party were all Maori. In the present Government, the percentage of Maori Ministers considerably exceeds the proportion of Maori in the general population. Maori have shown themselves absolutely able to foot it with other New Zealanders in a democratic polity, where every person, irrespective of race or religion, has an equal vote.
And the co-governance alternative that the authors advocate? It is inconceivable that the 85% of New Zealanders who do not identify as Maori will willingly concede 50% of the political power to those New Zealanders who have some, often quite small, percentage of Maori heritage. Especially is this true given that nowhere in the world has such a lop-sided arrangement lasted for long.
The only way to an harmonious future is to ensure that all citizens have equal political rights, and to deal effectively with social and other problems wherever they arise, irrespective of ethnicity.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011. This article was originally posted HERE, 14 May 2022
6 comments:
It is interesting don, because many people including myself can't say what we really think in case we are called racist. This is how the activists have been able to silence the population. And not many prominent maori, apart from winston peters say it's wrong. People in the media such as james daniels who are well known, don't de-cry what is happening. Some openly.support it like tamati coffey. So what can ordinary.people do to stop it?
As previously, because maoei, at least currently, act as a coordinated bloc, and as at least one other will inevitably side with them, 50/50 co governance is effectively maori total control.
1.To Obert Authur
With respect, the fact that one group ( Maori - and minority) holds a veto means that this group has final control/authority/power in any governance situation. A simple fact . * Veto or prior consent - same thing
2.If NZers are afraid to challenge the " racist" label when irrefutable facts are presented, then they will pay a very heavy price for their lack of guts.
To anonymous
This attitude is cowardice on the part of intelligent NZers to accept this ridiculous woke diatribe.
The price to pay will be painful.
It is not about cowardice as such. If say you were talking about this with your work colleagues and you said what you thought about co-governance, than one of your colleagues could take a formal grievance against you to HR for being "racist". This involves you getting a letter to come to a formal meeting and to bring a support person. The letter will outline that if you are found to be racist that this can lead to termination of employment. You are then subject to an interview that is recorded what you have to explain yourself about each.point you said to your colleague and then a panel decides your fate. Even if found innocent, it is an incredibly stressful.process to go through. This is what the modern workplace is like.
The principle of co-governance appears to have been an attempt to reconcile the contradictory provisions in Te Tiriti between ceding governance and maintaining unqualified chieftainship. A better understanding of this is that the Crown representatives who wrote the Treaty envisaged, realistically on the basis of previous colonization elsewhere, that the existing natives would be able to live as they had done in their own areas but British law was needed for settler areas and it needed to be paramount should any conflict arise (of relevance to settlers and the Crown) between chieftainship and colonial law. This interpretation is supported by historical records including the Native Exception Ordinance passed by the Colonial government in 1844 that required chiefs to agree to and indeed to execute any arrest warrant for a Maori accused except when in a (non-Maori) settlement or town. During the two decades after 1840 only 36 criminal charges were brought against Maori in the colonial Supreme Court. (See Maclaurin, 2015: The Application of the British Criminal Law Towards
Māori During the Early Colonial Period).
These facts and others showed the thinking at the time. In NZ's case, probably due largely to the generous provisions of Te Tiriti in giving full rights of British subjects to the natives, integration by Maori into European settlements to work and acquire some of the available comforts and technology meant that allowing Maori to maintain traditional lifestyles and laws in their own areas soon became unrealistic if NZ was to be a peaceful and successful state. Te Tiriti should have been renegotiated or discarded at that stage.
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.