After the revolutionary He Puapua report was brought to public attention for the first time in April 2021, Judith Collins and David Seymour did their best to spark discussion about its implications — especially with regard to the threat that race-based policies pose to democratic principles.
The report — relying on a radical interpretation of the Treaty — charted a path of self-determination for iwi that culminated in a separate Maori Parliament to be put in place by the 200th anniversary of its signing in 2040.
Collins launched a campaign titled “Demand the Debate”, which was intended to cover a variety of topics she said were being suppressed — with He Puapua as her initial focus.
It didn’t take very long for journalists and rival MPs to shut her and David Seymour down by repeatedly implying they were racist for even criticising He Puapua. At the same time, the media uncritically accepted Jacinda Ardern’s argument that the report had never been presented to Cabinet and wasn’t official government policy — and was therefore irrelevant.
The fact that many of Ardern’s policies mirrored what had been proposed in He Puapua — including giving mātauranga Māori parity with science throughout the education system; legislating for Three Waters to grant iwi disproportionate control of water management; and allowing iwi roadblocks (as an expression of rangatiratanga over traditional territories) during Covid — was of little interest to journalists.
A NZ Herald editorial in August 2021 claimed all the topics Collins had highlighted were, in fact, already being debated. In short, there was nothing to see here.
Two and half years later, many of our media, academics and politicians suddenly appear to be much, much keener than they have been previously for a discussion about problems arising from current interpretations of the Treaty. The prospect of a binding referendum on Treaty principles — as proposed by David Seymour — has concentrated minds wonderfully.
On Newshub Nation this weekend, host Rebecca Wright asked Stuff journalist Carmen Parahi what might be a good alternative to a referendum. Parahi thought “a bit of public education” about Te Tiriti might be useful, with Wright herself recommending a national “conversation”.
Writing in The Post, editor Tracy Watkins thought Luxon should hold “a low-key select committee inquiry maybe, rather than a referendum” as a “compromise”.
Historian Dame Anne Salmond suggested that if the incoming government “wishes to clarify the meaning of Te Tiriti, rather than a referendum [it] would be wise to think about a new kind of inquiry”.
Among the impressive array of journalists, academics and politicians scrambling to head off Seymour by recommending debate or an inquiry is Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. On Newshub, she told Seymour she thought a discussion was appropriate but a referendum would be “dangerous”.
“If we actually want to have a meaningful and informed discussion then there are other deliberative democracy processes to facilitate that — the likes of a Citizens Assembly for example.”
Few, however, will be convinced by these novel bursts of enthusiasm for dialogue and official inquiries. It is obvious the dramatic change of stance is solely because David Seymour and Winston Peters have struck fear into the hearts of our elites with their stated aim to reverse the expansion of Treaty principles — including via co-governance and tikanga — into so many areas of law and policy. Faced with the possibility of a referendum, a debate suddenly seems to many of our betters the lesser of two evils.
Although the final shape of the government has not yet been established, the leaders of Act and NZ First are likely to be in a position to deliver at least some configuration of their pledges given they head two of the three parties making up a new National-led government.
Seymour wants a referendum that will endorse a law redefining the Treaty principles much more narrowly than they have been in recent decades, while NZ First’s deputy leader, Shane Jones, said last week there would be a “reset” in Māori policy under the new government. He took aim specifically at the liberal interpretation by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal of Treaty principles.
In fact, David Seymour wants a comprehensive public debate on the Treaty too — but as part of fashioning a new “Treaty Principles Act” that can then be put to a public vote.
Seymour’s pitch has the weight of experience behind it given he shepherded the End of Life Choice Bill though Parliament. It became law in 2019, but required further public validation via a referendum attached to the 2020 general election to activate it.
With a change of government, the shoe is now suddenly on the other foot over the Treaty. For years now, dissenters to Treaty orthodoxy have been demonised and patronised by both the media and politicians. As one way of shutting down debate, they have been asked, “What do you fear about co-governance?” The clear implication has been that critics had primarily an emotional objection rather than a more principled one (including a commitment to democracy of the one-person, one-vote-of-equal-value variety).
Implying opponents are emotional rather than rational has been a well-worn refrain from Chris Hipkins, the outgoing Prime Minister, as well as from journalists. As just one example, TVNZ’s political editor, Jessica Mutch-McKay, asked National’s Three Waters spokesman, Simon Watts, earlier this year: “What scares you about co-governance?” — and then: “What makes you nervous about it?”
Unfortunately, it’s now going to be difficult for those who have bridled at the metastasising of Treaty principles to refrain from asking referendum opponents solicitously: “So what exactly is it that scares you about a referendum?... What makes you nervous about it?”
It has certainly opened the door for Seymour to ask the same question. As he observed this month:
“It seems to me that there are some people who are afraid to see the Treaty principles being open to some sunlight, because they’ve largely been decided behind closed doors by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public service.”
The principles of “Participation, Protection and Partnership” have, of course, also been enthusiastically endorsed and promoted by the mainstream media for the past three years. Which is hardly surprising given that news organisations were obliged to adopt that stance towards the Treaty to be eligible for a share of the $55 million in taxpayer cash doled out from the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
There is much amusement and schadenfreude to be had in watching those who are discombobulated by a possible change to the status quo suddenly agreeing a debate is needed. And even if Seymour fails to get agreement from Luxon and Peters for a plebiscite, the overreaction to his proposal so far has been both highly entertaining and highly revealing.
Warnings — amounting to barely veiled threats — have been issued by senior Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs about impending civil unrest and perhaps violence. It seems no one has told them that if you really don’t want the idea of a referendum to gain widespread support, it’s probably best not to suggest to voters they may get roughed up if they are in favour. Many New Zealanders undoubtedly won’t take kindly to being threatened.
Referendums, of course, have long been an integral part of New Zealand’s democratic process, including for constitutional (or quasi-constitutional) questions. That’s how New Zealand came to adopt MMP as its preferred system of voting and how John Key’s proposal to change the flag was rejected.
And, as David Seymour has pointed out to Chloe Swarbrick, she was quite happy to have a referendum held in 2020 on the question of legalising recreational cannabis.
It seems that while voters are considered capable of deciding on the nation’s electoral system, which drugs should be legal, the design of the nation’s flag, and the desirability of assisted dying, asking New Zealanders who have to live under the Treaty’s prescriptions to formally express their views on it is —against reason — a step too far.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
It didn’t take very long for journalists and rival MPs to shut her and David Seymour down by repeatedly implying they were racist for even criticising He Puapua. At the same time, the media uncritically accepted Jacinda Ardern’s argument that the report had never been presented to Cabinet and wasn’t official government policy — and was therefore irrelevant.
The fact that many of Ardern’s policies mirrored what had been proposed in He Puapua — including giving mātauranga Māori parity with science throughout the education system; legislating for Three Waters to grant iwi disproportionate control of water management; and allowing iwi roadblocks (as an expression of rangatiratanga over traditional territories) during Covid — was of little interest to journalists.
A NZ Herald editorial in August 2021 claimed all the topics Collins had highlighted were, in fact, already being debated. In short, there was nothing to see here.
Two and half years later, many of our media, academics and politicians suddenly appear to be much, much keener than they have been previously for a discussion about problems arising from current interpretations of the Treaty. The prospect of a binding referendum on Treaty principles — as proposed by David Seymour — has concentrated minds wonderfully.
On Newshub Nation this weekend, host Rebecca Wright asked Stuff journalist Carmen Parahi what might be a good alternative to a referendum. Parahi thought “a bit of public education” about Te Tiriti might be useful, with Wright herself recommending a national “conversation”.
Writing in The Post, editor Tracy Watkins thought Luxon should hold “a low-key select committee inquiry maybe, rather than a referendum” as a “compromise”.
Historian Dame Anne Salmond suggested that if the incoming government “wishes to clarify the meaning of Te Tiriti, rather than a referendum [it] would be wise to think about a new kind of inquiry”.
Among the impressive array of journalists, academics and politicians scrambling to head off Seymour by recommending debate or an inquiry is Green MP Chlöe Swarbrick. On Newshub, she told Seymour she thought a discussion was appropriate but a referendum would be “dangerous”.
“If we actually want to have a meaningful and informed discussion then there are other deliberative democracy processes to facilitate that — the likes of a Citizens Assembly for example.”
Few, however, will be convinced by these novel bursts of enthusiasm for dialogue and official inquiries. It is obvious the dramatic change of stance is solely because David Seymour and Winston Peters have struck fear into the hearts of our elites with their stated aim to reverse the expansion of Treaty principles — including via co-governance and tikanga — into so many areas of law and policy. Faced with the possibility of a referendum, a debate suddenly seems to many of our betters the lesser of two evils.
Although the final shape of the government has not yet been established, the leaders of Act and NZ First are likely to be in a position to deliver at least some configuration of their pledges given they head two of the three parties making up a new National-led government.
Seymour wants a referendum that will endorse a law redefining the Treaty principles much more narrowly than they have been in recent decades, while NZ First’s deputy leader, Shane Jones, said last week there would be a “reset” in Māori policy under the new government. He took aim specifically at the liberal interpretation by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal of Treaty principles.
In fact, David Seymour wants a comprehensive public debate on the Treaty too — but as part of fashioning a new “Treaty Principles Act” that can then be put to a public vote.
Seymour’s pitch has the weight of experience behind it given he shepherded the End of Life Choice Bill though Parliament. It became law in 2019, but required further public validation via a referendum attached to the 2020 general election to activate it.
With a change of government, the shoe is now suddenly on the other foot over the Treaty. For years now, dissenters to Treaty orthodoxy have been demonised and patronised by both the media and politicians. As one way of shutting down debate, they have been asked, “What do you fear about co-governance?” The clear implication has been that critics had primarily an emotional objection rather than a more principled one (including a commitment to democracy of the one-person, one-vote-of-equal-value variety).
Implying opponents are emotional rather than rational has been a well-worn refrain from Chris Hipkins, the outgoing Prime Minister, as well as from journalists. As just one example, TVNZ’s political editor, Jessica Mutch-McKay, asked National’s Three Waters spokesman, Simon Watts, earlier this year: “What scares you about co-governance?” — and then: “What makes you nervous about it?”
Unfortunately, it’s now going to be difficult for those who have bridled at the metastasising of Treaty principles to refrain from asking referendum opponents solicitously: “So what exactly is it that scares you about a referendum?... What makes you nervous about it?”
It has certainly opened the door for Seymour to ask the same question. As he observed this month:
“It seems to me that there are some people who are afraid to see the Treaty principles being open to some sunlight, because they’ve largely been decided behind closed doors by the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal, and the public service.”
The principles of “Participation, Protection and Partnership” have, of course, also been enthusiastically endorsed and promoted by the mainstream media for the past three years. Which is hardly surprising given that news organisations were obliged to adopt that stance towards the Treaty to be eligible for a share of the $55 million in taxpayer cash doled out from the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
There is much amusement and schadenfreude to be had in watching those who are discombobulated by a possible change to the status quo suddenly agreeing a debate is needed. And even if Seymour fails to get agreement from Luxon and Peters for a plebiscite, the overreaction to his proposal so far has been both highly entertaining and highly revealing.
Warnings — amounting to barely veiled threats — have been issued by senior Labour, Green and Te Pāti Māori MPs about impending civil unrest and perhaps violence. It seems no one has told them that if you really don’t want the idea of a referendum to gain widespread support, it’s probably best not to suggest to voters they may get roughed up if they are in favour. Many New Zealanders undoubtedly won’t take kindly to being threatened.
Referendums, of course, have long been an integral part of New Zealand’s democratic process, including for constitutional (or quasi-constitutional) questions. That’s how New Zealand came to adopt MMP as its preferred system of voting and how John Key’s proposal to change the flag was rejected.
And, as David Seymour has pointed out to Chloe Swarbrick, she was quite happy to have a referendum held in 2020 on the question of legalising recreational cannabis.
It seems that while voters are considered capable of deciding on the nation’s electoral system, which drugs should be legal, the design of the nation’s flag, and the desirability of assisted dying, asking New Zealanders who have to live under the Treaty’s prescriptions to formally express their views on it is —against reason — a step too far.
Graham Adams is an Auckland-based freelance editor, journalist and columnist. This article was originally published by ThePlatform.kiwi and is published here with kind permission.
8 comments:
THERE DEFINITELY NEEDS TO BE A REFERENDUM, BUT NOT ON THE REINVENTED ‘TREATY’.
AND DEFINITELY NOT INVOLVING THE MADE UP and DELIBERATELY FLUID ‘PRINCIPLES’.
The ‘principles’ need to be removed from all legislation.
They were cynically and Machiavellianly inserted in Legislation by Geoffrey Palmer, deliberately ‘undefined’ (which he has admitted),
in order to create the opportunity for any made up addition to what the Treaty actually says.
If you have a written agreement/contract between Parties, you don’t suddenly ignore the written text
and say we have ‘discovered’ these previously invisible ‘principles’ which will override what is written and agreed to.
ACT’S referendum questions/statements DON’T mention the ‘Treaty’
but ARE ACTUALLY THE FIRST 3 REQUIREMENTS FOR A 21ST CENTURY DEMOCRACY.
All that is required is to rearrange the questions as below
Is New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal Democracy in which;
• All citizens have equal rights and responsibilities.
• All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal and equal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.
• Discrimination based on ethnicity or when an ancestor arrived in New Zealand is illegal.
• There is only one set of Laws PASSED BY PARLIAMENT, and written down, and which apply equally to all. (1)
(1) New Zealand has a serious problem where Judges seem to think they can dream up non existing ‘partnerships’ and oxymoronic “shared exclusivity”
A step too far? Only because suddenly it is stepping on the tracks of the gravy train's locomotive.
These people know that the so called priciples if given some daylight are like the vampire they are. They suck the taxpayer dollar for the beast to keep its immortality but nothing more.
They do not want any light shone upon the issue because they know that reasoned New Zealanders do not like to be scammed and these so called principles are nothing but a scam having been procured and promoted by the Waitangi Tribunal and all those on which that gravy train carries.....
Because the spin doctors have been able to twist a simple treaty into a one-size fits all blank cheque , opportunists have dived in to line their pockets. From academics (scholarships, study grants, professorships): lawyers (fees commissions, consultancies) ; financiers (investments,entrepreneurships)to name but a few ; the vultures have circled in to gobble up the public purse. With vested interests now in the billions it is unlikely the recipients will loosen their grip on the bonanza they have in their grasp. "Now we are one people" said Governor Hobson. But some people are more "one" than others.
What a bunch of suckers so many New Zealanders have been. I would go along with brave principled David Seymour, But-rather than introduce more verbiage, I'd rather see te tiriti (So-called Littlewood version in English) simply treated as Julian Bachelor has done. Put it out there, as is, in law, no principles, no more chat, that's it! end of........
I'm unsure how Seymour launched the referendum idea, but surely it should have a title something like "A referendum to clarify the rights and obligations of the citizens of NZ" Why even refer to a document which has no proven principles, is probably not valid as a Treaty because Niu Tirani was not a sovereign nation etc, etc.
What principles? Are they written down? Have they been agreed on? Are they in the treaty?
No. Claiming principles is a perversion. We need to remove politicians from the process, they are bias and lack courage.
A referendum is the only way.
Yes, it's rather obvious why those Maori of a certain opportunistic bent are upset with any kind of referendum that makes all citizens equal. NZ desperately needs to discuss and hopefully embrace this concept, otherwise we are in for eternal division and unrest. As time marches on and the gene pool becomes ever more mixed, it truly is a nonsense that we divide people based on their ancestry. Never mind the principles, the 'spirit' of the Treaty is as Hobson declared - we are now one people. Let's make it so, and to hell with those that seek to divide us.
Perhaps it would be an idea to have a whole properly written constitution. Most treaties in history have been written to cover a certain set of circumstances. The Treaty of Waitangi was the same. We need a modern constitution that applies to All New Zealanders. We also need to have a definition of what is a Maori. Should you be able to claim anything with only 1 sixtyfouth of Maori blood?
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.