Dame Anne dashed off yet another column that was published by NewsHub yesterday asserting that Seymour was being “disrespectful”, “arrogant”, and “presumptuous” in the extreme.
Its ironic that Dame Anne appeared to disrespect Seymour in her characterisation of him while asking for respectful debate on the issue. She did not do what she wants others to do.
Had Dame Anne clicked on the ACT Party website policy pages, she would have seen that what is proposed is a Treaty Principles Act that would say:
To be clear. Those three points are NOT the treaty.
They are the three clauses of a proposed Treaty Principles Act which describes our country as a multi-ethnic (since the goldrush) liberal democracy (universal suffrage conferred in 1893) in which rights are based on citizenship, not ethnicity.
That is how a mandate for a policy is arrived at in a democratic country. Controversial policies should not be sneaked through while hoping that nobody notices.
Now this is what the treaty says:
This text is from the Busby February, 1840, handwritten document that is alo referred to as the Littlewood Treaty, that was found in a deceased estate of the Littlewood family in Pukekohe in 1989.
The only difference between that document, and Te Tiriti is that Te Tiriti has the word “Maori” added to Article 3 to clarify that it is the Maori people of New Zealand who will be protected and receive the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The Busby February 4 draft has been confirmed to have been written by Busby and should replace the English treaty text appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
But, for whatever reason, neither the Waitangi Tribunal nor any government wants to do that.
It’s a bit rich for Dame Anne to express outrage over what she calls an “attempt to rewrite a pact that involves Queen Victoria and her descendants as well as the rangatira” when the treaty has already been re-written, about 40 years ago.
Quite possibly, Dame Anne was on a first-name basis with the person who re-wrote it, Sir Hugh Kawharu, who was both a Waitangi Tribunal member and Auckland treaty settlement claimant.
Sir Hugh retranslated Te Tiriti, added 11 footnotes which changed the meaning of key words (most notably “rangatiratanga” and “taonga”), and asserted that chiefs would not understand “sovereignty” despite eyewitness accounts showing that they did.
This “retranslation”, which is more accurately described as a reinterpretation, cleared the way for a treaty in which chiefs only agreed to a governor to control British settlers while the chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
This appears to be the version that Dame Anne appears to support when she writes “'kawanatanga' in Ture 1, 'tino rangatiratanga' in Ture 2, and 'nga tikanga rite tahi' in Ture 3 had very different meanings and practical implications”.
Academic debate about the treaty diverts attention from the actual problem, which is preferential treatment and two tiers of rights for the citizens of New Zealand, with the tribal elite making up the top tier.
Top-tier rights are manifested in multimillion dollar payments (both treaty settlements and other “funding for Maori”), exemption from having to pay tax, and an assumed right to have tribal appointees sitting on councils.
Co-governance became a hot-button issue when the Ardern government was busted both for commissioning the He Puapua plan for two governments in New Zealand under tribal control and imposing it without seeking a mandate for it from the people of New Zealand.
ACT’s election policy page on the proposed referendum says that:
Mike Butler wrote "The Treaty: Basic Facts", which is available from a good online bookseller such as www.trosspublishing.com.
Sources
Dame Anne Salmond, Almost no resemblance, https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/opinion-act-s-proposed-principles-of-the-treaty-bear-almost-no-resemblance-to-the-original-document.html
ACT Party, ACT proposes referendum on co-governance, https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance
1. All citizens of New Zealand have the same political rights and duties.The public would vote for or against the act becoming law, like the End-of-Life Choice Act referendum in 2020.
2. All political authority comes from the people by democratic means including universal suffrage, regular and free elections with a secret ballot.
3. New Zealand is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy where discrimination based on ethnicity is illegal
To be clear. Those three points are NOT the treaty.
They are the three clauses of a proposed Treaty Principles Act which describes our country as a multi-ethnic (since the goldrush) liberal democracy (universal suffrage conferred in 1893) in which rights are based on citizenship, not ethnicity.
That is how a mandate for a policy is arrived at in a democratic country. Controversial policies should not be sneaked through while hoping that nobody notices.
Now this is what the treaty says:
Article 1There is also a preamble which sets out what the treaty intends to do, and a postscript in which the chiefs confirm that they understand and agree to the terms of the three articles.
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country.
Article 2
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
Article 3
In return for the cession of their Sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
This text is from the Busby February, 1840, handwritten document that is alo referred to as the Littlewood Treaty, that was found in a deceased estate of the Littlewood family in Pukekohe in 1989.
The only difference between that document, and Te Tiriti is that Te Tiriti has the word “Maori” added to Article 3 to clarify that it is the Maori people of New Zealand who will be protected and receive the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The Busby February 4 draft has been confirmed to have been written by Busby and should replace the English treaty text appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act.
But, for whatever reason, neither the Waitangi Tribunal nor any government wants to do that.
It’s a bit rich for Dame Anne to express outrage over what she calls an “attempt to rewrite a pact that involves Queen Victoria and her descendants as well as the rangatira” when the treaty has already been re-written, about 40 years ago.
Quite possibly, Dame Anne was on a first-name basis with the person who re-wrote it, Sir Hugh Kawharu, who was both a Waitangi Tribunal member and Auckland treaty settlement claimant.
Sir Hugh retranslated Te Tiriti, added 11 footnotes which changed the meaning of key words (most notably “rangatiratanga” and “taonga”), and asserted that chiefs would not understand “sovereignty” despite eyewitness accounts showing that they did.
This “retranslation”, which is more accurately described as a reinterpretation, cleared the way for a treaty in which chiefs only agreed to a governor to control British settlers while the chiefs could carry on being chiefs.
This appears to be the version that Dame Anne appears to support when she writes “'kawanatanga' in Ture 1, 'tino rangatiratanga' in Ture 2, and 'nga tikanga rite tahi' in Ture 3 had very different meanings and practical implications”.
Academic debate about the treaty diverts attention from the actual problem, which is preferential treatment and two tiers of rights for the citizens of New Zealand, with the tribal elite making up the top tier.
Top-tier rights are manifested in multimillion dollar payments (both treaty settlements and other “funding for Maori”), exemption from having to pay tax, and an assumed right to have tribal appointees sitting on councils.
Co-governance became a hot-button issue when the Ardern government was busted both for commissioning the He Puapua plan for two governments in New Zealand under tribal control and imposing it without seeking a mandate for it from the people of New Zealand.
ACT’s election policy page on the proposed referendum says that:
“The great promise of New Zealand is that everyone’s equal. For generations people have travelled long distances to give their children a better tomorrow in this little country where everyone gets an equal chance”.The spectacle of Dame Anne, and former Prime Ministers Jim Bolger and Helen Clark, all having conniptions over the idea that we may outvote decades of race-based preferential treatment perhaps shows how far New Zealand has morphed into what Seymour describes as an “ethno-nationalist experiment in the South Pacific”.
“Today, Labour is trying to make New Zealand an unequal society on purpose. It believes there are two types of New Zealanders. Tangata Whenua, who are here by right, and Tangata Tiriti who are lucky to be here.”
Mike Butler wrote "The Treaty: Basic Facts", which is available from a good online bookseller such as www.trosspublishing.com.
Sources
Dame Anne Salmond, Almost no resemblance, https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/politics/2023/11/opinion-act-s-proposed-principles-of-the-treaty-bear-almost-no-resemblance-to-the-original-document.html
ACT Party, ACT proposes referendum on co-governance, https://www.act.org.nz/act_proposes_referendum_on_co_governance
7 comments:
It looks like Salmond dashed off this column to reestablish her woke credentials, less (Heaven forfend) someone at a Christmas chardonnay party might hint that she agreed with Seymour. Parliament unwisely said the Treaty has principles but neglected to define them, an error compounded by Clark and Bolger, hence the faux outrage. Parliament should now state the principles and we should all ratify them.
The toxic chicken of co-governance promoted by stealth under the Ardern/Hipkins regime since 2020 are coming home to roost.
NZers must be asked to accept or reject this - since they were never asked.
The Voice result is a good precedent for the public expressing its preference.
This cannot be put into the hands of " so-called experts" agreed by Iwi and Pakeha - another insult to NZers.
The power of the treaty:
Familial, community and cultural considerations for a Māori child were different from those of a Pākehā child, Judge Moss noted, and it was necessary they were considered.
The obligation arose from Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and the assessment would be incomplete without applying the principles of tikanga, Judge Moss said.
“The health and wellbeing of Māori children is undermined if they are not considered, indivisibly, from their whakapapa.”
Source: Stuff reporting 3 days ago on a custody dispute for a ‘half caste’ girl child.
Send ALL TOW documentation over to the archives in New South Wales which was our Colonial Government at the time when they were drafted and written.
Find and dust off New Zealand's True Founding Document and First Constitution which made New Zealand into an independent British Colony on the 3rd May 1841 with it's own Governor and it's own Government under one flag and one law for ALL the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
This being Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16th November 1840.
Unwind ALL treaty race based legislation/statutes going all the way back to the 1975 TOW Act.
This is the 'circuit breaker' required to stop the apartheid gravy train.
Just try to get around this view!
maybe there is a secret agreement you need to sign when accepting titles like 'sir' and 'dame' to further the cause of work government agenda! which is one reason i find any state sponsored award extremely biased...
Thank you Mike for all the great work you have done for New Zealand. Shredding Anne Salmond was another good work. Well done.
Post a Comment