It is not my role to support any political party, though in the interests of full disclosure I am a member of the ACT Party and was very briefly (in 2011) the Leader of ACT.
But what the ACT Party is arguing for is of foundational importance to New Zealand’s future. What is surprising is the reluctance of the other coalition partners to endorse ACT’s proposed Bill: historically, both the National Party and New Zealand First have had a commitment to equal citizenship.
In recent years, more and more people have been led to believe that the Treaty of Waitangi – or Te Tiriti o Waitangi if you prefer – created a partnership between two distinct groups of New Zealanders, with those who chance to have one or more Maori ancestors (now always with other ancestors as well) having an inherently superior constitutional status.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry have a superior right to be consulted about a whole range of policy issues, including what may be done with, or built on, land which has long been in private ownership.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry have a superior constitutional right to decide what may be done with water resources, which the rest of us have long regarded as being in community ownership.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry are entitled to separate political representation in Parliament and in local government.
David Seymour totally rejects this interpretation of the Treaty and argues that having a society where some citizens have rights which are inherently superior to those of other citizens is inconsistent with any reasonable definition of democracy. He argues that we have no future as a democracy if rights are dependent on who our ancestors were.
Moreover, he argues that the words of the Treaty actually support what he proposes that the Treaty Principles Bill will provide – that the government has the right to rule, that we all have rights to our own property, and that all citizens have equal rights.
Really? The government has the right to rule? That implies that the chiefs who signed Te Tiriti surrendered sovereignty to the Queen. Certainly. We know with a high degree of certainty what the English words given to the Rev Henry Williams to translate into te reo actually said, and they unambiguously envisaged Maori chiefs surrendering sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
The speeches made by the chiefs who read or heard the Treaty in te reo – speeches written down at the time by Colenso – show that they fully understood they were being asked to surrender sovereignty to the Queen, and some of them strongly objected (even though most of them eventually did sign the Treaty). Speeches made by the large number of chiefs who assembled at Kohimarama in 1860 clearly show that they accepted the Queen as sovereign.
For most of the years since that time great Maori leaders accepted that the Crown was sovereign, with the greatest of these being Sir Apirana Ngata.
And for all of the time since 1840, most Maori New Zealanders have behaved as if they accepted that the Crown was sovereign – they have been employed by the state as teachers, nurses, doctors, soldiers and sailors, they have paid taxes to the state, and received benefits from the state.
It’s interesting to speculate how things would evolve if the notion that Maori have inherently superior rights to the rest of us became entrenched. At the moment, the legal definition of a “Maori” is anybody with a Maori ancestor. That definition almost makes sense today, but in three or four generations? A friend of mine told me several years ago that he had 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 15 of whom were from England, 10 from Ireland, four from Scotland, two from Wales, and only one Maori. He is legally entitled to join the Maori electoral roll and presumably qualify for other government programmes reserved for “Maori”. That seems ridiculous, but it is only slightly more ridiculous than the present situation, where people who had far more ancestors who were not Maori than who were are entitled to government programmes reserved for Maori.
I have no idea of course what will happen to ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill when it comes before Parliament. But whatever happens to that particular piece of legislation, it is imperative that as a community we resolve whether we wish to be a democracy where all citizens have equal political rights or whether we want to descend further into the awful morass where rights depend on who our ancestors were.
But what the ACT Party is arguing for is of foundational importance to New Zealand’s future. What is surprising is the reluctance of the other coalition partners to endorse ACT’s proposed Bill: historically, both the National Party and New Zealand First have had a commitment to equal citizenship.
In recent years, more and more people have been led to believe that the Treaty of Waitangi – or Te Tiriti o Waitangi if you prefer – created a partnership between two distinct groups of New Zealanders, with those who chance to have one or more Maori ancestors (now always with other ancestors as well) having an inherently superior constitutional status.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry have a superior right to be consulted about a whole range of policy issues, including what may be done with, or built on, land which has long been in private ownership.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry have a superior constitutional right to decide what may be done with water resources, which the rest of us have long regarded as being in community ownership.
According to this view, those with some Maori ancestry are entitled to separate political representation in Parliament and in local government.
David Seymour totally rejects this interpretation of the Treaty and argues that having a society where some citizens have rights which are inherently superior to those of other citizens is inconsistent with any reasonable definition of democracy. He argues that we have no future as a democracy if rights are dependent on who our ancestors were.
Moreover, he argues that the words of the Treaty actually support what he proposes that the Treaty Principles Bill will provide – that the government has the right to rule, that we all have rights to our own property, and that all citizens have equal rights.
Really? The government has the right to rule? That implies that the chiefs who signed Te Tiriti surrendered sovereignty to the Queen. Certainly. We know with a high degree of certainty what the English words given to the Rev Henry Williams to translate into te reo actually said, and they unambiguously envisaged Maori chiefs surrendering sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
The speeches made by the chiefs who read or heard the Treaty in te reo – speeches written down at the time by Colenso – show that they fully understood they were being asked to surrender sovereignty to the Queen, and some of them strongly objected (even though most of them eventually did sign the Treaty). Speeches made by the large number of chiefs who assembled at Kohimarama in 1860 clearly show that they accepted the Queen as sovereign.
For most of the years since that time great Maori leaders accepted that the Crown was sovereign, with the greatest of these being Sir Apirana Ngata.
And for all of the time since 1840, most Maori New Zealanders have behaved as if they accepted that the Crown was sovereign – they have been employed by the state as teachers, nurses, doctors, soldiers and sailors, they have paid taxes to the state, and received benefits from the state.
It’s interesting to speculate how things would evolve if the notion that Maori have inherently superior rights to the rest of us became entrenched. At the moment, the legal definition of a “Maori” is anybody with a Maori ancestor. That definition almost makes sense today, but in three or four generations? A friend of mine told me several years ago that he had 32 great-great-great-grandparents, 15 of whom were from England, 10 from Ireland, four from Scotland, two from Wales, and only one Maori. He is legally entitled to join the Maori electoral roll and presumably qualify for other government programmes reserved for “Maori”. That seems ridiculous, but it is only slightly more ridiculous than the present situation, where people who had far more ancestors who were not Maori than who were are entitled to government programmes reserved for Maori.
I have no idea of course what will happen to ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill when it comes before Parliament. But whatever happens to that particular piece of legislation, it is imperative that as a community we resolve whether we wish to be a democracy where all citizens have equal political rights or whether we want to descend further into the awful morass where rights depend on who our ancestors were.
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. Don blogs at Bassett, Brash and Hide - where this article was sourced
5 comments:
Don, spot on. We live in a crazy world mate, surrounded by crazies all around us with hands out. Most normal people would like certainty, discussion and fairness on this subject.....but why? The longer this drags on the more pockets are lined at your and my expense.
You once told me with the right people leading, good decision making and robust policy - things can get much better, quickly....this is the time, right now.
All the best:)
It is incredible how over the years the msm has so treated Don's basically innocuos speech that it is regularly referred to by activits and msm announcers as if it were something straight out of Mein Kampf. I suspect many who allude to it have never read, and were too young to hear originally. Meanwhile rebellious rants as that in Herald by Packer 2 Feb are relentlessly presented without any objective comment.
Perhaps a good way to start this very necessary debate is to prevent the state funded media continuing to act as the propaganda arm of Labour and the other opposition parties.
An independent and unbiased media is a fundamental plank of any Liberal Western Democracy. And surely maintaining this is a fundamental duty of the Hon. Mellissa Lee the Minister for Media and Communications.
To date she has been as effective in this duty as her immediate predecessor. She is so ineffective in fact it's as if her predecessor is still in the job !
What does she think she is being paid for? What is she doing with her time ?
A once upon a time ago friend with influence and affluence told me happily his children will have their rightful place as Tangata Whenua upon Maori Sovereignty. He would enjoy some aspects of it although 100% Scottish heritage with his ruddy nose included he laughed! I did say they were fortunate to resemble you not so much, at all! Needless to say I felt excluded from his life and comfortable lifestyle from that point on.
What kind of country do we want to be?
Well I for one don’t like the current APARTHEID one we live in which was set in motion by the enacting of the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act.
Since then each successive government has tried to outdo each other in appeasing a MINORITY of New Zealanders, based on FALSE information and FALSE Treaty documents, to create FALSE Legislation to the detriment of the majority of tax paying New Zealanders.
It is time that the majority of New Zealanders forced to endure ‘UNSUBSTANTIATED’ apartheid reforms, put real pressure on this coalition government to repeal all ACTS and STATUTES which give explicit recognition to the Treaty of Waitangi.
They can all be SWEPT AWAY by a simple majority in Parliament, advice given to us by a man AFTER he had left politics, Constitutional Lawyer Mr Palmer.
If we don’t, they will eventually become ENTRENCHED. Game over.
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.