In my view Pagani pins her argument for Maori wards or ‘power-sharing’ on the Treaty of Waitangi, but the fact is that there is nothing in the Treaty (any version or translation) that speaks of separate racial representation in governing bodies.
The Treaty was a simple 3 clause document which simply said:
ARTICLE ONE - the chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen.
ARTICLE TWO - the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.
ARTICLE THREE - the Queen's government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.(1)
The Treaty is not a true treaty as it was not between politically organised Nations, it is a simple transfer of sovereignty document that had served it’s purpose the moment it was signed. It had no legal standing in International law and of itself had no standing as part of the municipal law of New Zealand.(2)
With regard to Ned Fletcher’s tome that Pagani holds in high esteem, Roger Childs a former history teacher and freelance journalist has this to say about Fletcher’s book “Unfortunately Fletcher has largely wasted his time because he was focusing on the fake Freeman Treaty.”(3)
Pagani like most treatyists peddles the treaty translation of claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Hugh Kawharu who redefined these key words in the treaty -- "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" to create a treaty that was purported to grant to the governor the right to govern settlers while letting the chiefs carry on being chiefs.(4)
ARTICLE TWO - the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.
ARTICLE THREE - the Queen's government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.(1)
The Treaty is not a true treaty as it was not between politically organised Nations, it is a simple transfer of sovereignty document that had served it’s purpose the moment it was signed. It had no legal standing in International law and of itself had no standing as part of the municipal law of New Zealand.(2)
With regard to Ned Fletcher’s tome that Pagani holds in high esteem, Roger Childs a former history teacher and freelance journalist has this to say about Fletcher’s book “Unfortunately Fletcher has largely wasted his time because he was focusing on the fake Freeman Treaty.”(3)
Pagani like most treatyists peddles the treaty translation of claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Hugh Kawharu who redefined these key words in the treaty -- "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" to create a treaty that was purported to grant to the governor the right to govern settlers while letting the chiefs carry on being chiefs.(4)
That is clearly nonsense, did not happen, and was not what the chiefs signed up to, because they did not want other chiefs carrying on as they did, as too many people were being killed.
If they did not understand what they were signing and still thought they were chiefs then why did cannibalism and tribal wars end, and the chiefs free their Maori slaves?(5)
Later in 1860 at Kohimarama the chiefs reasserted that sovereignty had been ceded.(6)
At Waitangi (1840) the words of the chiefs themselves display a full awareness that their acceptance of Governor Hobson would place him in authority over them, and that behind Hobson stood Queen Victoria.(7)
Pagani then flicks on to ‘treaty settlements’ and theft of property. Very little, if any New Zealand land was stolen, most was sold by the chiefs (8).
However, 4.87% of New Zealand’s total landmass was legally confiscated from rebelling tribes, this was to ensure peace in the new colony and to pay for the cost of quelling the rebellions.
By 1928, 2.56% of that confiscated land was either given back or purchased, so after that time only 2.31% remained in Crown hands.(9)
Changing tack again Pagani says “Nearly half of councils have Māori wards alongside general wards”.
Almost on the same day in February 2021 that the electoral returning officer acknowledged receipt of 4 valid petitions containing 21,000 signatures that would force Councils to run a public referendum on Maori wards, Nanaia Mahuta scurrilously, under urgency, changed the Act that allowed for this petitioning. So with no constituent restraint, undemocratic woke Councils had a free reign which resulted in a rapid increase of Maori wards.
If that law had not been removed then there would be very few Maori wards today, as 9 previous referendums initiated by various councils throughout the country record their ratepayers voting NO with an average vote of 77%.
And the ratepayers of 3 councils with a high maori population (44%) voted NO @ 58% of the vote.(10)
Pagani then says “They [Maori ward candidates] are ‘democratically’ elected by voters on the Māori roll.” - How can that be democratic when only a section of the community can participate in that vote?
These candidates only care about gaining advantages for their Maori supporters, not the community as a whole.(11)
The flawed aim of Māori wards is to ensure Māori are represented in local government decision making.
However, information on the LGNZ site shows that Maori are well represented in relation to their population - The 2019 data is that Maori make up 13.5% of all elected local body officials.(13) While the 2018 census had Maori as 13.7% of the adult population.
And in Parliament, Maori are over-represented in relation to the voting Maori population.
Conroversially, most councils already ensure Maori have a voice around the council table via standing committees, where half of the members appointed by local iwi. Those iwi members have full voting rights and the same status as councillors.
And lastly the ‘old chestnut’- ‘Treaty partners’ raises it’s head.There were no treaty partners - only treaty participants.(11)
Rounding up
Democracy is based on the simple principle that all citizens must be treated the same under the law. Every individual has the same rights and indeed has the same responsibilities under the law.
Within society, people may share common views and interests with others, be those cultural, religious, ethnic, social or perhaps sporting. All such groupings are basically tribal in nature.
But forming such groupings, call them what you may, should not give the members collectively, any special rights under the law.
Democracy is based on giving equal rights to individuals. Giving special rights or privileges to groups, however configured, cannot be good. If you start treating one group of people either better or worse than others, it will end in tears.
Separate race-based political representation, such as designated Māori seats on local government bodies, not only undermine democracy, they also creates division within our multicultural society.
Rather than advancing racial separatism in our communities our governance and infuential members of society should be entrenching societal unification.
Suggested reading: Sir Apirana Ngata’s ‘Treaty of Waitangi Explanation’(14)
Sources:
1. https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty
2. David Round - ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83/84
3. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2022/11/roger-childs-sorry-ned-wrong-treaty.html
4. https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-kawharu-translation
5. https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/rangitiratanga-kawanatanga
6. https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-BIM504Kohi-t1-g1-t1-body1-d2.html
7. https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/chiefs-speeches-1840
8. https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/land-sold-not-stolen-or-lost
9. https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/maori-land-stolen
10. https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/polls-results
11. https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/maori-agendas/local-government-hijack/maori-wards-appointments-qa
12. https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/partnership
13. https://www.votelocal.co.nz/media/
14. https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
4 comments:
An excellent commentary Geoff and I’m delighted you’ve challenged Pagani’s very one-sided, ill-considered, and poorly researched view. Her commentary representing yet another “Stuff” op-ed that was published without any form of counter view.
I was going to write a ‘Letter to the Editor’ in response, but past experience has revealed that such would have been an entirely wasted effort and would never have seen the light of day. In that regard, good luck to any of you out there that think the new TV3, 6pm News will provide anything like 'balanced' unbiased reporting.
And in terms of the interpretation of the Treaty, rather than the comparative blow-ins like Ned Fletcher and Hugh Kawharu, readers would be better informed if they read Sir Apirana Ngata’s back translation as you suggest, or that other (more contemporary of the time) produced by "Judge T E Young (1844 - 1879) of the Native Land Court, who had been the Native Interpreter to the Māori members of the House of Representatives, and was remembered "for the easy and graceful manner in which he translated the oratorical efforts of the late Karaitiana Takamoana and other native representatives" according to the obituary in New Zealand Mail, 22 November1879, p 19c."
For ease of the reader’s reference his back translation into English being in essence:
The First
The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England forever all the Government of their lands.
The Second
The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be Her purchaser.
The Third
This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maori of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as Her doings to the people of England.
The above, more than coincidentally, being very close to what Ngata translated, but also aligning with the ‘lost’ Busby ‘English draft’ of the Treaty often referred to as the “Littlewood” version that was ‘found’ in 1989.
None of which, along with the other points you discuss, support a case for “partnership” nor “racial separatism”, with both being anathema to a modern, multi-cultural, colour-blind democracy. It’s long past time that exclusive Māori seats, at any table purporting a democratic view, were gone.
Hear, hear!!
Excellent article.
Seymour's Treaty Bill is going to be an interesting process. A watershed for NZ's future.
If strongly supported by the people but blocked at its second reading (to stop a future referendum ) by National and Opposition parties, this will indicate the future of NZ democracy.
Basing an ethnocracy ( with one privileged ethnicity) on spurious interpretations of NZ's history seems farfetched - but cannot be excluded.
It’s important to understand that the NZ Media Council has signed up to the spirit and principles of the Treaty of Waitangi and this is what they will follow. Institutional capture by those pushing Communism (for this is the final stage of their revolution, first rebel against God and his laws, then all animals are equal: then some animals are more equal than others). Why are they pushing tribalism and Maori culture? Because the Maori had no individual property rights and were practically indentured slaves to the chiefs that ruled over them. That is what they want for us and our children. That is the punishment deserved by all who abandon God in favour of the slavery of sin.
Post a Comment