Michael Laws discusses 'Article 4' of the Treaty of Waitangi with Paul Moon on the Platform
Click to View
Monday, July 8, 2024
Paul Moon on 'Article 4' of the Treaty of Waitangi
Labels: Michael Laws, Paul Moon, Treaty of WaitangiMichael Laws discusses 'Article 4' of the Treaty of Waitangi with Paul Moon on the Platform
5 comments:
Shock, horror, dismay - this surely can't be so? Hand on heart, I've seen/heard the "four Articles" being mentioned in some of our Ministry of Education releases, and even our august Human Rights Commission mentions them here: https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2311/S00037/fact-sheet-on-the-human-rights-and-te-tiriti-basis-for-co-governance.htm
So isn't it sad (and, no doubt, another indictment of systemic colonial racism) that our Waitangi Tribunal should have to operate with only 75% of the full Treaty story?
But then, try as I might, I see nothing mentioning Article Four in whatever version of the Treaty I refer to, and then the learned Professor mentions that Treaty's have to be in writing and between sovereign states!
Well, ours is in writing, but which one should prevail? But, more importantly, who was the sovereign of Nu Tirani before it was signed? So, only three out of four, and no apparent sovereign - all conjuring thoughts of "Huston, we have a problem."
Just maybe our Chief Justice wasn't so errant after all when he proclaimed in 1877 that the Treaty was "a simple nullity"?
And in our current Treaty centric little world, while we wonder why our GDP continues to languish, perhaps it's because we're only running on three-quarter power and that final 25% of the equation will, in a less than obvious way, ensure everything is immediately passed back to the purported 'indigenous' - putting the nation out of its current indecision and misery and ensuring a small group of part-Maori elite can look forward to a future of summers in Hawaii, or perhaps the Maldives, all at everyone else's expense.
Now isn't that a very comforting thought?
Listened to Michael Law this morning and the bit on his own before or after Paul Moon was absolutely brilliant, sadly not showing on the Platform rewind at the moment at least. Peter's comment above compliments Michael's take really well, just the right bit of sarcastic irony. I would like the Maori elite he mentions to spend their days in Antarctica and leave rest of us the hell alone. Twisting the Treaty, blimey, who knew the Treaty could be so malleable and ductile. Perhaps it is some kind of super bendy toy, moulded by a touch of tikanga and sprayed with moon beams from Matariki?
As a retired pharmacist who had some dealings with Pharmac in the past, I am just appalled that Pharmac have decided to re write the Treaty in such a totally unscientific manner.
For example from their website, here it is:-
Article One: Kawanatanga
Rangatira (chiefs) exercised full authority (‘mana’) over land and resources on behalf of the wider community while the Crown gains the right to govern. At the same time Māori retain sovereignty.
Article Two: Tino Rangatiratanga
The Crown promises that Māori will have the right to self-manage resources and taonga (including health and mātauranga) they wish to retain. The words Tino Rangatiratanga emphasise status and authority.
Article Three: Ōritetanga
The Crown promised to Māori the benefits of royal protection and full citizenship. This text emphasises the right to equity for Māori alongside all other people.
Article Four: Wairuatanga
Spiritual practices and wellbeing. A defining characteristic and determinant of good health.
How much longer are we the people going to put up with State funded apartheid?
A pity that the "Treaty" wasn't written in todays Manglish. All the problems arose because the translators could not find exact te reo words and inserted words they thought fitted. These are the ones that are being misinterpreted today. If they had used an English word instead of a incorrect te reo word, all would be well today! Previous person was right about the document being called a Treaty. A Treaty would be signed by one representative, not five hundred plus disparate Chiefs. It was simply an agreement between two parties. Anyway the original English draft of the document should be the over-riding document because that was the one that all ensuing translations and versions were based on
Post a Comment