Nothing was done by either National or Labour governments that followed to correct the situation. In 1985 the Lange-led Labour government in which I served gave the Tribunal the power to examine historical grievances back to 1840, but it again failed to define the “principles” that were critical to the Tribunal’s new work. This failure became more serious when in the 1986 legislation establishing state-owned enterprises a clause was inserted into the bill stating that nothing in it would permit the Crown to act “in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty”. It still failed to define what those “principles” were.
This compounding governmental failure had mammoth consequences. It left far too many questions open to personal interpretation. Maori expected that the historical grievances they were now mounting before the Waitangi Tribunal might result in the return of some land. They were anxious to find out whether the government’s transfers of the Department of Lands and of forests to the SOEs would breach the Treaty’s “principles”. This led the Court of Appeal to try interpreting the as-yet undefined “principles”. Led by Justice Robin Cooke, it decreed that under the Treaty the government had the right to govern, but in return it should protect Maori rights to their lands and to other interests. Something “akin to a partnership” existed between the Crown and Maori and they should “act reasonably” and “in good faith” towards each other.
Almost immediately, this judgement encouraged a ragtag of bush lawyers to try their hands at defining further obligations of the Crown. I well recall a cabinet meeting in 1989 where ministers decided that the Crown should put a stop to interventions by the courts that weren’t elected to govern and declare what the much-mentioned “principles” really were. Better that than have different judges define them from time to time. I wasn’t a lawyer and the issue was left in the hands of the Prime Minister, Attorney-General and the MInister of Justice. The Lange government’s definition of the “principles” was duly issued, but yet again the government failed to legislate them into existence. Ever since then, ever-crazier so-called “principles of the Treaty” have been invented to justify whatever cause individual radical Maori want to promote. They have even taken to trying to re-write what the original document actually says, notwithstanding the fact that the Government in 1990, the 150th anniversary of the signing of the original document, had endorsed the translation by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, a noted authority on Te Reo, whose work didn’t disagree in substance with Maori great, Sir Apirana Ngata’s earlier explanation of the Treaty. In 1990 both the Maori Queen and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves, both Maori, and all the iwi gathered at Waitangi to celebrate the occasion, seemed prepared to accept the Kawharu translation of the Treaty. But today, if you spend time on the web examining the Treaty, you’ll find claims that there are four or even five articles when officially there have never been more than three. A few claims even challenge Article One which ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
It is this ever-growing confusion over the Treaty that David Seymour is belatedly trying to resolve with his promise of a Principles of the Treaty Bill. We haven’t seen the Bill yet. I’m told its drafting hasn’t been finalised. But already there are shouts and roars from the usual suspects who enjoy fishing in troubled waters. Even National and New Zealand First are assuring us they won’t support a Bill they haven’t yet seen past its first reading. Yet they won’t tell us what is their solution to the current mess.
It seems foolish to me that mature people should want the current confusion over the “principles” of the Treaty to continue. For fifty years now, governments of all stripes have failed to correct the mess. Surely the right answer is not to give up on the idea of legislation defining the “principles” and leave it to the Courts? If the Treaty is to have any meaningful significance in our lives going forward, we need now, more than ever, to know what it means, and what our obligations are going forward. Otherwise, New Zealand will continue to be plagued by every crazy idea from the lunatic fringe. And resolution will be left to the un-elected courts that are answerable to no one.
This compounding governmental failure had mammoth consequences. It left far too many questions open to personal interpretation. Maori expected that the historical grievances they were now mounting before the Waitangi Tribunal might result in the return of some land. They were anxious to find out whether the government’s transfers of the Department of Lands and of forests to the SOEs would breach the Treaty’s “principles”. This led the Court of Appeal to try interpreting the as-yet undefined “principles”. Led by Justice Robin Cooke, it decreed that under the Treaty the government had the right to govern, but in return it should protect Maori rights to their lands and to other interests. Something “akin to a partnership” existed between the Crown and Maori and they should “act reasonably” and “in good faith” towards each other.
Almost immediately, this judgement encouraged a ragtag of bush lawyers to try their hands at defining further obligations of the Crown. I well recall a cabinet meeting in 1989 where ministers decided that the Crown should put a stop to interventions by the courts that weren’t elected to govern and declare what the much-mentioned “principles” really were. Better that than have different judges define them from time to time. I wasn’t a lawyer and the issue was left in the hands of the Prime Minister, Attorney-General and the MInister of Justice. The Lange government’s definition of the “principles” was duly issued, but yet again the government failed to legislate them into existence. Ever since then, ever-crazier so-called “principles of the Treaty” have been invented to justify whatever cause individual radical Maori want to promote. They have even taken to trying to re-write what the original document actually says, notwithstanding the fact that the Government in 1990, the 150th anniversary of the signing of the original document, had endorsed the translation by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, a noted authority on Te Reo, whose work didn’t disagree in substance with Maori great, Sir Apirana Ngata’s earlier explanation of the Treaty. In 1990 both the Maori Queen and the Governor-General, Sir Paul Reeves, both Maori, and all the iwi gathered at Waitangi to celebrate the occasion, seemed prepared to accept the Kawharu translation of the Treaty. But today, if you spend time on the web examining the Treaty, you’ll find claims that there are four or even five articles when officially there have never been more than three. A few claims even challenge Article One which ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria.
It is this ever-growing confusion over the Treaty that David Seymour is belatedly trying to resolve with his promise of a Principles of the Treaty Bill. We haven’t seen the Bill yet. I’m told its drafting hasn’t been finalised. But already there are shouts and roars from the usual suspects who enjoy fishing in troubled waters. Even National and New Zealand First are assuring us they won’t support a Bill they haven’t yet seen past its first reading. Yet they won’t tell us what is their solution to the current mess.
It seems foolish to me that mature people should want the current confusion over the “principles” of the Treaty to continue. For fifty years now, governments of all stripes have failed to correct the mess. Surely the right answer is not to give up on the idea of legislation defining the “principles” and leave it to the Courts? If the Treaty is to have any meaningful significance in our lives going forward, we need now, more than ever, to know what it means, and what our obligations are going forward. Otherwise, New Zealand will continue to be plagued by every crazy idea from the lunatic fringe. And resolution will be left to the un-elected courts that are answerable to no one.
Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE
11 comments:
Over the decades as a mere pleb I have attended the occasional Council meeting involving commissioners. I have often been staggered by their grasp and apparent intellect; leaves me gasping and very envious of their ability to rapidly catch on to complex issues. With so many able persons sprinkled through the population, it staggers me that the Principles wallowed in limbo for years. Was the intellectual fraternity so far removed from maori that they were not familiar with their cunning opportunism? Or were most brains linked with the consultation and legal fraternities and so welcomed continued uncertainty and the opportunity for a bottomless future income source?
From RNZ Julian Willcox programme Saturday, maori have contrived clearly defined Principles. Using their techniques of assertive repetition, and revelling in the failure of the msm to question, these Priniples can easily become established unless firmly challenged and dismissed.
NZfirst stance is that there are no principles so how can there be a treaty principles bill. On The Platform yesterday Winston said that defining the principles means accepting that there are principles and leaves it open to being faffed with later, by probably Labour governments. I get this. He failed to answer tho the question of how then do we fix this. ACTs principle bill manages to define the articles of the treaty but the title suggests that there are principles. There is a solution here somewhere. Now if we can get NZfirst and Act in the same room I believe that solution can be found.
Are we to be governed by the real or nonsense versions of the treaty you ask Mr Bassett.
Well, that is rich coming from you sir, who as an MP voted for the 1975 TOW Act which was based on lies and fraud (fake English language treaty) and which created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal of which you were a past serving member of.
You were an MP in the Labour government that then “turbo charged” apartheid/racial division with the introduction of the 1985 TOW Amendment Act, which not only allowed claims dating back to 1840 but introduced “Five Principles” for Crown action on the TOW and a “Partnership” between Maori and the Crown.
You were an MP when in 1989 the final English language James Busby draft dated 4th February 1840 was found which put a lie to all the fraud and deception that had been created since 1975, using a fake Freeman English language treaty. This final draft showed there was no Fisheries, Forests or Partnership in the treaty and the “Principles” were a dreamt up fallacy. Your government created a divided Nation based on lies.
So, your government turbo charged racial division and apartheid, but when the truth showed up did nothing to correct the injustice done, in fact doubled down on the big lie, which means supporting the “nonsense versions” of the treaty, to use your words.
Yes, well said. Dr Bassett. However, it is disappointing that the Kawharu translation was ever sought and which itself brought in the contentious semantic shift (over nearly a century and a half later) of "treasures" instead of "property" or "possessions" relative to Te Tiriti's mention of "taonga".
Such a shame when T E Young's translation of 1869, was readily available, or even that of Apirana Ngata, some five decades later again, and both of which very closely align with the English draft (aka the "LIttlewood" version) prepared by Busby two days before Te Tiriti was signed.
That aside, it is not only "foolish" we do not have these concocted "principles" defined, but also now absolutely essential if we ever want this festering Treaty sore healed and we have any desire and motivation to move forward, united as one.
It's all very well for Winston to say "there are no principles" but that solves nothing, and we will only proceed forward evermore increasingly divided if we attempt to take that stance. Pandora's Box has been opened, with the ‘Treaty principles’ term littered throughout our legislation and the coalition itself has only perpetuated this nonsense with its own "Fast Track Bill" that, in addition, introduces understandings of tikanga and matauranga Maori to boot.
And all those that say we need to do away with the Treaty; the Waitangi Tribunal; and/or have a written Constitution - none of these will ever happen anytime soon, and they most certainly won't if we can't even have an open and frank discussion on this "principles" issue and what we want and understand of the most basic arrangements in being a citizen of this country.
It is time we demanded of our politicians (we employ) to let us (their employers) have our right of say by way of a referendum. We have all seen what they've done and its cost in their last half-century of meddling and dividing us - it's now time we set the record straight, once and for the benefit of all.
All the "Treaty principles" that the multiple activist revisionists, judges, politicians etc. have dreamed up are quite simply works of fiction.
They are FALSE.
The Treaty of Waitangi has a written text, which is easy to read.
There are no NO "principles" in the words of the Treaty.
NO "partnership" mentioned in the words of the Treaty.
So the entire discussion regarding "principles" is meaningless - because it it based upon a fiction that does not exist !!
We should not get hung up by the name of the Treaty Principles Bill. It is the content of the Bill NZ public have to discuss through to Select Committee and if common sense prevails after select committee as the bill works its way through Parliament .
The Waitangi Tribunal and the courts have further ruled that the words of the Treaty are to be ignored: “the essence of the Treaty transcends the sum total of its written words and puts narrow or literal interpretation out of place. … It is the principles of the Treaty that are to be applied, not the literal words. … the principles that underlie the Treaty have become much more important than its precise term.”
BUT – when it suits the Tribunal, they will make outrageous interpretations of specific words in the Treaty. They take a single word and drill it to death giving long, multipage fictions as to what it might have meant, and what it might mean today.
Possibly the most damaging decision (under Labour) was to define 'Maori' as anybody with Maori ancestry. This has, in practice been extended in some circumstances to those who 'identify' as Maori. In today's New Zealand diverse, multi cultural society, the only logical way forward for us all is equality under the law for all NZers. Today's NZ bears no resemblance to 1840 NZ. in 1840.
Could we have a referendum on a simple question:
Should all New Zealand citizens have equal rights and responsibilities, regardless of ancestry?
No doubt there would be howls of 'racism!'.
A referendum to reaffirm our democracy is urgent .
McAnulty - "one person , one vote, oh that's just an academic version of democracy ".
If that's how the leaders of Labour think, then God help NZ.
Post a Comment