They all know that a majority of New Zealanders are sick to their back teeth of the never-ending new Treaty claims that are being advanced every day. One poll showed that 61% of Kiwis wanted Seymour’s bill, and many others weren’t yet sure. If a referendum were to be held it’s clear the game would be up. No more absurd rulings by the courts who have taken to reinterpreting what Parliament intended with legislation. As the late King Tuheitia said “There’s no principles. The Treaty has been written and that’s it!”
In 1890 when the Treaty was fifty years old, then at its centennial in 1940, and at the 150th anniversary of the signing in 1990, the Treaty that was celebrated was the original three clause translation of the Maori version signed by the chiefs. Sovereignty was passed for ever to Queen Victoria; in return she promised to guarantee Maori ownership of their lands, villages and treasures unless they had sold by an agreed process; and the Queen promised to protect Maori and give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of Britain. In other words, New Zealand was founded on an agreement between Maori and Pakeha. It was not based on colonial conquest or any illegitimate invasion of settlers.
The current debate about the Treaty wouldn’t be occurring if it weren’t for those who have been reinterpreting the Treaty. To serve their own interests some jump up and down about the ills of colonialism; others argue that the Crown made an ongoing promise to provide special advantages for Maori. At least 400 have convinced themselves that the Crown owes Maori more than equal opportunities, and must guarantee the impossible – equal outcomes in life - no matter whether many fail to take the health and educational opportunities placed right under their noses. Others argue that the Treaty gives Maori the right to co-governance, and even to a Maori parliament, despite Article One.
Right now, there is a growth industry in Maori bush lawyers arguing that, notwithstanding the fact that tribes or hapu sold land under the system outlined in the second article of the Treaty, the descendants of the original sellers still retain rights over that same land. In the Waikato, the Gore District, the Queenstown Lakes District Council and other parts of the country, stand-over tactics are being employed by iwi demanding monetary payments for “cultural impact assessments” to be performed by the iwi on any plans that a council or an individual owner might have for the development of the land long-since sold out of Maori ownership. The Treaty is being waved about in a menacing fashion, and councils and owners are expected to grease the palms of those who are using these mafia-like tactics. This was never anticipated in the original Treaty. Once sold, the application of Article Two to that land ceases to exist. Not surprisingly, the handful of Maori self-servers currently getting away with highway robbery want the status quo to continue, and don’t want David Seymour’s bill. It threatens their significant income stream. It is not clear to me that the additional words Seymour recently announced that he intends to add to his bill will clarify this issue, although they certainly should.
It’s my observation that many new claims are becoming repetitive and nonsensical, and are parroted by people – Maori and Pakeha - who usually haven’t bothered to read the Treaty. In the case of the Mainstream Media they are being promoted for political purposes. TV One and Radio NZ never miss an opportunity to quote wrong or misleading statements from Labour spokespeople. These days the New Zealand Herald might as well wave Labour’s flag from its masthead. Kiwis who just want to get on with their lives are sick of it, and they perceive in Seymour’s bill an opportunity to restrain extremism while also reminding our courts about what, precisely, the Treaty means and what it doesn’t mean. When push comes to shove, legislation can always over-rule any contracts made between robbers and councils, or anyone else.
Meantime, both National and New Zealand First wobble in the wind. They know that the status quo is wrong. But because they didn’t think the issue of the Treaty through carefully enough before stating their positions they are left looking like by-standers, with their eyes closed to rorts that are being perpetrated in plain sight.
In 1890 when the Treaty was fifty years old, then at its centennial in 1940, and at the 150th anniversary of the signing in 1990, the Treaty that was celebrated was the original three clause translation of the Maori version signed by the chiefs. Sovereignty was passed for ever to Queen Victoria; in return she promised to guarantee Maori ownership of their lands, villages and treasures unless they had sold by an agreed process; and the Queen promised to protect Maori and give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of Britain. In other words, New Zealand was founded on an agreement between Maori and Pakeha. It was not based on colonial conquest or any illegitimate invasion of settlers.
The current debate about the Treaty wouldn’t be occurring if it weren’t for those who have been reinterpreting the Treaty. To serve their own interests some jump up and down about the ills of colonialism; others argue that the Crown made an ongoing promise to provide special advantages for Maori. At least 400 have convinced themselves that the Crown owes Maori more than equal opportunities, and must guarantee the impossible – equal outcomes in life - no matter whether many fail to take the health and educational opportunities placed right under their noses. Others argue that the Treaty gives Maori the right to co-governance, and even to a Maori parliament, despite Article One.
Right now, there is a growth industry in Maori bush lawyers arguing that, notwithstanding the fact that tribes or hapu sold land under the system outlined in the second article of the Treaty, the descendants of the original sellers still retain rights over that same land. In the Waikato, the Gore District, the Queenstown Lakes District Council and other parts of the country, stand-over tactics are being employed by iwi demanding monetary payments for “cultural impact assessments” to be performed by the iwi on any plans that a council or an individual owner might have for the development of the land long-since sold out of Maori ownership. The Treaty is being waved about in a menacing fashion, and councils and owners are expected to grease the palms of those who are using these mafia-like tactics. This was never anticipated in the original Treaty. Once sold, the application of Article Two to that land ceases to exist. Not surprisingly, the handful of Maori self-servers currently getting away with highway robbery want the status quo to continue, and don’t want David Seymour’s bill. It threatens their significant income stream. It is not clear to me that the additional words Seymour recently announced that he intends to add to his bill will clarify this issue, although they certainly should.
It’s my observation that many new claims are becoming repetitive and nonsensical, and are parroted by people – Maori and Pakeha - who usually haven’t bothered to read the Treaty. In the case of the Mainstream Media they are being promoted for political purposes. TV One and Radio NZ never miss an opportunity to quote wrong or misleading statements from Labour spokespeople. These days the New Zealand Herald might as well wave Labour’s flag from its masthead. Kiwis who just want to get on with their lives are sick of it, and they perceive in Seymour’s bill an opportunity to restrain extremism while also reminding our courts about what, precisely, the Treaty means and what it doesn’t mean. When push comes to shove, legislation can always over-rule any contracts made between robbers and councils, or anyone else.
Meantime, both National and New Zealand First wobble in the wind. They know that the status quo is wrong. But because they didn’t think the issue of the Treaty through carefully enough before stating their positions they are left looking like by-standers, with their eyes closed to rorts that are being perpetrated in plain sight.
Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE
10 comments:
Very well expressed Dr Bassett. The gravy trainers and gravy trainees are indeed scared their revenue streams will dry up. The Treaty is an anachronistic scrap of paper, especially as the present day descendants of those who signed on behalf of just a small proportion of the native population are so infused with colonialist genes and values that their entitlement to what the treaty promised is tenuous to almost vanishing (and breaking) point.
"newly unhinged"? Surely Matthew Hooten proved his all-round incompetence and utter uselessness with his starring in the Todd Muller coup.
Why did the 4th Labour government make them up and introduce them?
An excellent article, Dr Bassett. You have been there and done the job so well, and you are really the expert on Treaty matters.
For those who have lost or forgotten what the Treaty itself says, it can be summed up like this:-
The Crown is sovereign.
Your lands are safe.
We are all equal.
Start a referendum and the problem will be solved you only need 10% and getting 30% would be quite easy.
Even with all the erudite people like you - and we do have many - the general public still cowers with shame at how badly we 'colonists' have treated Maori - and still do. They just can't get it into their heads that the Treaty has been well and truly manifested, and it's time we laid it to rest in history where it belongs.
Rorts, indeed! But a great pity Seymour's Bill has been already perverted.
This is going to be essential very soon.
Brilliant article say all the old irrelevant white guys. Young NZ - under 40 - neither know nor care what a has been racist politician, and most of these comments say. They won't read them and are living in a multi cultural world that none of you understand. Which is good because you will not be around too much longer to agonise about it being terrible. Young NZ thinks it's just fine.
Richard, I am still not sure whether you actually believe what you are saying, or think you are being a funny person and stirring the pot
Post a Comment