The issue is bringing all the kids to the yard and Dame Jenny Shipley, in a courageous move to remind the nation that she hasn’t retired and is still available for directorships, warned us that “…the minute you put the Treaty into a political framework in its totality, you are inviting civil war.”
It isn’t clear who would be taking up the muskets nor how that language advances civil discourse.
Joining Shipley in pledging fealty to the current thing was over forty Kings Council who wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and his Attorney General calling for the bill to be abandoned.
To understand their perspective I did what most of these lawyers should have done. I read their letter.
The KCs makes a bold, and magnificently incorrect, statement about the treaty; “The main principles include partnership, active protection, equity and redress.”
The treaty principles have never been codified and by the reasoning of the open letter’s logic they cannot be. As the letter states the treaty cannot be changed without both parties’ consent.
When did the Crown and various iwi sit down and agree on the principles? Never happened. The courts have offered their view, but there is no consensus on what they are.
In 1989 the 4th Labour government had a crack at a resolution and wrote up what they should be. These have never been adopted but they did assert; “All New Zealander’s are equal before the law”. It seems improbable that those marching in the Hikoi would agree with that proposition.
The KCs, or the intern who wrote the letter for them, also make a questionable assertion that partnership is a principle. A partnership is a form of relationship. It isn’t a principle. Marriage is a partnership. Fidelity is a principle.
I am being petty, but this does segue to the real issue; Partnership.
The Treaty Settlements will end but the settlements will endure. The establishment of co-governance over the Waikato River and transfer of Te Urewera’s into the custodianship of Tuhoe are the result of a legal resolution of a treaty breach.
These are protected in Seymour’s proposed legislation.
Beyond this point there are two visions of how we govern these islands. One is that all citizens enjoy equal political and economic rights. The other is that tangata whenua have an ongoing role that grants them rights based on their whakapapa as a result of the treaty being a partnership.
We are progressing towards the later and, until now, without public debate.
If the treaty is a partnership between the Crown and iwi then how should we govern Aotearoa? The emerging answer appears to be that the mana whenua of an area have enduring rights within their jurisdiction that are separate and distinct from treaty settlements.
This isn’t a theoretical proposition. It explains why the past government established co-governance in Three Waters, with mana whenua and local councils having equal representation at a board level and granting local mana whenua groups the power to set water policy through Te Mana o te Wai. Similar proposals were embedded into the now repealed Resource Management Act reforms.
We can see the impact of this philosophy at a local council level with the requirement to consult with mana whenua organisations, and in effect obtain their approval, before being granted a building consent for some projects.
Most of these rights and powers are not the result of treaty settlements but derive from a belief in shared governance, partnership, some assert is inherent the treaty.
Now. Many view this as a progressive step forward. I do not. Giving an individual or group political or economic status because of their ancestry violates a profound enlightenment value popularised by Thomas Jefferson; All men are created equal. It was reinforced by Martin Luther King when he urged his fellow man to judge each other by the content of their character.
Even if a partnership was envisioned by the chiefs in 1840 that isn’t a political settlement consistent with liberal democracy; and in 1840 the empire and Māori society were much different.
Both concepts emerged later in the 19th century and seems popular with most kiwis regardless of their whakapapa.
Seymour has forced those who wish to defend a political settlement based on a partnership between iwi and the Crown to articulate why this is necessary and how it will work.
Beyond the bluster and hype New Zealand is paying attention. Expect to see facts and reason prevail over the noise generated by flag waving and outrage.....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
Joining Shipley in pledging fealty to the current thing was over forty Kings Council who wrote an open letter to the Prime Minister and his Attorney General calling for the bill to be abandoned.
To understand their perspective I did what most of these lawyers should have done. I read their letter.
The KCs makes a bold, and magnificently incorrect, statement about the treaty; “The main principles include partnership, active protection, equity and redress.”
The treaty principles have never been codified and by the reasoning of the open letter’s logic they cannot be. As the letter states the treaty cannot be changed without both parties’ consent.
When did the Crown and various iwi sit down and agree on the principles? Never happened. The courts have offered their view, but there is no consensus on what they are.
In 1989 the 4th Labour government had a crack at a resolution and wrote up what they should be. These have never been adopted but they did assert; “All New Zealander’s are equal before the law”. It seems improbable that those marching in the Hikoi would agree with that proposition.
The KCs, or the intern who wrote the letter for them, also make a questionable assertion that partnership is a principle. A partnership is a form of relationship. It isn’t a principle. Marriage is a partnership. Fidelity is a principle.
I am being petty, but this does segue to the real issue; Partnership.
The Treaty Settlements will end but the settlements will endure. The establishment of co-governance over the Waikato River and transfer of Te Urewera’s into the custodianship of Tuhoe are the result of a legal resolution of a treaty breach.
These are protected in Seymour’s proposed legislation.
Beyond this point there are two visions of how we govern these islands. One is that all citizens enjoy equal political and economic rights. The other is that tangata whenua have an ongoing role that grants them rights based on their whakapapa as a result of the treaty being a partnership.
We are progressing towards the later and, until now, without public debate.
If the treaty is a partnership between the Crown and iwi then how should we govern Aotearoa? The emerging answer appears to be that the mana whenua of an area have enduring rights within their jurisdiction that are separate and distinct from treaty settlements.
This isn’t a theoretical proposition. It explains why the past government established co-governance in Three Waters, with mana whenua and local councils having equal representation at a board level and granting local mana whenua groups the power to set water policy through Te Mana o te Wai. Similar proposals were embedded into the now repealed Resource Management Act reforms.
We can see the impact of this philosophy at a local council level with the requirement to consult with mana whenua organisations, and in effect obtain their approval, before being granted a building consent for some projects.
Most of these rights and powers are not the result of treaty settlements but derive from a belief in shared governance, partnership, some assert is inherent the treaty.
Now. Many view this as a progressive step forward. I do not. Giving an individual or group political or economic status because of their ancestry violates a profound enlightenment value popularised by Thomas Jefferson; All men are created equal. It was reinforced by Martin Luther King when he urged his fellow man to judge each other by the content of their character.
Even if a partnership was envisioned by the chiefs in 1840 that isn’t a political settlement consistent with liberal democracy; and in 1840 the empire and Māori society were much different.
Both concepts emerged later in the 19th century and seems popular with most kiwis regardless of their whakapapa.
Seymour has forced those who wish to defend a political settlement based on a partnership between iwi and the Crown to articulate why this is necessary and how it will work.
Beyond the bluster and hype New Zealand is paying attention. Expect to see facts and reason prevail over the noise generated by flag waving and outrage.....The full article is published HERE
Damien Grant is an Auckland business owner, a member of the Taxpayers’ Union and a regular opinion contributor for Stuff, writing from a libertarian perspective
No comments:
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.