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
3 comments:
Mr Luxon seems to be forgetting he most certainly was not voted into office because of his character or charisma or political views. Or the brilliance of the National Party. A coalition government was voted into office because of an overwhelming sense of revulsion by the voting public towards all things related to Jacinda Ardern . Nothing else. Somebody needs to remind Mr Luxon of that.
And he seems to forget that the coalition only won office with the support of Act and NZ First. Perhaps he needs to be reminded of that also. The nature of the coalition agreement suggested to many of us that he did not have the right to so vigorously oppose and condemn Act's Treaty Principle's Bill as he does.
Even Bryce Edwards form Victoria University acknowledged last week that were a referendum to be held now the public would vote strongly in in support of the Treaty Principle's Bill .
Here we go again , National sleepwalking its way to another defeat. In 2017 Winston Peter's billboards proclaimed " Vote for NZ First, Vote for a change." And despite National crowing "that no matter what he says pre election Winston will side with us' we all know what happened . National gave us 6 years of Labour. Well done National !
In 18 months time we will be in election mode again. In all likelihood Mr Luxon's business alchemy will not have worked wonders on the economy by then. Perhaps there will many more worse off than there are now. An easy target for Labour's bribes and continued socialist transformation of New Zealand society.
But there will be an overwhelming group who feel they have been badly let down by Mr Luxons opposition to this Bill, his opposition to the basic principle that we are all equal in law irrespective of skin colour.
I note that 3 waters, a Maori health system and unelected Maori Local body seats all disappeared with barely a mention about these issues now. Many obviously believe Mr Luxon has badly misread this one.
The hole National is digging for itself might well have Mr Luxon at the bottom of it after the next election. Let's hope it's still a right wing coalition government he's looking up at.
Tikanga is whatever you want it to be.
Each hapu have different tikanga, so you cannot make this argument at all.
Maori are not all the same under one iwi.Tribalism will be the death of New Zealand.
We'll be the South Africa with their brand of apartheid.
I address my comment to the person - Anon, who posted their comment @ 3:06 PM 25 Nov 24 - I am "so glad that a person has woken up to the process and steps being taken by radical Maori", something that former residents (now living in NZ) of South Africa have been saying since back in the days of "Dear Sainted Jacinda" - and what intrigued them then and still does that most Kiwi's seem to be "tone deaf".
I recommend that on the BreakingViews web site you go search for the article by Ross Murant - "History can be a bitch.." will highlight that what we see now had its origins long ago.
Oh and past NZ History showed that there "was no love" between the different Tribes that both controlled & roamed across this land - it was wars of attrition, very similar to the days of the Native American Indian tribes.
Post a Comment