There is nothing profoundly immoral and or wicked (as evil is defined) in wishing to publicly debate an issue that besets our society and has done for many decades Ms Stevens . She was also quoted in the Otago Daily Times , as saying the Prime Minister is pushing “this pile of muck forward. ” This language is quite unbelievable and surely cannot remain unchallenged by the Law Society . To promote the fact of 42 Kings Councils signed a document of concern regarding the Treaty Principles Bill ignores the reality that the vast majority of KCs didn’t sign - possibly as many as 5 to 1.
I venture to point out to Ms Stevens that there are no absolute facts surrounding the signing the Treaty in 1840 - only interpretations - of a multitude of beliefs by the self-appointed with unauthorised opinion. Such opinion, regretfully, is too often presented as irrefutable evidence as it comes from the tiny minority of more radical members of Maoridom. In fact, their view is even less relevant than opinion of “we the people” when based on the writings of historians such as Michael King, Judith Basset and Keith Sinclair. The actual Maori version of the Treaty had no Maori author as there was no written Maori language at that time . The expression “lost in the translation” is a well-known idiom.
It has always been concerning that the signing was deemed to be or constituted as a partnership between Maori and the representatives of Queen Victoria as Justice Cook (wrongly) decided. Indeed, his decision makes no sense given that no other similar partnership agreements exist between any other emerging nation at that time with the greatest power of the age. It is worth remembering that approximately 102 countries were colonized by Britain -only “the familiar few” in NZ believes there was a partnership.
It would indeed be helpful if the legal 42 openly accepted that it is Parliament through a process we call democracy that is the highest court in the land and not a coterie of no doubt talented legal minds.
It is all the more concerning when distinguished members of the legal community -KCs - sail forth into matters that the wider public must be consulted over. The tone so far, appears to be completely dismissive of this consultative principle by at least a very few representatives of the wider New Zealand legal community.
Another signatory to this KC grouping, the distinguished lawyer Dr Royden Sommerville is reported as saying that he is concerned about the impact on New Zealand’s constitution. Dr Sommerville will be well aware that New Zealand does not have a constitution. We have just three clauses or covenants agreed to and called the Treaty of Waitangi.
Prior to 1840 Maori and Europeans lived under no laws. Maori therefore had no authority to demand all tribes accept the governance of one dominant Maori authority. Indeed, the definitive work of Hon Sir Apirana Ngata makes it clear that a single governing Maori body was an anathema to the powerful Maori tribes so why would a partnership even be contemplated ? The answer is of course that it never was.
According to Sir Apirana Ngata’s interpretation of the Treaty, any concept of Maori authority was set aside for ever by the first article of the Treaty, so why, 180 years later would some legal representatives believe they are right, and the highly respected Maori scholar was wrong.
It is simply beyond understanding that some lawyers can’t or won’t accept that the public of New Zealand are fully entitled to debate what The Treaty means in this day and age. Some divisiveness is to be expected and will always occur when privilege is withdrawn - to para phrase Tom Sowell.
Even the Magna Carta has changed to allow the Crown to acquire the property rights of the citizens of this country without compensation -but then, not if you are Maori landowner . That surely needs some explanation from the 40 odd senior lawyers. It may also be helpful if the same lawyers explained just what rights we non Maori are entitled to under the same Treaty document.
Debate and rigorous inquiry are surely the hall mark of a well-functioning society. It is entirely appropriate to challenge existing mantra just as the recent inquiry into state and faith based abuse released a flood of information of the appalling harm concealed by the various authorities. The lights need to be turned up to shine on problematic issues not dimmed by the timorous few.
Gerry Eckhoff is a former councillor on the Otago Regional Council and MP.
22 comments:
The arrogance of these KC’s totally aligning with the elite Māori to the detriment of ordinary NZers.
People don't become KCs out of ability. It's more a matter of who you know, having the right law society connectios. It helps to be the right race and gender, and having a parent who was a judge. Coming ftom the right school also helps. Most KCs are hardly ever in court. When you think of many of the most effective lawyers, most don't become KCs, and those who do, do so well after their prime. People like Peter Williams, Kevin Ryan, Mike Bungay evenually became QCs (as it then was) but well after their significant cases.
Exactly
Hubris? Delusion? Pragmatism ? ( Tomorrow these same experts will robustly defend democracy - for a hefty fee.)
The puzzle remains: a PM who does not allow a referendum for his fellow citizens on crucial issues is not worthy of the office.
Who is controlling this man?
_
PS 1987 Lands case: Justice Cooke - in informal remarks - used the word " akin to a partnership" to describe Maori-Pakeha relations. Akin is not " is". This was not in his formal decision - not in that of his fellow judges. Ms Stevens KC must know this.
Pre colonisation New Zealand was not an emerging country. It was a divided tribalise brutal country with a very short shelf life. The arrival of outside influences halted the inhabitants decline to inevitable extinction. It was Michael King that wrote if Europeans had arrived just 100 years later the lands would have been empty of humans....
Debate and rigorous inquiry are surely the hall mark of any good Lawyer and certainly any half way decent Kings Councel. These people have nailed their arrogant, ignorant and total disdain for New Zealanders and their right to a voice clearly to the dart board.
In PapersPast there is a written recording "Conference of Maori Chiefs at Kohimarama, Auckland, on the 10th July, 1860." It is very clear from this that there was no partnership. It clearly states the complete opposite. These chiefs came together to stand against what was happening with the emergence of the kingitanga movement. They clearly state that the queen is sovereign and that they stand with Pakeha.
Sir James Prendergast GCMG (10/12/1826 – 27/2/1921) was the third Chief Justice of New Zealand and was the first Chief Justice to be appointed on the advice of a responsible New Zealand government.
From 1865 onwards Prendergast rose through a series of national roles from Member of Parliament, Attorney General and Chief Justice of New Zealand. In 1870 he helped to create order in the legal profession, with the New Zealand law society being formed with Prendergast as its first president. He was knighted for his service in November 1881.
In 1877, Chief Justice Prendergast ruled that the Treaty of Waitangi was a ‘simple nullity’, stating, “So far indeed as that instrument purported to cede the sovereignty it must be regarded as a ‘simple nullity’. No political body existed capable of making cession of sovereignty. Any obligations which the Crown did have in relation to Maori arose from those rights and duties which, ‘jure gentium’ (law of Nations) vest in and devolve upon the first civilized occupier of a territory thinly peopled by barbarians without any form of law or civil government.” (This ruling has never been overturned.)
Chief Justice Prendergast said that it was precisely the absence of any treaty making capacity among Maori tribes that meant ‘jure gentium’ provided the foundation for Crown obligations to Maori, since Maori were incapable of giving rise to these obligations themselves.
The obligations of the Crown towards Maori, which Chief Justice Prendergast referred to as being ‘in the nature of a treaty obligation’, although not arising from the treaty itself, are the same obligations which he believed arose for the Crown on a ‘jure gentium’ basis, independent of any treaty.
While the treaty was ruled a ‘simple nullity’, it did explain to Maori that they would be given “the same rights as the people of England”, no more no less.
So, to Stevens and those other KC signatories, I pose this question to you, just who is having their ignorance and prejudice exploited when it comes to matters pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi?
Perhaps the 42 KC's would detail the money their firms have invoiced the NZ taxpayer for work on this settled law. From the outside they come across as wishing to keep the golden goose alive and laying, rather than being concerned for the future of the country.
I am no mathematician, but I am informed that 0.02% of the population took part in the hikoi. The people with Maori blood equals 15% of the population. That speaks volumes! I consider the use of the word "evil" by a KC to describe the Treaty Principles Bill to be inflammatory and doesn't help the situation. If this was a symphony played by an orchestra, the Maori people I know do not want a bar of it. Indeed, several have told me that they are embarrassed by it.
Kevan
Yet again I bemoan the inability to upvote posts and comments on this website.
Great post, valuable comments. Thank you Gerry et al.
In the early 1830s Britain had a passenger steam train service operating between Liverpool and Manchester over many miles of difficult terrain. Britain was a technological world leader at the time. How can anybody seriously suggest that Great Britain would ever remotely contemplate any 'partnership' with primitive, stone age natives? Maori should, in my humble opinion, be eternally grateful that Britain did not walk away from signing The Treaty, as they were instructed to do should major difficulties arise in negotiating the treaty. If for example, the French or Dutch had colonised New Zealand, the chances of Maori Race surviving at all would have been a predictable outcome.
>" If ... the French or Dutch had colonised New Zealand, the chances of Maori Race surviving at all would have been a predictable outcome."
Nonsense. The French were remarkably enlightened by the mid-18th century and expended many resources on improving the lot of the natives. Uprisings were followed up with harsh reprisals but that was the case for the British as well as in India after the Mutiny. Today, the ex-French colonised third world countries tend to run better than most as the French set in place robust governmental systems. The Dutch were minor actors in the colonisation drama but evidence of systematic brutality against colonised peoples would be hard to put together (bear in mind that South Africa was colonised by Dutch-speaking people but not by the Kingdom of the Netherlands).
I believe that some Maori at the time did not share your confidence in the French, had they attempted to colonise New Zealand. My understanding is that this was a major factor in the British being welcomed as a treaty partner. My conjecture may be 'nonsense', but I'd say that the realities of those times of colonisation are difficult to understand through today's eyes. New Zealand was a very crude, harsh and violent country, and Maori significantly outnumbered settlers.
So why were the Maori worried about the French? Because British missionaries had told them what an evil lot the French were. In turn, because where the French went, Catholic missions went, and the British missions were Protestant. The Catholic vs Protestant Punch and Judy show formed a backdrop to a lot of the goings-on during the colonisation period throughout the Pacific and also in Africa.
I was fortunate in having spent my formative years in a colony (New Hebrides) and thereafter having had plenty of exposure to post-colonial society in the Pacific and Africa. I well recall the snide remarks made by many natives about the corrupt self-serving indigenous cliques who governed them and about how much better it had been when Whitey ran the show.
Yes, some great points Gerry & commentators. Despite the factual background, the arguments of the likes of Willie Jackson & Helmut Modlik, et al about the 'partnership' when it suits, and then the non-cession of sovereignty on account of the disproportionate numbers between Maori & the colonists & who would have done what & why -well, firstly, how could the Queen have entered a 'partnership' with a party that had no agreed leader or head? It's truly farcial to suggest the Crown entered a partnership (for what purpose and who was to do and contribute what?) with five hundred-odd Chiefs, many with very divergent views, and as for the cession of sovereignty when clearly, for the same reason, they had none to give. Those that talk of this mythical "partnership" and "Treaty partners" know little of the facts and are doing the country, and especially the taxpayer, a great disservice. They have no business representing us.
Marion Du Fresne? .. and his historic encounters with Maori. I would agree with your comment that the French administrations (in Africa for example) were superior to others, incuding the British. Interesting old world innit?
If the French had colonised NZ we might still be part of France, like New Caledonia. We could have MPs in the French parliament. The French abroad (New Caledonia, Quebec) seem far more proud of their French ancestry and ties than do many of English ancestry, who seem to like slagging of the old country. Someone did suggest we would have better bread and pastries! The King of Fiji ceded sovereignty to the UK, from what I have read, because he was more worried about the Germans and the USA (Hawai'i regime change later perhaps proves his view)
The French - hmmm? Their efforts not so flash in Vietnam. Methinks, in any event, the Maori were rather lucky in their choice.
Likewise the French colonisation of North Africa (Algeria etc). Not a happy ending
Just as well the Spanish didn't colonise NZ other wise the Maori race would be gone by now (judging on Spanish efforts in Mexico and other places)
True, however the Mexican race did not cease to exist but the culture that they sprang from did.
The culture in NZ would certainly have been killed and the spanish language, religeon and socio-political structure would have prevailed.
Simply everything maori would be extinct and unlike the aztec, the mayan and the toltec who had infrastructure to examine, in NZ there would be little left of 'maori' to look upon today.
Last week I petitioned Judith Collin's to remove the title of all these KC's. A lawyer may not demand a Bill be withdrawn from Parliament. The last one to try on this sort of nonsense, Sir Richard Wheaton , was jailed for contempt by The Long Parliament of 1641. I have not demanded Ann Stevens be imprisoned, merely that she loose her practising certificate and her KC privelege be withdrawn. She practices family law. She is not a subject matter expert
Post a Comment