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.
8 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.
Post a Comment