It was via Zoom. The chair was Labour MP Duncan Webb. In attendance were Steve Abel from the Greens, Takuta Ferris from Te Pati Maori, and National MPs Jamie Arbuckle, Carl Bates and Rima Nahkle. There were no representatives from either Act or New Zealand First.
I watched a few submissions prior to mine and one afterwards. Of the three prior to me, two were vociferous in opposition. One from an American asked that the Committee not just throw out the bill but also get Parliament to apologise to Maori, the people of New Zealand and to King Charles for the insult delivered in introducing this bill to the House!
(Obviously a former Democrat!)
Another from Whakatane District Councillor Toni Boynton dismissed the bill as divisive by not giving mokopuna a chance to be Maori in the future.
(Yeah I couldn’t work that out either!)
So what I had to say at about 11.20am on Friday the 14th was never going to go well considering the makeup of the sub-committee.
I was given five minutes. Here’s what I submitted:
My name is Peter Williams. I’m retired from a career in the media industry. I live in Central Otago.
I speak in support of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. This is my personal submission.
My ancestors arrived in this country in 1848. My great-great-great grandparents Robert Stewart and Margaret Smith came from Glasgow on board the Phillip Laing in April that year, nearly 177 years ago.
So my attachment, my heritage and my love for this country, and especially for the Otago province, is deep seated.
We are a nation of immigrants. Like others whose ancestors landed on these shores from far off places over time from the 13th to the 21st century, I know no other nation I could call my home.
Yes, a saliva test taken through Ancestry.com says I am 91 percent Scottish. But that’s patently ridiculous. I should be graded 100 percent New Zealander.
Or if you like to be colloquial, full blooded kiwi.
I am tangata whenua. This is my land. I am privileged to share it with more than 5 million other kiwis.
My ancestors were poor. They were crofters, subsistence farmers forced off the land during the infamous Scottish clearances.
.They looked for places like New Zealand to escape to, to start a new life, a life based on freedom and on equality of opportunity.
Millions followed in their wake. Yes there were some people already here, although where I live not many.
A census taken by Edward Shortland in 1844 suggested just 302 Maori then lived in the southern part of the South Island.
But a negotiated Treaty was signed to ensure that all residents of this land would live together peacefully as subjects of the Queen of England.
Life in this country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi has not been perfect. Like many emerging nations in the years since the Enlightenment, justice, property rights and the rule of law have not always been followed as they should have been.
So The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 put in place a system for reparation for treaty breaches.
From the late 18th century, all immigrant groups to this country have mingled and merged, intermarried and interbred. We are a veritable melting pot of peoples. We are all New Zealanders, all kiwis, all people of this land.
The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in that 1975 Act and in subsequent legislation has confused and confounded us for five decades.
Even the late King Tuhetia said of the Treaty “ there are no principles, only articles.” He was right.
But if the phrase is to remain, then we the people, the voters, the electors, through our parliament, must decide what those principles are.
On Waitangi Day this year Ngai Tahu’s kaiwhakahaere Justin Tipa said “the articles of the Treaty are clear: the right to govern, protection of tino rangatiratanga and same rights and duties.” He then went on to say “that is our starting point.”
Our starting point for what? The Articles were what was signed in 1840. That was it. There was no more. Once the Treaty was given legislative status in 1975, the words of 1840 should have been applied in a contemporary context.
That is the elected government governs for all of us, that we shall all have control over our property in accordance with the law, and that we all have the same rights and duties under the law.
In that same speech Mr Tipa talked of the “unique constitutional identities of iwi Maori.”
I don’t know what that means. Does it mean iwi Maori having more representation on decision making bodies than non-Maori? Like happens with his iwi’s appointments to the Canterbury Regional Council?
I think that is wrong in a democracy and an insult to the people of Canterbury.
How can those of Maori descent have a “unique constitutional identity” in a land where we are all supposed to have the same rights and duties? A land where a modicum of Maori blood, can give some people political and economic advantage over others?
It just does not make sense and must not be allowed in a modern New Zealand.
That’s why I support this Bill.
We are all New Zealanders no matter where our ancestors came from.
No ethnic group matters more than others. We must look forward as one nation, one people.
Thank you
There was one follow up thought, inevitably from Takuta Ferris, the firebrand who is the Te Pati Maori MP for the South Island, Te Tai Tonga. He started a rant about how it was the Treaty of Waitangi, not the democracy of Waitangi! He then said you don’t have to answer the question if you don’t want to.
As I said back to him “I don’t know what your question was Mr Ferris.”
He said “don’t worry.”
Mercifully for him, the chair Duncan Webb closed my submission as the time was up.
I doubt what I said will make a blind bit of difference. But I feel better for having done it.
I’m open to be challenged on anything I said.
The National Party is scared of Maori interests. In the time I was on line their MPs looked as if they would prefer to be anywhere but in front of their computer screens. The only ones who showed any animation were Ferris and Abel, especially when they were listening to the submitters opposed to the bill.
The bill will be thrown out. But the issue will not go away.
David Seymour has done the nation a major favour by getting us to talk about the matter.
It’s time the National and Labour parties faced up to a few realities of the culture war.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
(Obviously a former Democrat!)
Another from Whakatane District Councillor Toni Boynton dismissed the bill as divisive by not giving mokopuna a chance to be Maori in the future.
(Yeah I couldn’t work that out either!)
So what I had to say at about 11.20am on Friday the 14th was never going to go well considering the makeup of the sub-committee.
I was given five minutes. Here’s what I submitted:
My name is Peter Williams. I’m retired from a career in the media industry. I live in Central Otago.
I speak in support of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill. This is my personal submission.
My ancestors arrived in this country in 1848. My great-great-great grandparents Robert Stewart and Margaret Smith came from Glasgow on board the Phillip Laing in April that year, nearly 177 years ago.
So my attachment, my heritage and my love for this country, and especially for the Otago province, is deep seated.
We are a nation of immigrants. Like others whose ancestors landed on these shores from far off places over time from the 13th to the 21st century, I know no other nation I could call my home.
Yes, a saliva test taken through Ancestry.com says I am 91 percent Scottish. But that’s patently ridiculous. I should be graded 100 percent New Zealander.
Or if you like to be colloquial, full blooded kiwi.
I am tangata whenua. This is my land. I am privileged to share it with more than 5 million other kiwis.
My ancestors were poor. They were crofters, subsistence farmers forced off the land during the infamous Scottish clearances.
.They looked for places like New Zealand to escape to, to start a new life, a life based on freedom and on equality of opportunity.
Millions followed in their wake. Yes there were some people already here, although where I live not many.
A census taken by Edward Shortland in 1844 suggested just 302 Maori then lived in the southern part of the South Island.
But a negotiated Treaty was signed to ensure that all residents of this land would live together peacefully as subjects of the Queen of England.
Life in this country since the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi has not been perfect. Like many emerging nations in the years since the Enlightenment, justice, property rights and the rule of law have not always been followed as they should have been.
So The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 put in place a system for reparation for treaty breaches.
From the late 18th century, all immigrant groups to this country have mingled and merged, intermarried and interbred. We are a veritable melting pot of peoples. We are all New Zealanders, all kiwis, all people of this land.
The phrase “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in that 1975 Act and in subsequent legislation has confused and confounded us for five decades.
Even the late King Tuhetia said of the Treaty “ there are no principles, only articles.” He was right.
But if the phrase is to remain, then we the people, the voters, the electors, through our parliament, must decide what those principles are.
On Waitangi Day this year Ngai Tahu’s kaiwhakahaere Justin Tipa said “the articles of the Treaty are clear: the right to govern, protection of tino rangatiratanga and same rights and duties.” He then went on to say “that is our starting point.”
Our starting point for what? The Articles were what was signed in 1840. That was it. There was no more. Once the Treaty was given legislative status in 1975, the words of 1840 should have been applied in a contemporary context.
That is the elected government governs for all of us, that we shall all have control over our property in accordance with the law, and that we all have the same rights and duties under the law.
In that same speech Mr Tipa talked of the “unique constitutional identities of iwi Maori.”
I don’t know what that means. Does it mean iwi Maori having more representation on decision making bodies than non-Maori? Like happens with his iwi’s appointments to the Canterbury Regional Council?
I think that is wrong in a democracy and an insult to the people of Canterbury.
How can those of Maori descent have a “unique constitutional identity” in a land where we are all supposed to have the same rights and duties? A land where a modicum of Maori blood, can give some people political and economic advantage over others?
It just does not make sense and must not be allowed in a modern New Zealand.
That’s why I support this Bill.
We are all New Zealanders no matter where our ancestors came from.
No ethnic group matters more than others. We must look forward as one nation, one people.
Thank you
There was one follow up thought, inevitably from Takuta Ferris, the firebrand who is the Te Pati Maori MP for the South Island, Te Tai Tonga. He started a rant about how it was the Treaty of Waitangi, not the democracy of Waitangi! He then said you don’t have to answer the question if you don’t want to.
As I said back to him “I don’t know what your question was Mr Ferris.”
He said “don’t worry.”
Mercifully for him, the chair Duncan Webb closed my submission as the time was up.
I doubt what I said will make a blind bit of difference. But I feel better for having done it.
I’m open to be challenged on anything I said.
The National Party is scared of Maori interests. In the time I was on line their MPs looked as if they would prefer to be anywhere but in front of their computer screens. The only ones who showed any animation were Ferris and Abel, especially when they were listening to the submitters opposed to the bill.
The bill will be thrown out. But the issue will not go away.
David Seymour has done the nation a major favour by getting us to talk about the matter.
It’s time the National and Labour parties faced up to a few realities of the culture war.
Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.
10 comments:
But you have too much common sense Peter. What the activist mp's could not actually say to you in that room is that you are white and therefore, according to their mindset, that is what the problem is. I suspect a huge majority of kiwis, including myself, agree with you 100%, but our current politicians are too weak to stop the madness.
I wonder if any National MPs will have the guts to cross the floor and support the Bill ?
Or will they be Trump-like acolytes and bow to Luxon's domination, just like Maureen Pugh had to publically retract her very valid views on climate change ?
Most of the National MPs must surely believe that the Bill should go through, and yet are held back from even expressing an opinion, all because Luxon is compliant to Maori demands.
Let's see who is even going to raise the matter within National ?
Thanks Peter for presenting your submission to an obviously hostile and bigoted committee on one side and weak, pathetic members of our government on the other.
It was an amazing submission Peter thank you so much who knows where this all will end but we have to try🌻
It is interesting that on YouTube (YT), there appears on a regular basis video of South Africa (SA). They are all presented by those who called Sa, their place of birth & education, leaving either they were forced to or did so voluntarily due the " antics " of The African National Congress (ANC) once they assumed power as the Govt. The recent one, the presenter showed video clips of -
- ANC Govt MP's in their Parliament, and two who did nothing else but vocalize " death to the Boer & the famer and any other white person".
- an ANC Rally, the attendance numbers of public was mind boggling - but it was the ANC representatives, dressed in red T shirts or jersey's along with a red beret and via a microphone shouting (as well as dancing a 2 step shuffle)- : death to the Boer, & the farmer and any other white people, to which the crowd joined in echoing the words.
The YT present explained that this was new, but had been an ongoing factor since the ANC took power.
Like the many who relate to him, as white South African -
they report that South Africa " has declined as a Nation ", that the Tribes of SA, who fight one another more than work, are not noted as being People who would strive to create an income.
So we now have within New Zealand " people who support a demise of democracy, as as the ' current version as it is of no use to Maori, nor has it been'. Sadly they seem to ' forget ' that unlike the Tribes of South Africa, they have been part of New Zealand, have not been relegated to ' being slaves to another race', have access to everything - Education, Health , Housing, Employment, freedom of movement across New Zealand and outside. yet we have the ' modern activist ' now deeming anything white - as racist'.
Should they win - " Will we see the scream for apartheid (supposedly) within NZ, to be thrown into the sea"?
“By not giving mokopuna a chance to be Maori in the future”?
Read, by taking away the means by which past and present Maori have excelled at doing what they do best, namely, by using cunning, conning, grifting, bullying and playing the victim card to extract “free stuff” from the state.
I listened to your submission and agree with all of it. When you said "I am tangata whenua", this hit a cord with me, because this is where the opposition become the divisive ones. This is where they separate us. Though I refuse to call myself tangata whenua, I am of this land. I am a New Zealander. This is my country, where I am from. The same of course applies to my children. I am not tangata tiriti. I did not sign anything. I was born into this country and what came before me was none of my choosing. "They" say the bill is divisive. I say the opposite is true. Dividing us into tangata whenua and tangata tiriti is what is divisive. This separates us from and makes us unwelcome in our home. I will never be okay with this.
Honestly Peter. These people were not the slightest bit interested in what you were saying. My question is: Is Finlayson the only legal brain alight in an ever dimming judicial chandelier? He appears to get much airtime.This is a serious issue and needs serious conservative(rational)opposing legal brains. There appear to be a few retired ones. Good grief where are the younger, eloquent speakers...or are they all captured like possums in the headlights like the justice committee obviously is?
The Treaty reinterpretation industry is the greatest bonanza ever for the legal ptofession. They are not going to risk cancelletion by maori and, far, far worse, from colleagues by applying their ability to show the absurdity of developments.
Peter, as usual from yourself - BLOODY BRILLIANT and spot on. Thank you for your input and for "doing it". I also totally agree with all the comments above. I feel that David Seymour is about the only MP with any real brains and has my total support - BOTH votes next time for David. Unless something IS done here our wonderful Country - NEW ZEALAND is stuffed.
Post a Comment