Allowing for the fact that there are two versions of the Treaty, which in itself is a problem, the articles are quite specific but the principles aren’t. In fact the principles in the 1975 Act could be considered anything from vague to all encompassing and this is how the mess we are now in came about. The principles are a means for interpretation of the articles.
This opens up a can of worms because there can be as many interpretations as you wish and they can be constructed in a way to suit any particular narrative. I believe this is the problem David Seymour recognised and what his Treaty Principles Bill was trying to solve. The fact it got no further than the select committee means the mess remains. This is unacceptable to the majority of people on the political right.
It means the practice whereby the Treaty can spread its tentacles into vital areas of government responsibility, such as health and education, remains. It is a fallacy to suggest there needs to be any reference to the Treaty in relation to these and other aspects of everyday life. This is merely an interpretation of the Treaty and these references, as they apply to education for example, can be removed.
Just recently we learnt that IKEA has to consult with mana whenua on a myriad of things that should have nothing to do with them. Once again we have the spectacle of Māori throwing their weight around to try and give the appearance that they’re in charge and people are beholden to them. This is a joke and they need to be given their marching orders using terminology I won’t write here.
This Government was elected partly because we were told that the emphasis was to be legislating for this country to be governed on the basis of one people and one law for all. To give them some credit, they have disestablished the Maori Health Authority and English names have taken precedence in some government agencies but by and large not much else has changed.
The Waitangi Tribunal, which facilitates a lot of this nonsense, is carrying on its merry way. It should be done away with. They now have their own agenda which is way beyond the original scope of their powers. Their primary purpose, advising on land issues, is now virtually at an end. No doubt, this is why they have taken it upon themselves to extend their powers as an excuse to continue their supposed relevance.
Recent moves by Erica Stanford in her education review to introduce te reo into every aspect of the education process is deeply disturbing. Those who see this for what it is she labelled ‘race haters’ when talking to Mike Hosking. She might be better placed in the Labour Party or the Māori Party. Yet another example of the principles being used in a way that suits the narrative.
Her idea that the use of te reo in schools will lift Māori students to the level of their counterparts is arrant nonsense. As Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University said, when talking to Michael Laws on The Platform, there is no evidence anywhere to back up Stanford’s claim. According to Professor Rata the most likely outcome is a reduction in the attainment level of all students. Stanford has also disregarded the agreement between National and NZ First that all references to Māori in education are to be removed.
This sort of stupidity will not be solved until the principles are tightened up. We cannot have numerous interpretations of the articles of the Treaty: this is precisely what has created the mess we find ourselves in. Until this is addressed – a fact to which Christopher Luxon needs wake up – the divisiveness, hatred and racism will continue.
This does not come from opponents of Stanford’s idiotic strategy but from those she is mistakenly cuddling up to. She would be well advised to have a rethink as would the rest of the National Party. They are completely on the wrong track and the only thing that will save them at the ballot box will be the fact that the alternative is even worse.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
This opens up a can of worms because there can be as many interpretations as you wish and they can be constructed in a way to suit any particular narrative. I believe this is the problem David Seymour recognised and what his Treaty Principles Bill was trying to solve. The fact it got no further than the select committee means the mess remains. This is unacceptable to the majority of people on the political right.
It means the practice whereby the Treaty can spread its tentacles into vital areas of government responsibility, such as health and education, remains. It is a fallacy to suggest there needs to be any reference to the Treaty in relation to these and other aspects of everyday life. This is merely an interpretation of the Treaty and these references, as they apply to education for example, can be removed.
Just recently we learnt that IKEA has to consult with mana whenua on a myriad of things that should have nothing to do with them. Once again we have the spectacle of Māori throwing their weight around to try and give the appearance that they’re in charge and people are beholden to them. This is a joke and they need to be given their marching orders using terminology I won’t write here.
This Government was elected partly because we were told that the emphasis was to be legislating for this country to be governed on the basis of one people and one law for all. To give them some credit, they have disestablished the Maori Health Authority and English names have taken precedence in some government agencies but by and large not much else has changed.
The Waitangi Tribunal, which facilitates a lot of this nonsense, is carrying on its merry way. It should be done away with. They now have their own agenda which is way beyond the original scope of their powers. Their primary purpose, advising on land issues, is now virtually at an end. No doubt, this is why they have taken it upon themselves to extend their powers as an excuse to continue their supposed relevance.
Recent moves by Erica Stanford in her education review to introduce te reo into every aspect of the education process is deeply disturbing. Those who see this for what it is she labelled ‘race haters’ when talking to Mike Hosking. She might be better placed in the Labour Party or the Māori Party. Yet another example of the principles being used in a way that suits the narrative.
Her idea that the use of te reo in schools will lift Māori students to the level of their counterparts is arrant nonsense. As Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University said, when talking to Michael Laws on The Platform, there is no evidence anywhere to back up Stanford’s claim. According to Professor Rata the most likely outcome is a reduction in the attainment level of all students. Stanford has also disregarded the agreement between National and NZ First that all references to Māori in education are to be removed.
This sort of stupidity will not be solved until the principles are tightened up. We cannot have numerous interpretations of the articles of the Treaty: this is precisely what has created the mess we find ourselves in. Until this is addressed – a fact to which Christopher Luxon needs wake up – the divisiveness, hatred and racism will continue.
This does not come from opponents of Stanford’s idiotic strategy but from those she is mistakenly cuddling up to. She would be well advised to have a rethink as would the rest of the National Party. They are completely on the wrong track and the only thing that will save them at the ballot box will be the fact that the alternative is even worse.
JC is a right-wing crusader. Reached an age that embodies the dictum only the good die young. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
And pigs may fly! Never been so disappointed in a PM who showed his true colours when he said there was NOTHING he liked about David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill.
When the TOW was established in 1975, it was soon found that it was difficult to establish treaty claims. After ten years of the Waitangi Tribunal struggling to prove a claim, and without public debate, it was decided behind closed doors by Palmer and Wetere to create the “Five Principles for Crown action on the TOW”.
These “conjured up” principles were quickly accepted into law and are now solely interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal, and used as the basis for all treaty claims as well as local and central government legislation to benefit Maori only. (apartheid)
If there is any principle to be found in relation to original Maori language treaty, it would be the words spoken by Governor Hobson when shaking the hand of each and every signatory, “He iwi tahi tatou”- we are now one people.
While I agree with you perspective I also consider that a formal set of ‘principles’ may be useful in connecting the two languages. My view is informed by the early-Christian realisation that there needed to be a common creed (Nicene Creed) to link the different bodies of the Church together.
Therefore, I believe that either we dispense with the Treaty, and its accompanying greed and b/s, altogether, or we lay down the only way that the Treaty can be interpreted for law-makers, law-enforcers and law-followers.
In this regard I support ACTs attempt, albeit am a little uncomfortable with, I think, the second Principle about Treaty concerning settlements.
In less-flowery language:
1. The NZ Parliament is sovereign
2. Property rights are protected
3. Everyone is equal as an individual
I agree. How and who will make this change happen?
Why the continual claim that there are two versions of the treaty. There is only one, the Maori version, along with any back translation of it. The English version is only used by Maori when they like what it says, but it needs to be put to bed.
The Maori version is the only one that matters in international law. It is very clear in what the chiefs signed away and received in return.
">The Maori version is the only one that matters in international law."
ToW never came under international treaty law because a treaty can only be between two sovereign entities the geographical jurisdictions of which can be precisely defined. The International Court of Justice held in 2002 that the hundreds of treaties the British concluded with local 'strong men' in the 19thC in Africa did not fall under international law then or now. There is no reason to suppose that ToW is any different.
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.