The question of whether tikanga is vague, ambiguous or simply mumbo jumbo was referenced by Winston Peters at the Oxford Debate when he spoke in the affirmative to the proposition 'This House Believes That the Courts Now Undermine Democracy’.
To address this assertion Peters referred to an actual New Zealand example: the repealing of a bill due to judicial overreach or 'making' not 'interpreting' the law.
“While trust in the judiciary remains comparatively high in New Zealand, we do, as we have said, have concerns about judicial overreach. A case in point: the Foreshore and Seabed Act (2004) introduced the requirement for Māori land claimants to have an unbroken relationship with the land. That is, they couldn’t have abandoned their occupation of that land for that right to that same land to remain uninterrupted.
“Recent courts weakened that test by introducing a new concept, ‘Tikanga’, an ambiguous concept of Māori lore because ‘Tikanga’ between tribes is different – from tribe-to-tribe-to-tribe. This judicial activism was never the intention of legislators, nor made mention of, and we have been forced to legislate this week to restore the original intent.”
At the heart of NZ First's and National's Coalition agreement is a decision to remove references to the Treaty, (including Tikanga) from public services. And the rationale given to a committee considering whether any references should stay is that it can withstand 'legal scrutiny'.
I think not.
It is clear there is quite a bit of confusion as to the precise definition of tikanga when we consider Josesph Mooney's failure to define it on The Platform in his attempt to persuade his audience it should be included in law school. (Why National would do this when they had agreed to the repeal of MACA is baffling, as the main reason was to prevent rogue judges using it to by-pass the original intent of the law and get the desired outcome for the claimant by foul means rather than fair.)
I am starting to think their right hand does not know what their left hand is doing.
It must be said that Joseph Mooney made a pretty good fist of defining the Treaty of Waitangi in 2023 but got shot down by his boss, then ignored for the next 2 years. My understanding like Mooney, has always been:
In return for ceding their sovereignty Maori would receive full protection under the law with the same rights and responsibilities as other New Zealanders and protection of their lands and treasures.
This Coalition was elected on the premise of returning a bit of sanity to our country with a return to making law through need not race, after the excesses of Ardern. However activists within National are with Luxon's permission muddying the waters and pushing back on the Coalition partners' demands.
If Stanford focused on the part about 'the same rights as everyone else' rather than mandatory (illusory) 'tikanga' she would be encouraging more Maori to attend school and attain English literacy and numeracy to equip them for the future.
All her worthwhile work to get back to basics is overshadowed by her activism. If Stanford is so concerned with 'honouring the treaty' she need look no further than the $700 million put aside in the 2025 budget for Maori funding. It seems we are excelling ourselves in that area and surely honouring a non-existent fallacy.
This is blatant two-tier funding - but let’s drop the euphemism and call it what it is: Apartheid.
She needs to remove the word 'equity' from her narrative. Apart from 'equity' in a property, this is a Marxist term for equal outcomes, letting the (unattainable) perfect get in the way of the good. Equality of opportunity is more correct, which I have heard Tama Potaka use in the House. Perhaps he could educate his colleague on its more appropriate usage.
Potaka's gifting $70 million for Kapa Haka, (fun stuff with lots of days off) does not give the same prospects as a sound education including English literacy and numeracy for their future success. Yes, he should continue to encourage te reo but drop his activism towards an unattainable literacy goal by 2040 and the exorbitant cost that comes with it and adopt a more pragmatic approach.
He could be running campaigns, in tandem with Seymour, to urge Maori parents get their kids to school and encourage parents to get their babies immunized against infectious diseases, as current growing cases threaten to become an outbreak (or worse), due to Ardern dropping targets. The rate was 94% in 2017 when National left office, 1% off herd immunity.
National have picked a formidable foe in Winston, whose Oxford Debate is perfectly timed to make his point on the international stage that Tikanga is ambiguous and should not be used by the judiciary for law making or by public service for their activism. He went into the Coalition in good faith not expecting the push back of removing the Treaty references from an uncooperative National party.
We expect by year's end a bill removing reference to Tikanga in the public service will be in train or we will conclude theactivists are still running the Coalition.
On the subject of mumbo jumbo, I am wondering if Sean Plunket has begun a trend and the term has become a 'thing'. Mike Hosking was recently opining on another waste of money forced on the private sector in pursuit of harnessing man-made climate change:
It cost a fortune to get someone to write all the mumbo jumbo that for many companies wasn’t remotely necessary 'The CRD (climate related disclosure) was always counter productive'
Will Luxon stop the farce of pretending to care about Plunket being bullied by the BSA over a so called 'racist' comment that 'tikanga is mumbo jumbo' and doing nothing. He used it (like Hosking) over a questionable vague concept which is difficult to define.
Is Hosking going to be victimised over usage of the term to describe the 'sacred' man-made climate change? I think not.
The government repealed the MACA bill to stop Tikanga being used by activist judges to side-step the original intention of the bill. Was this all a virtue signalling exercise by National forced into it by the Coalition agreement when they really want to continue their activism.
Will they let the BSA continue to selectively target people, and like Marxist Ardern, using emotion not reason, attempt to silence opinions and put out of business people they disagree with using Goldsmith as their stalking horse.
Wendy Geus is a former speechwriter and generalist communications advisor in local government. She now writes for the pure love of it.
7 comments:
tikanga is easy to define, it means whatever it needs to mean so maori get what they want.
In many ways it is a pity Shaun's use of mumbo jumbo is unlikely to be tested. There are two branches of tikanga. The well documented horrendous pre 1840 customs. And the secretive, ethereal, undefined, unwritten, constantly re imagined, contrived tikanga of modern scheming insurrectionist maoridom. Critics would have a field day with the selective maori attitude to the only concrete tikanga, that observed by early explorers and colonists.
Excellent article, Wendy.
Your comments are clear, and accurate. No mumbo jumbo.
Your summary of the treaty:-
"My understanding like Mooney, has always been:
In return for ceding their sovereignty Maori would receive full protection under the law with the same rights and responsibilities as other New Zealanders and protection of their lands and treasures."
Is Excellent and accurate.
Regards "tikanga", I am incredulous that some lawyers and Judges appear to wish to enforce compliance with a word that has NO ACCEPTED LEGAL DEFINITION.
Vagueness endlessly enriches judges and lawyers.
Are there still mandatory "tikanga " courses for law students at AKL University ?
That must be a paper in indoctrination for our future woke judges.
Is it that National’s right hand doesn’t know what the left is doing, or is it sleight of hand? The theme of instigating or entrenching preferential treatment, funding and rent seeking opportunities for maori is a recurring one. It’s not what people voted for and National is not explaining. The Gene Technology Bill and the power of veto it accords to its maori advisory board is the latest surprise. What will the new RMA contain? More of the same opportunities for bribery and corruption delivered on a silver plate? Do they think they can just slip these things by us in the small print?
Taonga actually means property not treasure's.
Post a Comment