This is the heading on a press statement issued by Lady Tureiti Moxon referring to the Government’s decision to change the wording in the Pae Ora (Healthy Futures) Act from “give effect to” Te Tiriti principles to merely “take into account” those principles.
She claims this “weakens Treaty obligations in health legislation” and represents “the total annihilation of te Tiriti in the health system”.
What on Earth is she talking about?
The press statement went on to suggest that the change in wording in legislation “will lead to avoidable suffering and preventable early death for Maori who already die seven years earlier than any other cohort in the population”.
“It is not an abstract constitutional debate”, she said. “It is about whether Maori live longer, healthier lives or whether governments continue making decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
This is an outrageous statement, and were I the Minister of Health I would be tempted to sue her for implying that the Government is, or will be after the wording change, “[continuing to make] decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no reason why health legislation should refer to the Treaty, or te Tiriti, at all. It is a modern fashion.
The Treaty, whether in English or in te reo Maori, is an extremely simple document: it involved the chiefs agreeing to cede sovereignty to the Queen in perpetuity; in return, the chiefs were guaranteed the continued ownership of all their property; and all New Zealanders were to have equal rights.
In New Zealand, we don’t have a written constitution but those basic principles remain central to our unwritten constitution. The Queen, or now the King, is our Head of State; we all have the right to own property (although the state has steadily qualified that right for all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori); and we are equal under the law.
There is absolutely no need to “give effect to” or “take into account” the Treaty in either language, or in any legislation, except perhaps to assert that all New Zealanders, no matter when they or their ancestors arrived on these shores, have equal rights.
Yes, on average Maori life expectancy is a little short of the average life expectancy of European New Zealanders, though it is vastly better than it was in 1840, and the gap is no doubt largely explained by life style choices around smoking and diet.
The life expectancy of Asian New Zealanders is a couple of years longer than that of other New Zealanders, and nobody is seriously suggesting that that is because the New Zealand state discriminates in favour of Asians.
The Government is absolutely right to look carefully at references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, and in my view most of those references should be removed entirely.
But we would all be better off if we had an agreed understanding of what the Treaty actually provided, and for that reason it was a tragedy that Parliament threw out, without any serious consideration, the Treaty Principles Bill promoted by the ACT Party.
At some point, we will need to agree what the Treaty meant, and what it did not mean. Until we have agreed that, we will endlessly be debating rather silly arguments of the kind advanced by Lady Moxon.
And it will become more and more meaningless as we continue to marry across ethnic lines. Lady Moxon’s mother was Margaret Hawkins, so it is at least possible that Lady Moxon herself has both Maori and European ancestors.
“It is not an abstract constitutional debate”, she said. “It is about whether Maori live longer, healthier lives or whether governments continue making decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
This is an outrageous statement, and were I the Minister of Health I would be tempted to sue her for implying that the Government is, or will be after the wording change, “[continuing to make] decisions that knowingly harm our people”.
Of course, there is absolutely no reason why health legislation should refer to the Treaty, or te Tiriti, at all. It is a modern fashion.
The Treaty, whether in English or in te reo Maori, is an extremely simple document: it involved the chiefs agreeing to cede sovereignty to the Queen in perpetuity; in return, the chiefs were guaranteed the continued ownership of all their property; and all New Zealanders were to have equal rights.
In New Zealand, we don’t have a written constitution but those basic principles remain central to our unwritten constitution. The Queen, or now the King, is our Head of State; we all have the right to own property (although the state has steadily qualified that right for all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori); and we are equal under the law.
There is absolutely no need to “give effect to” or “take into account” the Treaty in either language, or in any legislation, except perhaps to assert that all New Zealanders, no matter when they or their ancestors arrived on these shores, have equal rights.
Yes, on average Maori life expectancy is a little short of the average life expectancy of European New Zealanders, though it is vastly better than it was in 1840, and the gap is no doubt largely explained by life style choices around smoking and diet.
The life expectancy of Asian New Zealanders is a couple of years longer than that of other New Zealanders, and nobody is seriously suggesting that that is because the New Zealand state discriminates in favour of Asians.
The Government is absolutely right to look carefully at references to the Treaty of Waitangi in legislation, and in my view most of those references should be removed entirely.
But we would all be better off if we had an agreed understanding of what the Treaty actually provided, and for that reason it was a tragedy that Parliament threw out, without any serious consideration, the Treaty Principles Bill promoted by the ACT Party.
At some point, we will need to agree what the Treaty meant, and what it did not mean. Until we have agreed that, we will endlessly be debating rather silly arguments of the kind advanced by Lady Moxon.
And it will become more and more meaningless as we continue to marry across ethnic lines. Lady Moxon’s mother was Margaret Hawkins, so it is at least possible that Lady Moxon herself has both Maori and European ancestors.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011. This article was sourced HERE
6 comments:
Don, you are absolutely right, it was a very big mistake this govt did not consider the treaty principles bill. I think a tragedy.
This issue is costing the country billions of dollars in wasted time and effort and it achieves absolutely NOTHING. I say again NOTHING
Long overdue to sort it out, Its clear national either are scared of the subject or believe it is not a serious problem. Perhaps a bit of both, but if they bothered to talk to normal NZers Im sure they will find it is a big issue that concerns most of us.
And yes, most definitely a lawsuit is in order, that might get them to tone things down a little
Has Don started saying the quiet part loud - “marry across ethnic lines”?? This guy isn’t talking like any kind of New Zealander I know.
I want someone to tell me what " [govt] decisions ... knowingly harm [Maori]."
It's not the govt's fault that so many Maoris CHOOSE (a word marxofascists deny as their conceptual framework is based on all problems of group A being caused by 'oppression' by group B) a lifestyle that leads to early morbidity and death. Now, let's have some EVIDENCE (a decidedly non-woke word) for this damning assertion accusing us as it does of genocidal policies and practices. This is serious! PUT UP OR SHUT UP!
Who is Barend’s ask directed at? We need to get them here
Yelling is a weak substitute for reasoned debate. We learnt that in high school.
I was quoting Tureiti Moxon (see para 5 in the article).
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.