That is because his argument is not really about the river. It is about who should have political and legal authority in New Zealand.
The Te Awa Tupua Act 2017 is already extraordinary. Parliament recognised the Whanganui River as an indivisible and living whole and declared it a legal person, with the rights, powers, duties and liabilities of a legal person. It also established Te Pou Tupua to act on behalf of the river.
Yet Simon argues that this remains part of a “settler/invader state”. He says genuine decolonisation requires authority to be returned to Māori and ultimately envisages the river operating within “a Māori polity”, with authority coming from “the river’s descendants” rather than representatives appointed by the Crown.
That is a much bigger proposition than protecting the environment.
It is a proposition about who governs.
The obvious question is: who decides who has that authority?
Who elects them? Who can remove them? Who holds them accountable? What happens when their decisions conflict with the interests of other New Zealanders?
And most importantly, why should constitutional authority be determined by ancestry?
There is nothing wrong with recognising the deep cultural and spiritual relationship between Whanganui iwi and the river. Indeed, Parliament has already done so. The Act incorporates Māori concepts and values into New Zealand law and gives the river an unprecedented legal status.
But recognising a cultural relationship is not the same as transferring ultimate political authority.
That is where Simon's argument crosses an important line.
He describes the Crown's continuing legal authority as “colonial” and says Māori cosmology should form the basis of law, governance and authority.
If that is the proposal, then we should stop pretending this is simply an argument about rivers, environmental protection or tikanga.
It is a constitutional argument.
New Zealand has one Parliament. Its members gain their authority through elections. Its laws apply across the country, regardless of ethnicity.
That principle can certainly be debated. But replacing it with separate or ancestral sources of political authority would fundamentally change the country.
The irony is that the Te Awa Tupua settlement demonstrates how much can be achieved within our existing democratic system. Parliament has recognised the river as a legal person, created a special governance structure and incorporated Māori concepts into statute.
Apparently, however, that is still described as colonial because Parliament remains ultimately in charge.
That should make every New Zealander stop and think.
How far are we prepared to go?
Protecting the Whanganui River is one thing.
Recognising tikanga is another.
But saying that legitimate authority should ultimately come from “the river's descendants” rather than the democratic institutions of New Zealand is something entirely different.
The river may be a legal person.
But it cannot be allowed to become a vehicle for quietly changing who has the right to make the law.
That debate should be held openly — not hidden behind the language of environmental protection and legal personhood.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
Yet Simon argues that this remains part of a “settler/invader state”. He says genuine decolonisation requires authority to be returned to Māori and ultimately envisages the river operating within “a Māori polity”, with authority coming from “the river’s descendants” rather than representatives appointed by the Crown.
That is a much bigger proposition than protecting the environment.
It is a proposition about who governs.
The obvious question is: who decides who has that authority?
Who elects them? Who can remove them? Who holds them accountable? What happens when their decisions conflict with the interests of other New Zealanders?
And most importantly, why should constitutional authority be determined by ancestry?
There is nothing wrong with recognising the deep cultural and spiritual relationship between Whanganui iwi and the river. Indeed, Parliament has already done so. The Act incorporates Māori concepts and values into New Zealand law and gives the river an unprecedented legal status.
But recognising a cultural relationship is not the same as transferring ultimate political authority.
That is where Simon's argument crosses an important line.
He describes the Crown's continuing legal authority as “colonial” and says Māori cosmology should form the basis of law, governance and authority.
If that is the proposal, then we should stop pretending this is simply an argument about rivers, environmental protection or tikanga.
It is a constitutional argument.
New Zealand has one Parliament. Its members gain their authority through elections. Its laws apply across the country, regardless of ethnicity.
That principle can certainly be debated. But replacing it with separate or ancestral sources of political authority would fundamentally change the country.
The irony is that the Te Awa Tupua settlement demonstrates how much can be achieved within our existing democratic system. Parliament has recognised the river as a legal person, created a special governance structure and incorporated Māori concepts into statute.
Apparently, however, that is still described as colonial because Parliament remains ultimately in charge.
That should make every New Zealander stop and think.
How far are we prepared to go?
Protecting the Whanganui River is one thing.
Recognising tikanga is another.
But saying that legitimate authority should ultimately come from “the river's descendants” rather than the democratic institutions of New Zealand is something entirely different.
The river may be a legal person.
But it cannot be allowed to become a vehicle for quietly changing who has the right to make the law.
That debate should be held openly — not hidden behind the language of environmental protection and legal personhood.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
No comments:
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.