By Alexander Gillespie, Claire Breen & Valmaine Toki*
The heated (and often confused) debate about “co-governance” in Aotearoa New Zealand inevitably leads back to its source, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. But, as its long-contested meanings demonstrate, very little in the Treaty of Waitangi is straightforward.
Two versions of the 1840 document were written, one in English and one in te reo Māori. About 540 Māori, including 13 women, had put their names or moko to the document. All but 39 signed the Māori text.
But the differences in the translations were so significant that there has been debate ever since about what much of this agreement actually meant, especially Articles 1 and 2.
Article 3, on the other hand, attracts less controversy – which is interesting, because it was and is critical to debates such as the one swirling around co-governance. In effect, Article 3 acted as a mechanism by which the fundamental rights and privileges of British citizenship would be afforded Māori.
In the English language version, the Crown promises the Queen’s “royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects”. In te reo, the Crown gave an assurance that Māori would have the Queen’s protection and all rights accorded to British subjects.
The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other.
Although there were many British laws, practices and principles in existence by this time, four particularly stand out.
Participation
The ideal was that laws reflected the community (or a portion of it at least) and were made with the participation and consent of citizens. This was a long-standing principle, in that law and governance could not be something arbitrary or controlled absolutely by one person.
There had been efforts to control royal abuses of power since the Magna Carta in 1215 and the establishment of a “common council of the kingdom”, by which high-ranking community leaders could be summoned to discuss important matters.
Later, the 1688 Bill of Rights required free and frequent parliaments which would contain the right of free speech within them (parliamentary privilege in today’s terms). This meant representatives could speak without fear. Monarchs could no longer suspend laws on a whim, levy taxes at their pleasure, or maintain a standing army during peacetime without the permission of parliament.
The anomaly that only about 5% of British citizens (wealthy and entitled men) could actually vote for members of parliament was not resolved until legal reform in the early 1830s. This began the expansion of the political franchise and the widening of control over parliament.
Individual rights
All were deemed equal in the eyes of the law, and the delivery of justice with integrity could be expected. Clause 39 of the Magna Carta stated:
No free man shall be seized or imprisoned, or stripped of his rights or possessions, or outlawed or exiled, or deprived of his standing in any other way, nor will we proceed with force against him, or send others to do so, except by the lawful judgement of his equals or by the law of the land.
Clause 40 added: “To no one will we sell, to no one deny or delay right or justice.” The Habeas Corpus Act of 1679 required a court to examine the lawfulness of a prisoner’s detention, thus preventing unlawful or arbitrary imprisonment.
The Bill of Rights prohibited excessive penalties, cruel and unusual punishment, and the imposition of fines or penalties before convictions. It also guaranteed the right for all citizens to petition, where they could complain or seek help from the authorities, without fear of punishment.
Tolerance and a free press
After the Reformation, religious tolerance among British subjects took centuries to develop. The 1701 Toleration Act allowed some tolerance of the public practising of different religions, although the monarch could never be Catholic. But it was not until 1829 that Catholics – and some other faiths – could even be elected to parliament in Britain.
The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”. Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.
Public debate and the role of a free press was another important privilege. Although British laws governing libel, blasphemy and sedition were continued after 1688, there was a clear trend toward expanding liberty, allowing both booksellers and newspapers to proliferate.
This helped build the modern belief in the “fourth estate”, and that the media would act as a positive influence on decision makers.
Forward together
Despite the fine sounding language of Article 3 and all the expectations that went with it, the reality was that for many decades after 1840, the promised rights and privileges did not arrive for everyone.
The governor, followed by the early stages of representative government, ruled with a near absolute power that crushed dissent. The law itself was often used to target the rights and privileges of Māori, with some of the darkest examples occurring during and after the New Zealand Wars/Ngā Pakanga o Aotearoa.
Equality for most was largely a chimera, tolerance was elusive, and the press did not act as a brake on atrocious decision making.
Thankfully, the world is different today. Positive change has happened through successive generations of Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.
There have been official apologies, compensation and redress, although only a portion of what was alienated has been returned.
As we move forward and look for new ways to work together to achieve equal and equitable partnership based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi, it is important to remember the relevance of Article 3 and what it continues to offer in a modern context.
*Alexander Gillespie, Professor of Law, University of Waikato; Claire Breen, Professor of Law, University of Waikato, and Valmaine Toki, Professor of Law, University of Waikato. This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
110 Comments
The Maori Provisional Tax rate is 17.5%.
Its criminal. I'm now stung 39% on my final earnings and a billion dollar (Iwi) business pays a rate under half of what I pay. Stump up. And the same goes for churches.
Never hear the Greens pushing for a corp tax rate for Iwi trusts but only too happy to push CGT and suggest wealth taxes. God I hate them all.
So would you be happy with a settlement that isnt a negotiation and is fixed at a 2% maximum quantum dictated to you by the Crown? Thats a 98% loss. There is no negotiation.
So I guess the lower tax rate is some kind of compensation for the 98% loss in the settlement process. Otherwise if the settlement was a full financial payment and land returned, the Crowns coffers would be empty if they paid the full amount of 100 cents in the dollar ay?
I'd love more Chinese in Parliament. Typically quiet, law abiding and successful. They must have had a gutsful of the whingeing and constant handouts.
Disclaimer-I am an epic Pommie whinger. But I don't suck welfare or commit crime. And I keep my lawn tidy. WTF is it with folks who can't mow the council strip?
No puedo hablar Maori pero lo que dijo una majoria pensar y estar de acuerdo con migo
Out of politeness I will translate. "I don't speak Maori but I think a majority think and agree with what I say."
Estoy cansado de violencia y abuso de "social welfare." Tired of Maori violence and abuse of social welfare.
Here is a challenge for you Whakahokia (and be honest). In your day-day activities how many people have you spoken with in Maori as a first language in the last month? For me, it would be three families and children, approx 14 people and I am the only non-fluent speaker. I'd argue NZ has more Spanish (fluent speakers) than Maori. Perhaps time to Hablas espanol?
I agree. If China was willing to accept 50% of its govt to be Kiwis it would help the people of China on issues such as the rule of law and free speech. And if China gave NZ some of its govt bureaucracy with expertise in technical and scientific matters and how to create export driven businesses then New Zealand would benefit.
"The promise of these rights and privileges, coupled with Articles 1 and 2, conferred a fundamental commitment of a partnership, in which the two sides could be expected to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith towards each other."
It did nothing of the sort. The Crown could not enter into a partnership with her subjects. There are no Partnership, Principles or co governance/government stated in the ToW. The "rights & privileges of British subjects" obligations in both Maori & English versions also confirm the Govt constitution framework.
A very confusing opinion piece that goes all over the place in it's attempt at historical revisionism. Once again I reference Sir Apirana Ngata's century old explanation: https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html
I do agree with you.
The bit I struggle with is that successive governments actively sought to separate Maori from their lands without accountability. I also take issue with the lease in perpetuity of Maori lands. Both of these are significant ripoffs of Maori where others profit, often significantly with little or no benefit to the land owner. That is about the Government breaching the treaty.
The rights of British citizens can be summed up as "one person, one vote".
What irks me Murray is all non M ar being treated as benefitting in some way from the land confiscation. Sure a few lucky ones did, but they still had to work their butts off breaking in land etc.
Most of us did not have ancestors who inherited or got given land. They came here on a ship and just laboured themselves to death. Mine lived on rabbits and begged from the local bakery, went off to a war, but came back and made a call to get on with life.
But I'm to feel guilty about this effort and continually be in awe of another race.. just because they are another race!
I'm in that group where i neither benefited nor inherited anything. I don't feel guilty and neither should you. But that will not stop me from being able to recognise injustice and argue to correct it. Imposing another injustice on others today will not fix the ills of the past. We need to find ways to fix these.
No. Very poor family scratching by during depression. Even at 90 dad wouldn't put a heater on or throw away food scrap - and he had the money form years of hard work.
I agree that there was mistreatment and land abuses. That has happened to every race in some form or another since the beginning of human time.
It was not all of us Non M who benefitted from the land abuses.
Work is rewarded. Victimhood is not.
As long as folk are rewarded for being victims, they will make no progress. It is a convenient excuse for failure - evident everywhere in NZ.
Dame Tariana Turia has said the democracy has not served Maori well. this has two possible meanings; the first and most likely is that she thinks Rangatira should be appointed to rule Maori in line with a traditional system. The other possible meaning is what I believe to be true; democracy hasn't served any ordinary kiwi well as politicians kowtow and suck up to big money and interest groups. If you are not blessed to own or be born into a family with significant assets and/or income then the economic policies produced by our governments for at least the last 40 years have not served you well. Current governments continue to seem to appear to drive living standards down. Tino Rangatiratanga starts at the bottom, the ability to make choices, not at the top by leadership. This requires a decent standard of living, to stop the hard scrabble to survive.
I think the first task toward a way forward regarding the place of the treaty in our constitutional framework, and hence the interpretation of its meaning and application in the modern age - is to agree that the Maori language version (and therefore its English language translation) is the treaty text. Such an agreement (perhaps confirmed by referendum) would focus interpretation and jurisprudence on a single document/text.
It seems to me that as cited by the authors above - given the overwhelming majority of chiefs (540 vs 39) signed the te reo Māori text, to argue that the English version has any relevance is disingenuous. Here are the two texts (an English translation of the te reo version and the English version);
https://teara.govt.nz/en/document/4216/the-three-articles-of-the-treaty-of-waitangi
I would then go on to argue that the Māori version (Articles 1 and 2) clearly distinguish between 'government' and 'chieftainship' (kawanataga and rangitiratanga respectively in Māori).
And neither of those articles, nor the third article, talk about co-governance or partnership. Article three is about citizenship, the same rights and privileges of British subjects.
I just get frustrated with talk about the 'spirit' and the 'principles' of the treaty - when the treaty signed by the vast majority of Māori has language that everyone then, and today, can understand in its historical context.
So, the question becomes, how do we today and for the future, provide for iw/hapū the "unqualified exercise of chieftainship..."
I think you need to acknowledge that it was the Queen's representatives making the offer to Māori, not the other way around. Therefore, it was the responsibility of those representatives to ensure the "tribes of the Confederation" (to use language from the English version) understood what they were signing. It was those representatives that hired an interpreter, not Māori. So, the Māori text to my mind is the treaty. I can't see any other way of looking at it.
There was a different system of governance at the time. The monarch dictated everything and there was no governance for anyone. British subjects here we administered to, by people that were appointed by the monarch. If they treaty had not been signed I suspect the outcome would have been different, ie there would be no rights for Māori. As it was the treaty affirmed everyone was equal under the system of government at the time, which didn’t afford anyone any rights like we have today
Subsequently we became a democracy, where by its nature everyone is equal and to rule you must gain majority vote. The treaty did not know about or account for this in any way shape or form whatsoever, and so there was no do-governance intended at all.
Sure, land was taken, historic harm was done, and compensation is being paid. That’s fine. But giving governance to a minority for no reason whatsoever in a functioning democracy, there is no excuse or reason for it.
I would challenge anyone to show me where it says in the treaty that when we change our form of government to a thing called democracy where everyone is equal, that this here treaty will make it clear that whatever it is will be unequal and we will eventually decide on minority rule.
It’s not the same as it is today. What was allowed was that around 5-7 percent of the population of the UK selected the Parliament at the time. You had to own property and be a man. After the NZ treaty was signed this was extended in the UK to include all men.
No women involved here so it’s not democratic truly in the UK until 1928 when women were also allow to vote. So the UK became a true democracy after NZ did.
So, at the time of the treaty signing the UK was no a democracy at all. It has democratic elements that were afforded to the elite only.
imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects
All New Zealanders of every race have a right to equal democratic representation - one person, one vote (for the sake of argument, let's ignore Maori electorates). I can't wrap my head around how this 50/50 co-governance business fits in to the Treaty. It seems to be manifestly unequal, by granting Maori signifiantly more representation than everyone else.
Last time I looked there was still 1 person 1 vote in electing the government.
Article 2 states:
The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.
Water is held by Maori only 2nd importance to their Mountain as a Taonga. How are they allowed unqualified exercise of their chieftainship rights with regard to water?
Mana whenua will have equal representation on the RRGs alongside councils in each entity area. RRGs will provide regional and local level direction and oversight
We don't get to vote for the Mana whenua in the Regional Representative Groups, they are unelected and given equal standing to elected members of the RRGs. If everyone gets to vote for half of something, and then a sub-group gets the other half, then we don't have equal representation.
How are they allowed unqualified exercise of their chieftainship rights with regard to water?
I'm unclear here whether you are implying that all water is Taonga and therefore should be caught under Article 2, or whether only water in a group's possession is caught.
If I catch rainwater in a bucket, is that water Taonga to Maori? Any different if Auckland City Council catches that rainwater before it flows out to sea, treats it, and pumps it to people's houses?
The Queen will protect the chiefs, subtribes etc. in the chieftainship over lands. That also gives them the right to trade land with settlers? If not, then I assume any and all land gifted back to Iwi remains in their "chieftainship" and is not sold thereby holding up their end of the Treaty agreement?
Feel free to educate me on my points, instead of "go learn". Where do I begin to look?
If you're talking specifically about purchases of land (I thought it was stolen???), then yes I am aware of conditions such as for a while only the Crown could purchase land and therefore could set the price remarkably low. But why were Maori selling land if it was Taonga?
Māori defending the rights guaranteed in 1840, the Waitangi Tribunal, and the critical questioning of early and contemporary government policies by Māori, politicians, community leaders, media and scholars.
those rights and privileges come from being subject to the Crown, not from an identity being Maori or Pakeha.
Whoever our poor are in NZ we need to care for them, I'm not sure the point is whether they're disproportionately Maori, we need to care for our disadvantaged regardless of race, and we can clearly do better.
What really gets my goat is the entitled types like I met the other day, looked very Scottish to me, but obviously thought he had a smidgen of Maori, and made it quite clear to this white trash we were not welcome at a public campsite. It won't end well in the long run.
If I had to guess, I think they would quietly agree. Any change in the democratic system will eventually affect the operation and value of their businesses. Just because people claim to be offended, it does not mean that topics cannot be discussed. That is the entire reason that we end up in this mess.
Exhibit A ad hominem argument.
However this is fundamental to NZs future as a functioning democracy & therefore the only issue that will decide the result of this years election. The rest of the social economic noise will pass. Shutting down debate will ensure that peoples worst suspicions are confirmed & generate more heat than light.
Ardern also called for NZdrs to be "more sophisticated":
sophist
/ˈsɒfɪst/
noun
a paid teacher of philosophy and rhetoric in Greece in the Classical and Hellenistic periods, associated in popular thought with moral scepticism and specious reasoning.
a person who reasons with clever but false arguments.
If you think He Puapua will go away with a change of government you are sadly mistaken.
Luxon has said as much.
It was John Key that signed the UN declaration on indigenous rights that started He Puapua.
As much as Seymour thinks you can legislate away the Treaty it will not happen not unless both parties to the treaty agree.
https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/national-govt-support-un-rights-dec…
UNDRIP is non binding & Maori will not have a veto
While the UNDRIP is non binding, that's not really the crux of it. In contract law, a verbal agreement is legally enforceable.
Here we have a statement posted on the Beehive website as an extra to the UNDRIP, from a Prime Minister of the time, stating that Maori have a special interest in all policy and legislative matters. I'd say that's much stronger than a verbal agreement.
Would it include the genocide of Moriori by Taranaki Maori? Recall that the descendants of the Moriori left mainland NZ to escape inter tribal warfare.
Will the musket wars be brushed over? Ngapuhi killing thousands of people and enslaving similar numbers?
Any accolades for the Englishman Wilberforce who drove through anti slavery legislation which impacted NZ especially in the period post TOW? A bit of gratitude wouldn’t go amiss.
Excluding infectious diseases (the germ theory of disease wasn’t known in 1840), colonisation by the British empire was the best thing that happened to Maori. Life expectancy has increased, slavery halted and a clear stop to infighting. I wonder how things would have turned out with a Cortez or Pizarro coming by 250 years earlier.
Your grasp of NZ history is tenuous at best.
Are you saying that Maori would have been enslaved by the British?
Yeah, it certainly looks like colonisation was a great thing for Maori.
They are bottom of all the stats and dispossessed of their lands.
Everything is just going swimmingly for them.
What happened was Maori could no longer enslave other Maori. Not a bad thing.
Maori were dispossessing other Maori of their lands, did you think the intertribal conflicts resulted in no shifting of the boundaries/loss of land?
When people have a propensity to behave a certain way, then it's no surprise when the stats paint a certain picture.
Māori society was flourishing when Europeans arrived. Here's an account from what today, we would call an anthropologist, but at the time was an artist documenting in sketches, native populations the world over. He spent nine months in NZ in 1827 and subsequently wrote this book;
http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz/document/?wid=298&page=0&action=null
Very interesting as he compares Māori with many other indigenous populations - and his praise of the industriousness of the New Zealanders is remarkable.
"Flourishing" ? really hard to see how he missed the Musket Wars at that time - which prompted Maori to seek the formal protection of the Crown in the Treaty.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musket_Wars
Pre European - widespread brutal warfare, slavery, mass murder, cannibalism, extinction of main protein sources & many native species, large parts of the land burned off...
There's an old history of the Marlborough sounds that describes the spitting and roasting of infants as entrees.
The "Noble Savage" never existed.
Read the link, Hemi and argue with the guy that wrote it 200 years ago.
And yes, he discusses the escalation of tribal warfare post-guns being introduced to Māori from a very interesting perspective. Seriously, read it - it's a really good look into pre-colonial NZ.
I can certainly understand why you would want to shut the discussion down.
You need try harder to find a better pretext than a single slightly flippant comment one person made.
Less commitment to open discussion than a certain Broadcasting Minister - at that is saying something ..
I'm not asking this site to shut down a respectful discussion of co-governance or Te Tiriti, supportive or not. I'm asking they suspend it due to their inability to moderate a respectful discussion where Te Reo and Maori in general are not mocked and ridiculed.
I appreciate Interest have no legal liability for the comments on this platform, but like it or not they are part of the broader finance community, a community which has embraced Te Reo and Te Tiriti.
https://www.nzba.org.nz/2023/02/01/nzba-announces-new-name/
I stopped posting on this issue and am doing so again, Interest will not survive if they permit this to continue. Heio ano
So what you are saying is if no one (as far as I can see) agrees with your point, they are racists and should be shut down and you will just quietly slink away and claim some sort of moral victory…..
So applying your logic, if I agree with Shane Reti and David Seymour that makes me a racist (even though they are Māori), but if I agree with Jackson and Mahuta that makes me a non-racist good guy.
Man I need to catch up on these rules.
Surprised you're not mocking them for "cultural appropriation". Like you did when the RBNZ embraced Te Reo. I don't see any Maori on the NZBA team, I bet you they haven't stepped foot on a Marae.
by Te Kooti | 21st Sep 21, 12:45pm
I don't agree that often with the above commentators, but on this we are in complete agreement - it is "brown-washing" as someone said above.
I doubt any RBNZ management had set foot on a marae or had the slightest bit of interest in Te Ao Maori before it suited them to signal their "virtuousness". Maori have been some of the most disadvantaged by their policies as well.
Yet to see any senior Maori there either despite a number of well qualified Maori finance professionals (I know there is a director). I find it utterly offensive.
I would be sad to see you go, Te Kooti. Think of some of your tipuna - their struggle I'm sure was long too. And if people don't understand, then communicating is the only way to eventually find shared meaning;
Understanding among and between people flows from the creation of shared meaning.
Shared meaning does not mean that everyone in the conversation sees things in the same way.
Shared meaning does mean each stakeholder in the conversation shares what is meaningful to them as it pertains to creating the desired future those in the conversation are seeking to create.
Shared meaning occurs when people understand each other’s perspectives well enough to accept them as legitimate in the context of exploring and realizing a desired future.
If you do decide to go, noho ora mai and haere rā e hoa.
Te Kooti I would cast a thought back to your tupuna. History records that Maori were as political as any other group of humans, and let's face it, just as with those other groups sometimes political disputes got settled by violence. When people are disrespectful of you, it is not about you but a reflection of them. That they are unable to see that is again a reflection of their shallowness. To let them influence your actions is to grant them power that they likely do not merit. Do not leave the discussion because one or two in it try to drag it down. Instead bless us with your dignity, intelligence and respect. And with luck those others may learn some humility.
I find the treaty as written in both English and Te Reo to be a very straight forward document. As others have stated there is no mention of ‘partnership’. I think a lot of the confusion has come from how the following statement is interpreted. ‘The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures.’ The protection thereof by the Queen and the exercising of by the Chiefs, subtribes and all the people of New Zealand is still being thrashed out today. The ‘chieftanship’ applies I think to the iwi/hapu/whanau level. Which equates to localised areas around the country as existed in 1840. How to administer the ‘unqualified exercise of their chieftanship’ at the iwi/hapu level is where I think the debate should be aimed to comply with the terms of the treaty.
I guess if you say something enough times, you start to believe it, even if it is wrong. There is nothing in the treaty about partnership or co-governance. That is the point. But, if you want to believe it, you can believe what you want. Maybe there is a tooth fairy too.
HEY ALL YOU NUMBSKULL VOTERS!!!... YES! You 98% of kiwis who are numbskull voter's!...
If you keep voting the same way expecting a different/ improved outcome then ... You are DUMB!
Monique says your DUMB! 🤙😎
All but 2% of moaning kiwis are getting exactly what you deserve!!!
if you vote National ( blue/red) , labour (red/blue/green), NZ first ( b/r/g), Maori ( brown) you are getting the same crap as you always get! And it is costing billions!
They are all useless and talk the same spin!
However!, if you want to improve this country you really have no other option than ACT
By the way I have never voted ACT!.... But see no other way out of this constant and draining barrage of bullshite!
A VOTE FOR ANYBODY BUT ACT IS A VOTE FOR THE SAME CRAP!
I thought we were doing a pretty good job of reconciling our differences with the Waitangi Tribunal, that is until it got highjacked of recent times. I can't think of another nation doing anything like this, although I stand to be corrected.
The current issue is blown up around the increasing anger & bitterness within some quarters of Maoridom. It doesn't seem to matter how much we [NZ govt] reconciles with iwi, it will never be enough for these few, but well connected lot. Alongside this, Maori's parental systems have fallen out of the waka, creating increasingly dysfunctional elements of their younger members, as witnessed in the current crime wave, which, along with their non-appearance at their local schools, underwritten [it has to be said] by a knee-jerk govt's response to a man made flu out of China, has created a perfect storm. Even the wakas on the beaches have been swept out to sea.
Possible solution? An open discussion, broadcast live on TVNZ to everyone interested, preferably run by a third party - by that I mean someone [or grouping] not involved in this nations scuabbles at all. Why? Well, one thing is obvious to all parties is that the original treaty has past its use by date. We need a reset. Perhaps even a constitution.
Perhaps...when Maori are not top of the bad stats, thru taking responsibility for thier people's actions with their own money, they can be trusted to be real democratic anti racist leaders.
Or maybe they should earn the right like anybody else and get voted in thru the current system rather than a privileged and biased system...
The stats say Māori are poor and that Māori are bad parents. However of the Māori I know they are good or great parents and about 3 out of 4 are multi-millionaires - certainly wealthier than my family. How do you reconcile personal experience with statistical data that disagrees?
Could you provide any evidence for that hypothesis. I.e. actual documentary evidence from all the signatories confirming that was their point of view? Thought not. I'm just a student of human nature and my opinions reflect that. Maori signatories wouldn't have turned up unless they perceived a benefit for those they represented.
Not sure where I read it, but apparently many of the early Europeans arriving in NZ were a lawless bunch of hardened seafarers whom Māori wanted to be brought-to-order. Hence, ceding kawanataga to the Queen's representatives, to administer laws for the Europeans.
The book/account referred to above mentions the disgust the chiefs had with the European custom of drinking alcohol and the subsequent behaviours demonstrated. It is also a fact that once the settler society established its parliament, Māori chiefs petitioned it to make the "grog" illegal where their own people were concerned - in other words, ban Europeans from trading "grog" with their people.
Taking today’s frequently insulting and abusive discussion as a snapshot of the general feeling towards Maori in this country at the moment there is a lot of anger directed at us and any aspirations we have. On the positive side at least these feelings are being expressed openly and the community itself can see how strong the feelings are. Are many reading these comments shocked by the depth of feeling? Are these the feelings of the silent majority. Hard to say. Except there is a long way to go before any form of informed debate can take place. On these boards or in the community at large.
I don't really pay much attention to uninformed views. As someone said of the republican's in the US House these days, "insults and name calling - it's all they have".
I can assure you, there are a whole lot of NZers out there that are more informed. But there is a reluctance to speak out for fear of giving offence (i.e., cultural appropriation).
I think the complete failure of the government to articulate it's intentions and the principles behind them with regard to Three Waters and co-governance in general is what has allowed this to happen. The complete vacuum in this space has allowed rampant speculation and conspiracy theories to flourish, and people feel as if this "thing" is being done to them, rather than with them. It just feels surreptitious, and it's completely unnecessary. Of course people are upset.
Insightful comment - I agree completely.
I don't see how we can move forward with "co-governance" and debating it maturely as a society until those in favour (upon whom it is incumbent to do so) articulate a vision of where we are headed; both what the stops along the way look like, and most importantly the final destination.
For example, does co-governance and treaty partnership stop with the 3 Waters and the Maori Health Authority?
Perhaps an official re-naming of the country to Aotearoa, and the equal usage of Te Reo and English in all public contexts is the terminus.
How about a separate justice system with separate punishments to acknowledge the fact that the historically disadvantaged position of Maori in NZ society has resulted in worse socio-economic outcomes, and therefore has had an impact on crime, prison population etc?
Does it stop - as some more conspirational elements might claim - only when the local iwi owns 50% of your property?
Does it ever stop? Will the level of partnership ever be sufficient?
Nobody knows, because no clear vision has been articulated for the public to consider.
Maybe honouring the treaty means Maori deserve a greater-than-proportionate ability to decide if we head towards implementing a certain vision, but as a society every New Zealander deserves to understand where we are headed before the process begins.
It's not hard to see how in a vacuum (where we are told by ever-trustworthy politicians and ultimately vested interests to "have no fear") the void fills conjecture and conspiracy; some of which will be proven true, some of which will be false.
A tenuous analogy is the flag referendum.
We got to vote on what a changed flag might look like, so we understood the "end state" if the referendum passed. I don't wish to equate a vanity project with the nation's founding document, but it does work as an example of a more sensible way of doing things. Co-governance seems to be a bit like asking the nation to vote first that we should change the flag, and then decide afterwards what it should look like (only this time the deciding-what-it-looks-like bit isn't open to the general public).
I hope for the future of a still-great country that we can at least reach a level of maturity where those in favour of change are capable of articulating their future plans and vision, and the rest of us are open to at least listen and make an attempt to understand.
To my mind, the government should have undertaken public consultation based on the He Puapua report. As this article explains, the authors of the report agreed that;
The document acknowledges that New Zealand has done a good job of including Māori in kāwanatanga Karauna, which translates as state governance [Article 1 of the Treaty]. But it says the focus needs to be rangatiratanga-centric [Article 2 of the Treaty], which means Māori self-determination, a space in which it says the country is less well advanced.
And it puts up a list of different ideas for consideration on progressing toward rangatiratanga.
So, to my mind, what change might look like has already been enunciated. It's a really good start but got knocked down/framed as a conspiracy before the conversation was ever given a chance. Bad management of this by the government - running with it and starting the conversation openly and purposefully, would have served them better politically. The accusations of stealth by way of back-dooring some of those ideas via legislation are well founded.
It's a good document - a good place to start the conversation.
The authors hint at the myth of the 'fourth article':
'The importance of tolerance can be seen in the oral promise made by Governor William Hobson at the time of the signing the Treaty: all established religious faiths would be tolerated in New Zealand, “and also Māori custom shall be alike protected by him”. Although an oral commitment, to many signatories it was just as binding as the written words.'
https://www.parliament.nz/en/document/47HansQ_20030225_00000294
https://www.parliament.nz/en/document/47HansQ_20030226_00000215
What a great piece to read!
Maybe we need a break in governance and a review on how NZ is governed? The fundamentals set out here seem reasonable and easy to understand.
Maybe its time for some reprogramming of our political and governance system to realign ourselves to the principles set out here within this 'article'.
Don't think so.
This site is a relatively centre-left environment and from the comments above around 80% are against co-governance. That aligns with public polls. If you go to a more centre-right blog, you will see 100% near enough against.
That effectively means the argument is lost for those in support of co-governance. It's dog tucker. People should get used to it.
The radicals had their chance to get something, they have pushed too hard, communicated abysmally, and will now end up with almost nothing after the coming backlash.
The only governance is done if you are elected. It's called democracy. There will not be any unelected governance here. The only reason we are talking about it is that some woke judge decided to interpret a historic document in a way that it was not intended by the signing parties. Now a radical and vocal minority has decided that they can have power over a majority as a result of that incorrect interpretation. A poorly functioning government that is fast sinking requires the votes of radicals and the woke left to have any chance of retaining power. and so they purport to support this stupidity to gain votes for their last grasp at power. All that is doing is creating a bigger backlash that will lead to even worse outcomes for Maori. That is in a nutshell how we got here.
Good points Jeremy. I would add that it is important that Maori have a voice, but here's the kicker, as a group of population, per head Maori are better represented in parliament than any other group. That representation has been growing over the years. Why then do we need to have separate groups to ensure Maori get heard?
We don’t need them. As soon as the settlement process is over and the Māori seats disbanded the better. Tribes can start contributing to the economy by paying taxes and we will all be better off. Māori already have representation in Parliament in more or less proportion to their population as do others. So, they have a voice in proportion just like any of the other races that are all equal in New Zealand. That is how this will eventually end. If governance is what they want, then they require all Maori to agree and vote for that (and only a minority of even Māori do) and they also need to gain as many votes as are required in a majority otherwise everything is off the table as is normal in a democracy.
In article 3 in both language versions, the context was always on the individual. I.E. The British subjects, the rights of Individual Maori, would be akin to individual British subjects.
In the modern context, both the rights of Individual Maori and the rights of the British subjects have been combined into the rights of New Zealanders.
This is the partnership, individual Maori descendents, and individual British subject descendents in partnership as New Zealanders.
I am the only non Maori in my family, my wife is of both Maori and English decent. How can she exist in a partnership other than as an individual other than as a New Zealander, how can my children exist in any sense that sees Maori and non Maori as a separate partnership relationship.
The Maori understood family, they understood joint relationships between Maori and Non Maori would evolve. Yes land ownership is a different issue, and they set a section/ article aside for that. Governorship, management of the country was a separate issue and they set aside a section for that.
But the rights of each and every individual was a third and important concept. Knowing that relationships between Maori and non Maori would blossom, ( had already started) they set aside a section to say the rights of all individuals would be equal. We now collectively call these individuals, New Zealanders, or we may need/ already have a Maori term for this collective grouping.
But other than applying the wisdom of Solomon we cannot cut in half people who descend from both Maori and non Maori, neither do we have the right under article 3 to make them or even ask them to choose.
Being a citizen had rights but these include obligations The obligation of ensuring each individual is treated equally with each other individual under the law, the right to vote equally with each other etc. I see you do not hold with some rights/obligations of Citizens but agree with others.
My mind finds it difficult to imagine the scenario when on signing the treaty , Maori were asked to provide their co- governor. It is truely ridiculous. Some modern maori and their pakeha supporters are looking to take New Zealand down an “exciting new track”. Again surely we are joking. Our democracy is most precious with all having the same rights and privileges of each other. You are not being a good citizen if you take any other view. If Maori want to turn their back on the third part of the Treaty that’s one thing but to somehow argue that it gives a group different rights from all other citizens is absurd. There are Maori authors who wrote on the Treaty in its first 100 years. I suggest you reflect on them .
I also believe we need to look forward to a country where most of our great great grandchildren are likely to be a bit British a bit Polynesian and a bit Asian. We already have these groups in my family. Are we really talking about a system where two cousins have different rights ( voting or otherwise) because of a slightly different flavour of skin colour. Surely we want equality for all . Co governance is deeply wrong.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.