By Chris Trotter*
Constitutional reform is Kryptonite to our political leaders. New Zealand’s No. 8 wire constitution, largely unwritten and characteristically informal, has been deemed “rough enough” by the country’s two largest political parties. In both National and Labour, excessive interest in the topic is not career-enhancing – being taken as evidence of the political trainspotting to which most “ordinary” Kiwis display a strong allergic reaction.
This allergy has only got worse as the political salience of te Tiriti o Waitangi has increased. The alacrity and energy with which National and Labour politicians kick Tiriti-based constitutional reform down the road is remarkable. That republican proposals regarding the monarchy are similarly postponed to some nebulous future time, merely confirms our politicians’ aversion to serious constitutional debate.
The politicians’ aversion to substantive constitutional reform is perfectly understandable when set against the New Zealand electorate’s strongly-held conviction that Parliament is – and should remain – supreme. Formalising our constitutional arrangements in writing would lead, inexorably, to the Judiciary adjudicating constitutional disputes. The idea of appointed judges having the final say over the actions of our democratically-elected House of Representatives has never gone down well in these parts.
Like it or not, however, the pressure to enshrine te Tiriti at the heart of our constitutional structures continues to grow. “What to do about ‘The Treaty’?”, is certain to be one of the key questions dominating the forthcoming election campaign. This is not because our political leaders have finally decided to bite the bullet on constitutional reform, it’s because Māori activists – both legal and political – have finally forced the issue onto New Zealand’s short-term political agenda.
Both of the major parties have been caught in a pincer-movement. From the left, Te Pāti Māori (TPM) has made it clear that constitutional reform must be part of any coalition and/or support agreement involving itself, Labour and the Greens. From the right, the Act Party is insisting that any conservative coalition government must commit itself to, first, defining te Tiriti’s meaning and scope, and then, confirming that definition by referendum.
The moment it becomes clear to non-Māori New Zealanders just how violently TPM’s reforms would re-arrange the country’s constitutional furniture their reaction is likely to sink any chance of a centre-left victory. By the same token, an affirmative referendum vote for a re-definition reducing te Tiriti to a mere constitutional flourish would be the signal for an unleashing of racial conflict on a scale unprecedented since the land wars of the 1860s.
Presumably, it was thoughts of this sort that prompted the Prime Minister, Chris Hipkins, to warn New Zealand’s minor parties against announcing bottom-lines that neither Labour nor National can accept without setting themselves up for a fatal electoral backlash. Hipkins’ (along with the Opposition Leader, Christopher Luxon’s) problem is that neither TPM nor Act can afford to be seen abandoning their principles for the baubles of office. Both parties’ electoral strength has been built upon their very public determination to stand firm even when all those around them are bowing to “mainstream” pressures.
The uncompromising positions adopted by those parties operating beyond the pale of political orthodoxy are a product of the orthodox politicians’ refusal to both sanction and participate in genuine constitutional debate. But if, by their refusal, those same orthodox politicians assumed that serious constitutional debate could be stifled indefinitely, they were wrong. If the non-Māori political establishment was unwilling to countenance constitutional reform, the Māori political establishment – in the guise of the Iwi Leaders Forum – were determined to set the wheels in motion.
It was in 2010, at a meeting of the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, that a proposal for “Matike Mai Aotearoa, the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation”, was first laid upon the table. By 2012, “Matike Mai”, led by Margaret Mutu and the late Moana Jackson, was ready to begin developing and implementing “a model for an inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa based on tikanga and kawa, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni of 1835, Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840, and other indigenous human rights instruments which enjoy a wide degree of international recognition.”
For more than four years, Māori up and down New Zealand gathered to impart their ideas about constitutional transformation to “Matike Mai”. For the most part, Non-Māori New Zealanders remained unaware that such a process was underway. Certainly, only a very small number of Non-Māori understood the radical character of the undertaking. In the words of the Working Group’s final report:
“The Terms of Reference did not ask the Working Group to consider such questions as ‘How might the Treaty fit within the current Westminster constitutional system’ but rather required it to seek advice on a different type of constitutionalism that is based upon He Whakaputanga and Te Tiriti. For that reason this Report uses the term ‘constitutional transformation’ rather than ‘constitutional change’.”
Mutu and Jackson clearly considered this approach to be optimal, but, from the perspective of those seeking constitutional reform proposals with significant buy-in from Māori and Non-Māori alike, “Matike Mai” was emphatically sub-optimal. Its recommendations, untested by the responses of Non-Māori, could hardly avoid becoming political Kryptonite. The moment the Non-Māori population became aware of what “Matike Mai” was proposing, things were going to get extremely messy.
The change of Government in 2017 hardly improved matters. Now vested with all the powers of the Executive, Labour’s Māori ministers opted to continue down the constitutional reform path unaccompanied by the Non-Maori Treaty partner. Commissioned by Nanaia Mahuta, the extraordinary He Puapua Report (kept under wraps until the 2020 general election was safely out of the way) rehearsed many of the radical constitutional ideas first mooted in “Matike Mai”. When, inevitably, the contents of He Puapua was leaked to the public, Jacinda Ardern and her Non-Māori colleagues could not back away from it fast enough.
And, as if “Matike Mai” and He Puapua weren’t enough, there was also a constitutional consultative process of extraordinary design moving inexorably towards its scheduled conclusion. This exercise was notable for its division into two separate stages.
The first stage was restricted to Māori. Only when their recommendations had been finalised would Non-Māori be asked to respond. Perhaps unsurprisingly, when Māori Development Minister Willie Jackson received the Māori-generated constitutional proposals he refused to put them before Cabinet. He then (wisely) decided to halt the entire exercise until after the election.
In the light of this extraordinary history, it is very difficult to avoid the conclusion that those charged with managing the discussion of New Zealand’s future constitutional arrangements have been guilty of appalling cowardice. Rather than insist that any and all discussion of the nation’s constitutional future takes place in the full view of its citizens, the representatives of both Treaty partners found it more expedient to do their talking separately and behind closed doors. Inevitably, this secretive process has given rise to profound misgivings, especially among the Non-Māori majority. The Labour Government’s shameful lack of transparency has allowed fear and doubt to grow about the motives and intentions of the Māori minority. This has contributed to an unnecessary and distressing deterioration in New Zealand’s race relations.
To prevent matters deteriorating further, Labour and National should both undertake to defer any significant constitutional change until there has been an opportunity for all New Zealanders – Māori and Non-Māori – to engage openly, and without fear of “cancellation”, in discussing and debating the full range of options for how their country might be governed. It is not in the least reasonable to assume that a durable constitution can be drafted in the absence of untrammelled popular participation.
Political Kryptonite can only be rendered harmless by exposing it to the remedial effects of direct democratic sunlight.
*Chris Trotter has been writing and commenting professionally about New Zealand politics for more than 30 years. He writes a weekly column for interest.co.nz. His work may also be found at http://bowalleyroad.blogspot.com.
114 Comments
"Now vested with all the powers of the Executive, Labour’s Māori ministers opted to continue down the constitutional reform path unaccompanied by the Non-Maori Treaty partner." - The Crown (represented by government i.e. Cabinet) is the Treaty Partner. Not to be confused with every non-Maori person in New Zealand.
Overall, while CT's view of the topic might be accurate, I found it to be quite shallow. CT does not explore the underlying questions as to why the questions re the treaty and it's increasing relevance continue to be asked. These questions also point to the reasons why any discussion of 'reform' are being delayed and deferred. The real under lying reason in my view is the quality of our democracy.
In NZ, as across the world, politicians are increasingly seeking to entrench their power and privilege. In this they seek to make themselves and government less accountable to the people. An effect of these moves is the on-going dis-enfranchisement of the low and middle classes, which naturally increases the relevance of the Treaty for Maori, and race based politics increases the risk for everyone in the country.
Should our government suddenly wake up and realise that in a democracy, the government's role is to serve the people, all of them, not just big money. And they are certainly not supposed to be the action arm of big banks. To realise this, the relevance of the Treaty would fall away as participation and economic wealth of everyone in the country would increase, providing the opportunities for Tino Rangatiratanga at the individual level.
Murray my view is not so benign - if politicians have been entrenching power and privilege many maori elite have seen this and now want to do the same thing for themselves
Only without this "messy thing" called democracy getting in the road - The kiingitanga movement is a good example with real power residing in the controlling elite around a non elected head. The rest of the world saw that monarchs and perpetual ruling families were a bad idea but apparently not here despite a large percentage of our ancestors coming here ( and likely also maori) to escape exactly such despotic regimes
I think your reasoning is essentially right. But today the monarchy serves a different purpose. For all intents and purposes, our actual head of state, the person who speaks for NZ, is the Prime Minister - but the PM must seek the approval of the Monarch to form a Government. that in itself gives the people of NZ a safety clause, in that they too in extreme circumstances, go to the Monarch and ask that the Government be sacked. In our case the "Monarch" is the Monarch's representative in NZ the Governor General.
I suggest it is entirely normal for a population when one group is abusing privilege and power that other groups form to try to counter the first. that is why it is important in a democracy that the government put the people first!
The main reason that politicians continually want to avoid the issue of constitutional questions is that they are afraid of what the populace might actually think on the issue and how that will impact their own position when it becomes clear that the ideas they support in private are not at all popular with the broader populace.
You can see this most clearly on the questions of becoming a republic or on co-governance.
While I think a republic is to some extent inevitable what makes many pols uncomfortable (and is something that can never be explicitly stated) is that while many NZers would be willing to get rid of the monarchy they are very much unwilling to get rid of the idea that NZ is a fundamentally Western nation (in the cultural sense of the term). The legacy of our time as a colony and ties to the West are not something to be overcome and forgotten but something to be treasured and celebrated for many people. The principles of enlightenment rationalism and liberal democracy are still by far the best ideas of governance and structuring of society we have and abandoning them is madness (in particular the abandonment of colour-blindness before the law in regards to NZ citizens origins which co-governance is trying to do away with). NZ is, at its core, a Western civilisation. And that is something to be proud of. Most New Zealanders aren't Nationalists but they are Patriots and politicians who think that they can just bulldoze over this are in for a rude awakening and powerful backlash when the laidback and tolerant NZ character is finally moved into action.
Personally I think that pursuing policies of re-racialising politics in regards to things like co-governance and dejure ethnic preferences while simultaneously pursuing mass immigration is madness. I cannot think of a set of policies more likely to lead to conflict than these two.
NZ is a delightfully diverse country but the only way that can work is based on enlightenment principles around all citizens being equal in the eyes of the law regardless of ethnic background or race or religion, equal application of the law, one person/one vote, freedom of speech, and the idea that the people lead the country and the politicians work for us, not the other way around.
If you see my response to Grattaway above, I'd add to it from that perspective, and in line with a constitutional expert who has been contributing articles to the NZ Herald, for all intents and purposes NZ functions as a republic in most things anyway. That aside i think you encapsulate the current situation quite well.
I am very confused and would appreciate some explanation please.
So, the whole argument that Maori should form a parallel government is because Maori people would benefit more under the governance of Maori people than under the governance of people of other ethnicity.
Exposure to sunlight is absolutely not what they want to do with this. They know that way it will get rejected, so instead hope to achieve it by stealth: by capturing media shutting down any debate; signing 'partnership agreements' with local councils such as Rotorua giving Maori preferential access to certain jobs; diversion of government funding based on race rather than class or need...
All that does is harden attitudes on the right, ensuring in the long term the transformation some seek never eventuates. Trying to push yourself up, by pushing some one else down, is a dead end.
Always worth a read Chris, but to me most of the chatter about our possible future constitutional arrangements, maybe allowing for a Maori resurgence, has been confined to small groups, tribal and those sections of academia with too much time in their hands. Not to be ignored, but perhaps viewed in a larger context.
It all seems to me to be a few children building sand castles on the beach, totally oblivious to the advancing tide.
While chatter continues in "Outer-roa", our most significant wealth creating industries, ie rural-based, are being swallowed up by the emerging (largely Asian) economies,..in good part those who also consume most of our product.
We give a wry smile when we think how, back in the day, the Brits bought up large resources with a few blankets and muskets, but today we are selling same for some paper tokens, probably used USTreasury Bill's that China has been gathering through its trade surpluses.
Thoughts about our constitutional arrangements may be obsolete!
The whole undemocratic way this has been slyly shoved into our faces is a reflection of this devious government led by Ardern.,( Who dropped the grenade and now has left the building... Like a political terrorist!)
Was she a "" fall guy" for Parker," or Jackson or Titewhai Harawira. ?
One thing that has to happen Is for this devisive legislation to be put to a vote for all kiwis to decide.
Not rammed through unmandated like some Nazi enforcement program...
What would be next.!
"...an affirmative referendum vote for a re-definition reducing te Tiriti to a mere constitutional flourish would be the signal for an unleashing of racial conflict on a scale unprecedented since the land wars of the 1860s."
Well, remember who started it a few decades ago by their historical revisionism creating non existent ToW "Principles & Partnership" leading to today's co government demands.
CT has been having a bob each way on his cherished Lefts secretive abrogation of democracy for far too long.
Those hypocrites can't spot the difference between protesting against apartheid in South Africa vs protesting for apartheid in NZ
A democracey we are not. MMP is an absolute crock of s... Only one other country uses MMP Germany since they never want another guy running around with a little mustache. MMP means vote for the party as we know best who will be on the list who has no responsibility to the voters. Hence why every party asks for the party vote. Democracy is a majority not a 5 percent party controlling who gets into power. We got told by the late Green MP Rod Donald MMP would bring in a better quality of MP and one less. Well since he's not here to see he was totally wrong about that. A criteria for any politician is to actually have spent time in the real world. Not got a degree in politics or media and then straight into working for a politician then into politics. That way they really learn how NZ has gone backwards in youth crime, standard of living, health care and a long list to long to mention here, in a 40 yr period. Back in the day it was vote for me because I represent these values and if they didn't perform they got booted out not into some foreign nice paid cushy embassy job
I increasingly think Maori are going to become irrelevant and their demands less prominent. Just court the growing Asian population, who have no interest in these Maori demands, and outvote them.
I do wonder whether these current attempts at overt Maori nationalism are a death cry of a political bribery system which has existed for over 100 years. The increasing inability of the government to perform even its basic functions in a modern managerial state signals this sort of parasitism isn't going to be popular:
- Law Enforcement
- Health
- Education etc.
You mean like how Māori politicians have pushed through the co governance policies behind the cover of darkness? I recall a Māori chap chastising a family member who raised this issue many moons ago as a conspiracy theorist. Seems the Māori way I guess. I am starting to really despise anything Māori now.
What is a white identitarian? Then why are you living in Aotearoa if you are so pro-white, our culture is Maori/European/Pacifika blend. I know many pakeha (obviously) and not a single one of them aligns with these comments, or thinks this way. Which means the only logical conclusion can be that Interest readers commenting on Maori related editorial are sad, bitter working class white bigots. The irony is when you're not spewing your bile on this topic, your moaning about how badly pakeha have run the country.
I can assure you, any form of co-governance will be a superior experience for most Kiwi's than what pakeha have served up recently.
Because I was born here and have resided here for my whole life, as did my ancestors who founded the country. It belongs to me as much as it belongs to you, and I want to maintain the White identity within it. As for what is an Identitarian, It is essentially a term for Pro White. I.e. legally enforced recognition of the various peoples in New Zealand and the right to be recognised for those inherent difference. It isn't a blend, the society is a mix of cultures who have been imported and had a liberal, secularised European culture imposed on them. But it is imposed at the expense and cultural neglect of the White/Neo-European culture which came with the Settlers and founded the country.
As for the group consensus fallacy, It doesn't matter what you think Whites think, they aren't going to tell you their resentments in an age of losing your career over what you say. Also, it doesn't matter what the majority of people think, their opinions are set by the repetition of whatever is in the Media. Your comments always stink of butthurt and rage at the people who disagree with you, who are never ever even allowed a voice at all in any establishment media.
Co-Governance doesn't mean what Maori thinks it means either, it is a grift which benefits very few people and it lacks any clear structure which gives accountability to Maori. If you are from a disliked Hapu, excluded by your iwi for whatever blood feud, how do you redress your grievances within the Iwi? What structures for recourse and justice exist within iwi to give them the legitimacy to represent an ethnic group? None of this is clear.
The corporate iwi structure has done a very good job of building business in some cases, like nga tahu, but has the treaty settlement, redress and grievance complex actually improved the condition of Maori? Their overall condition seems to have grown far worse under the neoliberal with importing cheap workers suppressing wages and driving up rents to harm Maori disproportionately (since maori rent far more often as a percentage of the population)
Also you name yourself after the last of the Maori War Chiefs who resisted the colonial government. But what actually won the most gains for Maori after the total societal collapse between 1820 and 1880 was the assimilated reformists who used the appropriate processes to demand state support and recognition starting with the Young Maori Party out of Te Aute College. While Te Kooti effectively caused immense suffering and resulted in the final land confiscations.
My point was primarily that these battles might be flared up in the media, but they increasingly don't matter and won't matter as the demographics shift.
"....sad, bitter working class white bigots."
Hey, that is rough TK. I'm not sad nor bitter. I have a wonderful family, health and sense of purpose. I think I am becoming self-actualised. And I'm not working class, of which there is nothing wrong with this status as both my immigrant parents sat in this demographic. But I am a white bigot with reference to Maori. Crime, welfare dependency, disproportionate use of the healthcare system etc. You'll continually defend your whanau and blame systemic racism and colonization, the catch-call and escape clause when you can never accept responsibility for your actions. Here is the irony, I socialise with Asians, Indians and a Samoan. But I am a white POS according to one of your earlier posts.
Have a nice day. Run more, it's good for your mental health.
I never said there was anything wrong with being working class, but show me a well-educated successful person with these views. Show me our business and civic leaders, our sports people, our entertainers, who agree with your views. You won't because there aren't any. Racism is more commonly found in the poorly educated and working class.
Cope. If you want to 'flex' credentials, I have a postgraduate education (in Engineering) and earn 6 figures in tech with a young family, also not quite 30 yet.
Elites, when I use this in context here, refers to people who either have high status/prestige because of their work (professors, judges, solicitors/barristers) or high income. Let's say the top 10-20% of our society in terms of either social standing (because of educational achievement, work prestige, social prestige) or income. Very simple, classic 'elite' theory as sociologists might define it. If you want an easy divider, ask who was sneering down their nose at the peasant's revolt at Parliament last year and who wasn't.
The social disdain for people who have done worse or are worse off is disgusting. There is a reason such a huge proportion of the poor and working classes have immense resentment towards higher status and higher wealth peoples.
How many Maori over the years have gone from higher education into the commercial world to build the experience and knowledge to qualify themselves for those roles? Not many I would say, but that is changing fast. The real world reality is that most people don't care about the colour of your skin, they want to know whether or not you can do the job and are not lazy, and what your attitude is. It is my experience that most Kiwis are not racist, but they have a low tolerance of poor attitudes. By poor attitudes i mean people who think they are special or more entitled because of the colour of their skin, or the size of their wallet, or what ever. VM talks about 'elites' and i believe that it is these groups he is referring to.
I know quite a few cops and have asked directly who gives them the most attitude when they are on the beat. Even Maori cops don't hesitate to identify Maori as the most likely to have an attitude that is not conducive to de-escalating situations. Alcohol and drugs are always complicating factors. I know of one cop who was trying to help an individual who had collapsed on the ground, stone, cold drunk and vomiting and she was placing him into the recovery position and monitoring their respiration when she was attacked by one of their Maori friends. That the cop was Maori and female didn't seem to matter.
If one were to talk and listen with average NZ Maori, you would find that many do not trust the Maori elite, just as us Pakeha do not trust the Pakeha elite, and for very much the same reasons. They ALL have their respective snouts in the public trough, and are getting very very fat. Almost ready for the hungi.
Unfortunately you are correct, not all Māori agree with this crap being pushed through, but as a result they will be all condemned for it. However, with the decolonisation argument, you are also doing the same thing by blaming white people for all Māori ills so you are no better. And as a rule now, anything Māori I instantly switch off, why, because I am sick to death of the blame culture and self serving attitude of Māori. Maybe it’s time to say thank you for bringing western civilisation to nz.
Yip you got it ...
The masses are over it.
It's been 50+: years of my life watching them beat their kids, eat wrongly, blame everybody for their stuff, getting billions for a few head honchos, ...
The truth hurts. Deal with it! Don't just keep putting your hand out or calling everybody hater's for challengeing your ," past 50 years" of crap.
And don't go back and bring up the fucking treaty anymore! Move forward!
This is one country and should be one people!... It never will be until the Maori gravy train is finished with
50 + years and it's no better maybe worse and that's a good outcome?
Nope!
Mate, i have citizenship in Spain, GB. and Aussie . And homes in Costa brava and soon Brisbane.
It's only you that will be left with the crap mate.
Im a citizen of the world, maximum stay time, at a time..
You might want to broaden your horizons bro and learn Spanish,!
Not are you a racist bigot Te Kooti, but a dreamer as well. If you think Maori are going to control NZ you are deluded! As for Te reo, what a total waste of time for the vast majority of the population. Having the Maori language forced down our throats by our pathetic media and politicians is just pissing off the bulk of the population! If anyone wants to learn Te reo then do it in your own time at your own expense. A totally non relevant language other than to Maori.
I think they might want to try that but are scared of stirring the bear and the repercussions that would come about. I know alot of Kiwis with a bit of Maori in them yet don't get any benefit from the treaty don't know which tribe they come from or care just want to get on with life and put food on the table. Actually met a couple in Alexandra a few yrs back said it was the best thing shifting away from the north island family as they all got chips on their shoulders. And when in Aus met a couple who had been born in Aus never been to NZ didn't want nothing to do with NZ. And will be interesting to know on a percentage basis with all these young ones heading over to Aus how many are of Maori descent. And when over there realise compared to the Aborigines how well off they have got it back here
The Voice referendum is more than recognising them in the constitution, by the very wording itself it is self-determination;
- There shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice;
- The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;
- The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.
Absolute crap. Have worked and lived in the outback of Aus and they are treated like shit. Remeber Keith Murdoch killed an aboriginal kid. What happened to him nothing and that is what happens. Now look at the Maori kid who kept breaking into the farmers house in Piopio the farmer even tried to give him a job etc kid kept coming back bet the shit out of him until the farmer got the better of him cut the kids finger off with the kids own knife he was going to use on the farmer yet he had the book thrown at him. Maori are way better off than the Aboriginal even the UN states that
What on earth has Keith Murdoch got to do with this, are you 90 or something? There is this thing called the internet, you will find that Australia spends more per head on Aborginal affairs than NZ does Maori, Large tracts have land have been handed back, there are education grants and employment opportunities far superior than Maori. A lot of Australia Europeans can no longer visit without permission. I could go on.
Been thinking for a while now (early 2010s) NZ is going downhill re racial tensions and laws, I've been sitting quietly since going to university.... However, in the last 2 years, more and more of my friends (same people as before) are now openly bringing up this topic. My opinion is that a sea change is about to happen, once discussion is allowed, as it is starting, it will snowball.
At least I hope like heck.....don't want separate drinking fountains and separate tax rates etc. Wasn't born in NZ and have no problem leaving again, but I really love it here unfortunately. Really wish NZ would help people because they need help not because of racial skin colour, builds a really bad type of resentment in my opinion, especially around the bottom quarter of society...
Can anyone with a better understanding of this issue than me weigh in with some insight
The first article of the the treaty reads as follows (I'll post it in full, to save anyone having to go look it up)
- The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation of Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof
From what I understand, these working groups have proposed recreating the constitution, and creating a bicameral or even a tricameral legislature. That would mean taking back rights and powers that were in 1840 ceeded to the crown, given that these rights and powers are currently the purview of government.
How do these proponents of change reconcile this with an ongoing commitment to upholding the treaty? Are they suggesting that we set it aside? That we sign a new treaty?
Emphasis mine.
In the English version, Māori cede the sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain; Māori give the Crown an exclusive right to buy lands they wish to sell and, in return, are guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions; and Māori are given the rights and privileges of British subjects. The Treaty in Māori was deemed to convey the meaning of the English version, but there are important differences. Most significantly, in the Māori version the word ‘sovereignty’ was translated as ‘kawanatanga’ (governance). Some Māori believed that the governor would have authority over the settlers alone; others thought that were giving up the government over their lands but retaining the right to manage their own affairs. The English version guaranteed ‘undisturbed possession’ of all properties, but the Māori version guaranteed ‘tino rangatiratanga’ (full authority) over ‘taonga’ (treasures, which can be intangible). The precise nature of the exchange within the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of debate.
That's the whole debate right there. If they didn't cede sovereignty, then they didn't cede sovereignty. But for me the biggest issue is who are Māori? That is, if chiefs were granted under constitutional reform the governance of their tribes, who are they governing? People who whakapapa to that tribe? (What if they whakapapa to several, as is most common these days?) Or is it a Māori parliament which has some form of rule over tribe members? In that case, can one switch tribes, or leave a tribe and decide they want to be governed by the Crown? Or is it not tribe membership but anyone who has Māori descent? Can they opt out? Who decides?
The whole thing is a muddle. We are now so mingled (for example, my wife has 2 tribes in her lineage but doesn't identify as Māori) that I think the only way to solve the question is to resolve grievances without the Crown ceding governance. After all, who can forget article 3 of the treaty, which grants all Māori the rights and privileges of British subjects? To me, this shows that article 1 should be interpreted as per the English version - it is there to demonstrate that by ceding rangatiratanga the chiefs wouldn't be setting themselves up to lose - they'd be treated equally.
Of course they weren't treated equally, which is why those wrongs should be righted. Hovever, once they are the Crown should be sole governor of NZ.
Plain English.
We the Maori( and all tribes including ones not here like the murderous Te Rapauraha Kapiti island mob) give the rule of our country to the crown because we need the crown to protect us from each other ( in reference to tribal war destruction or in plain talk. ," Killing each other").
Thats it!
Some recent clarification on the 2 versions:
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/04/bruce-moon-abuse-of-human-…
Neither does laughing at yourself,
TK, enjoying the debate but at some stage you have to face reality and the truth.
Count the up ticks you get v me and your opponents?
And then say to yourself " I'm in the wrong Hui"
Then go to www.Maorieconomicgravytrain.co.nz
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.