I wonder why you write articles like this. Is it just to be provocative, to stir up the passions of both Maori and non-Maori? To re-affirm your left leaning credentials? Why?
To address the points you raise:
“Shared Sovereignty” is an ahistorical fantasy that does not exist in any version of the Treaty. Those who advocate for it are delusional. In any event, Te Pati Maori does not want ‘shared Sovereignty’ they want Maori Sovereignty. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of Parliament whose tax payers fund their MP’s salaries and seek to establish a privileges committee of their own. They refuse to submit to Parliamentary authority relying upon the institution only for their salaries. They are the tip of your spear.
To raise the spectre of ‘armed conquest’ in our current context is grossly irresponsible.
It is not incumbent upon Non-Maori to revisit ‘constitutional matters’. Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 with very few tribal exceptions. Maori were given property rights, albeit they have been abused by the crown, Maori were given British citizenship, that is to say equality before the rule of law.
The Waitangi Tribunal as originally established sought to address historical claims. It has morphed into something ‘other’ presently with more than 200 claims that fall outside of its original mandate. No wonder Richard Prebble called ‘time’ on the farce.
Where does all the talk of ‘mutinous Maori soldiers supported by gang members storming parliament come from? This is irresponsible rhetoric.
We have a ‘citizens assembly’ it is called Parliament. We don’t need another one!
To answer your question as to ‘who enjoys the monopoly over the use of organised violence’? it is the State as expressed through the democratically elected Parliament. No one else, thank God. This is one gift that Western Civilisation has given to us including all Maori, and the majority of Maori Chiefs in 1840 understood this perfectly. They had experienced 30 years of musket wars that decimated the Maori population, and they wanted the British rule of law that stood outside and above their tribal hatreds.
According to an official information response from the Ministry of Social Development, 5,997 were dependent on welfare by the end of the year. That's 35.2 percent. Most would have been born onto a benefit.
Of the 17,397 born in 2023, 7,737 were on a benefit by age two. That's 44.5 percent. The equivalent percentages for non-Maori babies are respectively 11.4 and 14.8 percent
These extraordinarily high Maori numbers aren't due to unemployment - just one in ten of the Maori babies born last year became dependent on a Job Seeker benefit. Eighty percent have sole parents. The future expected time on a benefit for sole parents is 17 years.
Growing up in homes where nobody works is bad for children. They are more exposed to transience, abuse and neglect, violence, poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes and substance abuse. This is an entrenched pattern of behaviour for too many Maori. It lies at the heart of all of the downstream negative statistics which we are then told to believe are caused by colonisation and racism.
Come on. Non-Maori might feel aggrieved by this finger-pointing but they are not the ones who are hurt and damaged by it. Maori children are.”
The State, iwi, and extended family are no substitute for functional birth families. This stubborn fact is yet to be embraced by Maori leadership. Where is Te Pati Maori on this issue? Nothing will change for Maori until this issue is addressed.
The historical record and current statistical data do not sustain your thesis, Brendan.
The key fracture point in New Zealand history was not the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the granting of limited self-government to the British settlers. Once that was achieved, the initiative, historically, passed to Pakeha - and they used it ruthlessly to dispossess the Maori.
The impoverishment and marginalisation of New Zealand's indigenous people continues to be reflected in the nation's social and economic statistics. The many afflictions attributable to poverty and powerlessness are borne disproportionately by Maori.
All the victim-blaming in the world won't change that fact.
First of all you do not address any of my critisisms of your post, those that I have called out as being irresponsible.
You go on to say:
“The historical record and current statistical data do not sustain your thesis, Brendan. The key fracture point in New Zealand history was not the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the granting of limited self-government to the British settlers. Once that was achieved, the initiative, historically, passed to Pakeha - and they used it ruthlessly to dispossess the Maori.”
Those are extravagant claims. The Treaty was sought and endorsed by the vast majority of Maori Chiefs and it defined the relationship between Maori and the Crown. Settlers were under the same rule of law as Maori. That was implicit in the Treaty and the third article in particular. They had no ‘limited self government’ as you suggest, they were under the same rule of law as all British citizens, those British by birth, those Maori and others who were British by Treaty fiat.
You go on to say: “The impoverishment and marginalisation of New Zealand's indigenous people continues to be reflected in the nation's social and economic statistics. The many afflictions attributable to poverty and powerlessness are borne disproportionately by Maori. All the victim-blaming in the world won't change that fact.”
Again, you cannot have history both ways. We are told that Maori were successful traders sailing ships between New Zealand and Sydney in the 19th century. This is an historical fact. They demonstrated they were able to embrace new technology and new ideas and to generate commercial profits. Where are those Maori today? What has happened to their entrepreneurship, their resilience, their mana? They have been suffocated under the tyranny of low expectations, under the burden of victimhood, white guilt and intergenerational welfare. They are being destroyed by Pakeha ‘kindness’ and the betrayal of their elders.
Yes, they might want revenge and on one level who can blame them, but blood and violence is not going to lift them out of poverty and despair.
In reality there are successful Maori everywhere. They are overrepresented statistically in our parliament, in our decission making Cabinet. There are Maori Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Accountants, Entrepreneurs and business men and women who are not embracing a foe victimhood but prospering in this country in which they were the (perhaps) first settlers, immigrants themselves from another geographical location. Not unlike my Irish ancestors who arrived here as poor immigrants in the late 19th century.
Let’s get real here. New Zealand offers everyone, Maori, refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, Siri Lanka and the Middle East and yes even South Africa an opportunity to prosper. Maori need to start looking forward and not looking back. Hopefully for all our sakes they can make the transition.
Your rejoinder, Brendan, merely confirms your lack of historical understanding.
I do not propose to engage with you any further on these issues until you give me evidence of having made some attempt to broaden your understanding of New Zealand history.
You and I are in agreement when it comes to the question of whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty to the British crown - of course they did. After that, however, it's all downhill.
What am I to make of this? I have called out those sections of your inital post that are ahistorical in respect to the Treaty and so far you have not refuted my rebuttal. I have named one of them, the idea of co-governance.
Futhermore, I have called out two of your statements that I have deemed irresponsible because of their apparent justification for racial violence and you have not sought to justify either of them.
Perhaps you could could be kind enough to call out those sections of my reply's that you deem to be lacking in 'historical understanding'? It's all very well to make unspecified claims imputing historical ignorance on my part and to take the moral high ground until I educate myself on New Zealand history, but you fail to point out even just one of my inaccuracies.
Perhaps you could help me and your readers by stating what you have read in my replies that are ahistorical and are therefore worthy of correction?
But this is your substack and you don't need to respond or to substantiate any of your assertions.
You have neither the right to demand, nor have you presented anything remotely worthy of, refutation or rebuttal, Brendan.
That my post contradicts your own view of NZ history is very clear, but repeatedly drawing my attention to that fact imposes no responsibility on me, as its author, to justify or modify my own.
I am confident that my interpretation of our history conforms in nearly all important respects to that of this nation's leading historians - a company, Brendan, in which your name is yet to appear.
I suspect it's slightly more nuanced than that. Maori sea trade to Sydney began in the early 1800's shortly followed by the begining of thirty years of inter tribal musket wars that decimated between 20% and 30% of the Maori population. It's difficult to farm effectively let alone ship your produce profitably to Sydney when your tribe is at war for the best part of thirty years. I'm not suggesting your critique has no basis in fact. I have said previously the treaty was not honoured by the Crown in may respects, land being one of them, and I support the work of the Waitangi Tribunal in settling historical claims. More recent claims are another matter entirely. However the sale and confiscation of Maori land is just one of numerous factors at work in that period of New Zealand's history that lead to their economic decline.
We do not fix the mistakes of the past - treating others differently in political, legal and economic spheres according to the consequences of their birth - by repeating them in the future Chris.
We can only address and attempt to remedy these historic injustices through a mechanism such as the Waitangi tribunal, and an egalitarian society that lifts those up at the bottom of the heap, while moving forward as equals.
The left must come back to liberalism on this. If they do not, and continue to push for Maori sovereignty, you invite a fascist reaction from the right in response. History tells us that in situations like this, especially when the group seeking to cement permanent political privilege is in the minority, that it doesn't end well for them, and can easily turn bloody.
You say "it is not incumbent upon Non-Maori to revisit ‘constitutional matters’. Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 with very few tribal exceptions. Maori were given property rights, albeit they have been abused by the crown, Maori were given British citizenship, that is to say equality before the rule of law." I believe my great great grandfather was a treaty signatory, so while I have Maori ancestry it's somewhat diluted, but probably no more so that many Te Parti Maori or Toitu Te Tiriti adherents. I'm proud of my ancestry but I do not identify as Maori, because when I was a great deal younger, and having been raised as completely pakeha. I thought it was unethical. I'm 77 now and I still think it would be unethical. I'd like to see the constitutional matters revisited, so by your definition am I non-Maori or Maori?
The question of who can legitimately claim to be Māori is somewhat controversial as I’m sure you know.
Prior to 1974, the legal definition required an individual to be at least half Māori by blood to be officially recognised as Māori. This criteria was embedded in various statutes, including the Māori Affairs Act 1953, which described Māori as “half-castes and people who were intermediate in blood between half-castes and of pure descent”.
Today these restrictions have been removed, and some of my grandchildren qualify as Māori while being several generations removed from pure blooded Māori. Furthermore, if someone ‘identifies’ as Māori regardless of the genealogy who in the modern progressive bureaucracy is going to deny them that right?
None of this would matter except that being Māori carries with it certain privileges, specifically in the sphere of education, and under the previous government, in the sphere of health care. It will likely carry further privileges if you can identify your Iwi and qualify for any benefits that accrue from Treaty settlements. Then of course you can also become part of the Māori electoral role.
Chris has sidestepped the issue by stating you are a New Zealander. Well, yes that is your national identity, but it avoids the question of ethnicity that you appear to be asking.
I’m not sure what constitutional matters you would like to see revisited. Do you think we should go back to the 1974 standard, but perhaps broaden the requirements given further dilution over time? Is having a legal definition important?
80,000 Māori came to Parliament in a hikoi? How did that number double from what was estimated on the day? Does a Pākehā in a hikoi become a Māori for a day? And no property got destroyed that day, so it definitively shows they’ll be completely trustworthy to be given what they want. Give me a break, Chris - every group of people in the world has the same mixture of the greedy and corrupt amongst them as anyone else. This is demonstrated by what we’re seeing amongst some iwi with their dubious revenue gathering practices from anyone who even glances sideways at land the iwi claim their ancestors once did something on. Revenue which in many cases doesn’t seem to make it past the pockets of the iwi leaders. There will be little benefit at all to regular Māori from anything that looks like co-governance or special concessions.
The animus you display here, Katrina, towards your fellow New Zealanders, bodes ill for our country's future.
Repeating the anti-iwi tropes of Maori deprecating individuals and groups does not make them true.
The treatment of iwi by successive settler governments was shameful and certainly beyond the present resources of the New Zealand state to adequately compensate.
You should be praising the patience and forbearance of Maori, not attempting to replicate the divide-and-conquer strategies of our colonial forbears.
And what does that history have to do with us here today? I’m not saying it cannot have bearing, but it is not automatically relevant.
If that story is to guide our future, we need to buy into it. Most of us - the ‘tyrannical majority’ - I believe, don’t. However the opportunity to do the mahi, to get out there and persuade us, is wide open. It has been for the 50 years of the Maori renaissance.
A great test in the near future will be the local body seats referendum.
What does the ideal society look like Chris? Is it one where all citizens have equal rights before the courts, at the polling booth, and in the workforce? If so, then liberal egalitarian democracy, with universal and equal suffrage is the only answer.
This 1840 navel gazing prevents us from moving forward. In 1840 we didn't let women vote, nor did we let people who didn't own land vote. We had to invent the Maori seats so that Maori who owned land in common, could vote giving affect to the treaty, without outraging the uptight Pakeha who by virtue of owning land considered themselves to have voting rights.
Ultimately we must move forward, united in recognizing our common humanity, and the fundamental equality of all human beings. If the treaty says something different, then we need to move past it, just like we move past all relics of the past that are no longer valuable. I do not think we are remotely mature enough to have this conversation as a country presently, and the response to the Treaty principles bill proves it.
Personally, I see the biggest and clearest risk to this country's economic prosperity, and moral authority in the realization of the Maori sovereignty movement. It would make property rights unclear, degrade our democratic institutions, and accelerate the flight across the ditch to Australia. Several nobel prize winners have demonstrated that strong institutions and strong property rights are key ingredients for economic success, and a stable society.
We would no longer be a morally righteous nation, and would share similarities with Xi Jinping's China, Jim Crow America, Apartheid South Africa, The NZ state in the 20th century, The British, French, Spanish, Portugese and Dutch Empires, and most other imperfect unenlightened regimes throughout history - that the consequences of one's birth matters more than the content of one's character.
There is a minority group, mainly not Maori, who vocally want a different structure in New Zealand. Mainly university graduates from over the last 50 years. They have been in positions of authority with delegated power - in the courts, civil service and so on. They have taken ultra vires courses of action - because they could. This has pissed off a lot of people.
Geoff Palmer’s treaty principles is the best example: a slippery attempt to avoid the democratic process. A short cut to accelerate the achievement of an outcome that he and others thought worthy. And I think this was a mistake. Because … we get what we have now.
So that is where we are, but how do we go forward?
The Te Pati Maori constitutional proposals look pretty unlikely to happen. The majority will continue to tyrannise (ignore and/or reject) them.
I think the core problem is that there are no viable options on the table for activists to sell, and for the rest of us to get our teeth into. To challenge, develop, compromise and in the end resolve. Inequality is not going to cut it, but are there things that might? Where do our interests converge? Where is the negotiating margin? (“Our way or violence” is not persuasive.) In this vacuum all we have is bitter and twisted argumentation.
That is why we need to elect a Constituent Assembly. A body with the legal obligation to present a constitutional document which the people as a whole can either vote up, or down.
Palmer was indeed a slippery piece of work. Typical academic with his head so far up his own intellectual arse that we could not see where he was going, nor the mess he would create. The irony is that so-called 'Maori' are worse off than ever. Hot tip: Feeding their victimhood ain't gonna help fix 'em.
As for 'viable options', I would aver that we already have (or had) a very good structure for a functional society. Beware the perils of a written constitution, what we have should work pretty well. But it needs strong leadership and politicians who actually respond to the wishes of the MAJORITY. Sorry if that is a dirty word for Mr Trotter and the likes of Willy The Racist, but the people must be heard. They have been in the US, maybe one day they will be here also. I contend most assuredly that the majority of Kiwis don't want a bar of all this racist crap, they just want Parliament to work, to live freely with rights guaranteed under years of Common Law evolution, be appointed on merit and be treated the same. Huh, that sounds similar to what Seymour was proposing I s'pose. Funny that.
I think Chris’s idea of a constituent assembly would be able to have legs though. The answer it comes up with might be able to be a written constitution in the Australian or American sense. My guess is not though. The result would be an accommodation suitable for all of us. A written constitution wouldn’t be very New Zealand anyway.
What if we reframed the Treaty as a document that today means we all get to rub along together as we currently do, all of us, but with greater symbolic recognition for our indigenous dimension.
I’ve got no idea what possible solutions people might come up with but I would really like to see a bunch of them. I think the core tenets of liberal democracy have no chance of being displaced. But I’d like to see the conversation going. At the moment it is constipated.
There is the possibility of finding a consensus such that further hot-heading does not have any popular oxygen. And we conclude a big beautiful deal (hmmm where have I heard that) that has wide buy in.
I think, bottom line, most people are sensible and able to be cooperative if treated with dignity, even if it means accepting something that at the start of the process they would have rejected out of hand.
I like your optimism, genuinely. But as I have stated and believe, most people do not want to get bogged down in the 'indigenous' vs 'others' debate. It is pointless and enrichens only the 'elite' Maori who thrive due to the misfortune of others. 'Maori' as a primary identifier is also well past its 'Use By' date. Are we not all just New Zealanders with varying ancestry? Or do we tend to conflate colour with 'Maoriness'. I suspect if Seymour were darker, Willy would not mock his Maoriness so much. One's tribe should not define one's character. We worked hard to move on from the class system of yesteryear.
Our country as a whole, and each group within it, would do better if we remove the victimhood angle and we cared for those at the lower end of things due to need and little else. Resources are finite and we certainly waste a fuck-ton of them on race stuff when they could be put to far better use. Sadly there is no 'beautiful deal' out there, as radical Maori want power and wealth. They should instead want for a satisfying and enjoyable life. More the fool them for their machiavellian drive toward false gods. And more the fool us for tolerating & empowering their avarice.
Thanks Boris. I can be a bit naive and optimistic.
I don’t think ancestry counts as being a New Zealander, personally. That’s why I don’t think separatism along ethnic lines is at all a likely outcome. But people can take pride in things, and associate with things with a felt pride and identity without it giving them extra power at the ballot box.
Symbols are not nothings, and there is no skin off any of our noses to acknowledge a uniqueness of things Maori.
There is dignity here that need not subtract from any of us. This is what I mean about looking for a negotiating margin. Where do our wishes have overlap?
Parallel parliament? Three Waters? Forgeddaboutit. But what are the possibilities?
I think the process is actually the key issue here, which is why I’m drawn to the constituent assembly. Or an extended structure where more people can be involved to blow off steam.
"But people can take pride in things, and associate with things with a felt pride and identity without it giving them extra power at the ballot box."
Well said indeed John. To each their own and no person should have extra rights or privileges due to them being fractional descendants of Early Settler Maori. Nobody is stopping Maori celebrating their culture as they choose and wish to fund.
The Treaty was quite clear on this and yet Seymour was attacked for daring to further formalise it. The wonderful thing is that we don't really need a 'negotiated solution'. The negotiations took place in 1840. We would all live as one people, with one set of laws and rights. And the Crown (and elected Parliament) would govern us with a social contract of empowerment. The solution is in place, it simply needs people to accept the gift and get on with life.
No question, that would bring the conversation out into the open, on the stage. It would be tidy as well. Comprehensive and thorough.
I’m thinking we might not want it quite as quick or tidy as that though. Remember the MMP process. I thought that was a good one because it allowed a good deal of public engagement. These issues are hot and could do with the opportunity for community discharge to get to the point where buy-in is possible.
An effective process is one where there is a degree of public exhaustion towards the end. The thing goes round and round until everyone is super sick of it and the perspectives of all parts of the community are well and truly out there. Everyone knows where everyone stands, and all the arguments have been aired ad nauseam. When it comes to the vote it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, but after the vote no one is going to be saying “Hey but…”. Or if they do the people around them will turn away.
A Constituent Assembly is more technocratic - well reasoned, differently thorough - but I don’t know if it would put the issue to bed. (Yes of course it should, but if the body politic still has energy, it likely won’t.)
btw I’m an engineer, so I gravitate towards sensible, clear, “put the problem on the table in front of us and sit on the same side and look at it” technocratic solutions. It’s just not that that is obvious to me in our situation now.
The virtue of a constituent assembly is that its delegates must be elected - a requirement inevitably inviting the participation of political parties and obliging them to stake out clear positions on the full range of constitutional issues. This should assist greatly in clarifying the available options.
The formulation of the constitution could then proceed with all participants fully aware that trade-offs and compromises would, of necessity, constitute crucial aspects of the drafting process.
Intransigence would not be a viable strategy unless the big players made it impossible for minority groups to contribute meaningfully to the final result.
Such high-handedness would, of course, be a serious political error, which could not be hidden from the voters, and would likely incur their wrath.
The optimal path for all involved would be to work together co-operatively to produce a constitution broadly acceptable to a clear majority of the people.
That is my kind of proposal. It is what I would write. It is sensible and logical. It is so frickin’ obvious.
I have a reservation, and that is about how emotions can be satisfactorily earthed in the community. Earthed enough anyway. Discharged. Your process makes sense to me. Other people want to rage and vent, to pound the table and yell, and I think it would be worthwhile if they could somehow. I don’t know how, but I think it would be desirable.
Maybe the constituent assembly sessions could be followed up with televised community sessions. Not that these will contribute to the assembly, except in some cleaned-up way. But it would allow for rage to be present, and yet not fire-hose into the constituent assembly.
People need to be able to yell and at some level, ‘know their voice is heard’ even if in a symbolic way.
Meanwhile the actual real work goes on in the assembly.
Not sure why I’m biting at this pointless & delusional article, but here goes in brief.
1. What a crock of poo. Maori ‘sovereignty’? Never was, never will be. This country is called New Zealand and is full of New Zealanders.
2. ToW (or te Tiriti if you wokily prefer) was a deal done with the disparate groups of Maori in 1840. Sovereignty was not so much h ‘ceded’ (for there was none to give) as ‘recognised. All folk born in NZ post 1840 got all the benefits of ToW so it really became meaningless for anyone thereafter born.
3. The reality is that we are all so damn lucky to be born here. Opportunity galore. Sticking your head in 200 year old sand and constantly looking backwards is an insult to all those who built this great culture & land. The British type culture I mean, cos the Maori one has little to offer a modern world. That’s the reality and the sooner the victims embrace their good fortune instead of whinging about fallacious concepts such as ‘Maori Sovereignty’, the better off they will be.
Or just re-read Brendan’s many vg points above.
I really am struggling to understand the point of your article tbh.
Reading these sentences, Just Boris, I am forced to conclude that the pot of excrement has been filled by the author of the comment - not by the originator of the post.
How do the concepts of "the Tyrany of the Majority" and "Maori Soverignty" line up in practice? it seems to me that in the alleged interests of fairness a certain group would like to abolish the current practice whereby all ethnic groups in NZ (including citizens of Maori descent) get to take a democratic stand in collectively selecting our Government and voting for the policies most closely aligning to our own, in favour of a tyranny of the minority in which citizens with some strands of a certain DNA have a stronger political stature. Presumably in this new Aotearoa-NZ political structure the majority will be expected to sit quietly and firmly shut their mouths while living compliantly.
Martyn Bradbury makes a big deal about how Maori will not accept second class citizenship. I suggest very few NZ citizens will willingly step away from democracy in favour of a more tribal or DNA-based governance in which they become foramlly second class citizens in a way that Maori do NOT experience today. Yes Maori are over represented in the worst social statistics but it is not true that they are legally different rights, as would be the case in the proposed changes. Some will accuse the people not wanting race-based governance of being racist, but to most of us democracy beats racism every time. If NZ ever suffers the horrors of a civil war it may well arise as a reaction to the current anti-democratic dreams of the Maori Soverignty movement.
Surely the irony should be very clear to everyone that the current policies of the NZ Political Left would, if left to mature, inevitably provoke a pro-democracy revolution in response?
Thanks for the thought which demonstrates there is nothing new in what we are seeing and hearing today. Two thoughts:
1 Given our size isn't our parliament a citizen assembly. Any reason why it cannot do that well is a sign that it is broken corrupted or manipulated. If that is true, why would we expect some random draw of 100 people to fair better?
2 Has any nation divided against itself been able to stand? No! so it is better to focus on what is Good what is True and what is Beautiful if we want to see a desirable outcome for all who settled here since the signing of the Magna Carta (1215AD).
Point well made. I’m keen to hear an argument that shows any benefit at all from setting up a form of parallel Govt. Can’t see it tbh but it sure would cost a bit. Or maybe let’s just put it to the people along with a referendum on getting rid of all forms of race-based elections. Skin colour & tribal affiliations seem like a pretty stupid & dysfunctional way to group a society.
Feels like your views have expanded. Got the feeling Chris, like myself, saw the Hikoi as performative and symbol of weakness rather than strength. I largely agree that a nuanced approach to issues could be taken but likely won’t as the slightly deviation from ideological purity on the left will lead to accusations of nazism/fascism etc.
Pretty grim there Chris I think old people like us should stay out of it . Māori needs to be a compulsory subject taught in schools and the language as it was going become part of our life this fascist regime small ACT Big ACT and the old spice party need to be out of government and Māori and Pakeha Academia judges and maybe some trusted ex politicians need to have some input and let us start to see how this will look a co governance . I have no issues , it can be no worse than being ruled by bosons pledge, God forbid . I would rather a co governance situation any day than a far right coalition for which I will be marching on Parliament
Compulsory Maori? Why? Daft idea although pretty much already in place. Far better to stop all the cultural BS te Reo stuff and teach civics & health to all. As part of this they could briefly learn the basics of multiple cultures, not just Maori.
You want co-governance? I would be interested to hear what benefit you think it could bring? Indeed, is there anything you can name in Maori culture that we could not just lose completely tomorrow & be no worse off as a nation?
You realise you may have been born here but your ancestors immigrated to a country that belonged to someone else ? The English colonised this countrry slaughtered thousands of Māori while they were about it , the Māori never ceded ownership of this country they just signed a treaty with the Crown that gave them rights and we as a nation must honour because the crown said we would. I think the least you could do is read some history before you comment . My ancestors came hear to get away from a shithole world for poor people called Great Britain the part they came from was called Scotland . I am very happy to be here personally and would really like to see co governance work here but to do that everyone has to understand Māori culture . There is not much show with old rascists that just want to feel superior to everyone because they are white so as the Catholics do start on the kids and the people like me that are interested the rascists can sit in the corner and play like the old South Africans until white people are properly assimilated into the Māori culture then co governance will work properly .
Yo Steve. Some bullet points for you to chew on. Much like the musket balls all them other Maori dined on when they were being wiped out by Te Rauparaha and friends.
1. We all migrated here dude.
2. The English Govt, ie The Crown, did not 'turn up and slaughter thousands of Maori'. Hobson and co went to great lengths to protect Maori. Read Nigel Biggar (Colonialism - A Moral Reckoning) and you may understand the British were not nearly as bad as many make out. They could have wiped out Maori with a few more ships, but they tried the Treaty method as Vicki probably did not want more squabbles all the way down here. Dunno, but that was what they did.
3. "Maori never ceded Sovereignty'. If you mean they had no such thing to cede, then bravo chap, we agree. But if you contend they somehow retained that thing they did not have, and are somehow owed it today, then you cannot read. Both Treaty versions are clear that the Crown would govern the land. Read Bassett or even Sir Apirana Ngata. Ngata might be a good start at understanding the Maori version don't you reckon?
4. Great Britain 'a shithole'? Shame on you. Great Britain is (at least has been up to now...) a great country, a wonderful Empire and has delivered some of the greatest advances to society in history. If you are a Scot, then double shame on you and your haggis. Your lack of gratitude for a wonderful existence is pathetic.
5. Co-Governance as you suggest won't work. Has never worked anywhere. I don't need to understand Maori culture, it is not my culture. Others are free to embrace it, but I have no time for it for I find it lacking in so many ways.
6. I assume you meant to label me a 'racist'? How would skin colour even matter? That is just daft. I find British/European culture to be superior simply because, well, err, um, it is. In just about every way. Name me any significant area where Maori culture is superior? It is not mean to say this, it is simply a fact that one culture evolved in a busy & engaging part of the world, the other was stuck down here all alone and did not.
So, you failed to rise to my challenge, the points you made all failed and thus I suggest Sir that you are rather poorly informed on this matter.
Sorry that is a long and windy rhetorical load of old cobblers from my point of view . I don’t agree with anything you say , after a successful career I can tell you that the only things that work really well are the things that people say haven’t been successful or tried before . I am happy to listen to what Māori want as co governance and the reason that is because they are not run by any outside influences they only care about their land and themselves and I know what you will say to that but again I don’t care . I will vote that way as will plenty of other New Zealanders . The younger generation is not as racist as the boomer generation so it will happen . The English supplied the muskets to Te Raupraha so who’s to blame for that slaughter . If New Zealand is to go forward then people that don’t want to understand the culture should be offered repatriation to the land of their forefathers they are no use here
It was the blank refusal of Maori activists to respond forthrightly to journalists' questions about the sort of New Zealand they were hoping to build that inspired me, way back in 1995, to draw up my own "Constitution of the Bi-Cultural Republic of Aotearoa New Zealand". A better effort, even if I do say so myself, than the fuzzy conclusions of "Matike Mai Aotearoa".
Why should people buy something they haven't been allowed to inspect? If you want to sell it - show it.
Hmm, it seems a lot of the comments are by supporters of ACT's TPM.
Not much chance there of any recognition that the Treaty/Te Tiriti is in two languages.
One of the annoying aspects of Seymour is that he constantly says not one person has a coherent argument against his Bill. Blithely dismissing Finlayson, Shipley, Paler and many others as if they know nothing.
Looking forward.
I would not dismiss a Maori "parliament" so readily. It is easy to imagine a Maori elected body (voted on by those on the Maori roll)comparable to a TLA that had statutory authority over things Maori (Te Ture Whenua, Whanau Ora, Kura Kaupapa Schools, the Maori Health Authorities, etc). Both the allocation of the Maori appropriations by the New Zealand Parliament and the accountability for the expenditure meaning scrutiny of the entities spending the money.
The next "left" government might readily establish such an entity as part of their coalition agreement. Such a government is almost guaranteed in the elections of 2032 or 2035.
Why do you think there will be a snap election in the next 8 months?
It can't conceivably be in the interests of any of the three parties in government to cause such an election.
There is no burning platform that is the basis of such an election.
Certainly not constitutional.
And definitely not economic. The likely difficult economic situation caused by Trump argues for stability and continuity. In such circumstances governments try very hard to hold together, not cause even more instability by going for an out of cycle election.
In a sedate, predictable, and vaguely rational world, Wayne, your objections to the very idea of a snap election would be unanswerable.
Now, if you could just provide me with the universal co-ordinates, and point me in the direction of your interstellar vehicle, I'll be off and away to that happy world before you can say "right-wing populism".
Chris, you are the one who raised the prospect of a 2025 snap election.
You must have some basis to suggest it.
I just want to know why you made such a suggestion. Presumably you have heard something or have thought there is something in the current political environment that makes it possible enough to raise it.
Thanks. It would appear sources ((Chief of Staff?) in NZF are talking to Richard Harman about this possibility. I am pretty sure it would not be Winston. I just can't see NZF precipitating a coalition crisis of this scale and neither can I see Seymour doing that. Difficulties, yes, but a snap election?
"The next "left" government might readily establish such an entity"
That would be almost universally despised, and it's proponents along with it, for very good reasons. It wouldn't be too surprising though, considering the sleazy introduction of the He Puapua agenda.
How about we forget about race altogether for a change, everyone has the same rights and responsibilities regardless of ancestry or "identity".
That would certainly be my preference, David, but for nearly 40 years it has been clear to me that, for a very substantial number of my fellow citizens, simply being a human-being is not enough. Their ethnicity trumps their humanity. The question thus becomes: "How do we deal with that cultural and political reality?"
That may be true for some, and that's their choice I guess. It doesn't mean that our government, or our institutions should be involved; it belongs in the private sphere - same as religion. That's how we deal with it - by largely ignoring it.
Entrenching ethnicity into government and law (as Wayne has suggested/speculated) is a hell of a road to go down. Hopefully reasonable heads will prevail.
Do you really see Maori giving up their aspirations?
I certainly don't, in fact it will get stronger. I know from my wider whanau how deeply the issue of Maori identity is felt, especially among younger Maori. The majority within the whanau having tertiary education and increasing positions of responsibility, including as MP's. In my view these aspirations will inevitably find some expression in governance.
What would be the problem if a Maori elective body had delegated authority from the Parliament to govern things that are quite clearly Maori?
Would a subsequent right leaning government think it worthwhile to abolish it if it was well established. In my view, probably not.
You don't find it a little odd that, as your wider whanau are already in "positions of responsibility, including as MP's", they aspire to governance based on race?
Perhaps it's really all about unearned and unaccountable power; protected and sanctioned by our despised Western institutions of course.
No, I don't find it odd. On matters such as Te Reo, Ture Whenua, Whanau Ora, etc, these are all seen as within the domain of te tino rangatiratanga. As such they all fit within the commitments the Crown made to Maori in Article 2 of the Treaty. Hence why Maori governance over these things is seen as appropriate. It is not a reaction to "despised western institutions."
I might add the relevant MP's are descended from the leaders of the Maori Battalion. They understand the price of citizenship. They regard as serving in the Parliament as an honour.
By what power would the "chiefs" exercise their authority though Wayne?
If it is to be by the power of the state (or The Crown) then that is where the authority must lie. What other mechanism is there? This is the fundamental flaw in the idea of co-governance.
The chiefs of the treaty, and their people lived in a world that no longer exists - save in the imagination of fools, frauds and firebrands.
No Left Turn. There is a conservative strategy driving the constitutional aspects - privatisation, conservation, common law and customary rights, even 'subsidiarity' - hence the ideological contest to define 'the rule of law' in the Courts. Parliament is struggling to represent contemporary constituencies, not helped by MMP. In the longer run perhaps Article Three is going to prove more problematic than Article Two with ACT having been left to occupy the high ground.
The Treaty was written with great care, and numerous rough notes were floated about. The final English draft was written by James Busby on 4 Feb 1840 and given to Rev Henry Williams and his son, both fluent speakers of Maori, for translation into the Maori language. It was this, the Maori language version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, which was the only one presented to Maori people and allowed to be signed by the Maori chiefs. Gov Hobson made this mandatory and only after ensuring total understanding and acceptance by all Maori.,
Te Tiriti O Waitangi states all the rights and protection to the "Chiefs Tribes and all the people of New Zealand"
Since the 1970's, vested interests have warped, twisted, re invented the Treaty to conform to goals since then being aggressively, belligerently, furthered.
Our Government must find a spine. We need to rein in the separation ideas. We must be 'One People' . Anything less, is bound to end catastrophically, to the detriment of our country and all our peoples.
Have our people read Sun Tzu, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King et al
This country, our people, could be a beacon to the world if we achieve equality and harmony.
Bravo for critiquing your youthful thinking, Chris. That's healthy. A Constituent Assembly? I think this is as naively optimistic as my earlier hopes for a Royal Commission enquiry into the place of the treaties in NZ's future. My Royal Commission pursued a contest of ideas rather than a referendum's simplistic contest of numbers. But it would have foundered because it would be impossible to find truly impartial commissioners to consider issues on which views are so aggressively polarised already. And, because invested Māori would have insisted on 50:50 representation on the commissioner panel.
I fear that the same polarising of treaty opinion would pervert the honourable intentions of a Constituent Assembly. The Assembly could not avoid having to come to a position on the meaning and purpose of the original 1840 treaty, since today's openly seditious reconstructions of that treaty are the ground on which Māori nationalism stands and will defend at all costs. If the spirit of co-operation and consensus is to govern Assembly affairs, those radical constructions of the treaty will have to be appeased; radical Māori will not surrender the well-spring of their cause or the privileges they been gifted in response by feckless politicians. That means that the constitutional debate will be off to a corrupted start. It must accept to some extent that today's perversions of treaty meaning and intent are legitimate. Czechoslovakia speaks to us here. Peace in our time will not be possible. Appeasement will extinguish hope of a genuinely just determination of our constitutional future since it must accommodate the aryanising project of Māori, and its constitutionally corrosive anti-colonial agenda. The Assembly risks becoming complicit in the gathering alienation of non-Maōri from their country of birth (TPM's separation of the tangata whenua class from the settler class, the latter permitted to remain here at the discretion of the self-annointed racial exceptionalists).
In some ways you have answered your own questions Chris. Without arguing the semantics of how the colonisation of NZ took place, the end result is where we are today. I believe your conclusion to your essay is about right, but IMO the justification for it isn’t.
We can look at the injustices that Maori have endured and sympathise with their stand to a point but the story is not all bad. The last thirty years have been pretty good. Progress has been made on many fronts. Treaty payouts have provided funds that Iwi are using to benefit their own. We are seeing Maori housing projects sprouting up, and we are seeing good representation of Maori in both local and national government, suggesting an acceptance of the colonial structure at a high level. We are seeing better numbers of Maori in professional jobs as in doctors and lawyers. What we are not seeing yet is Maori embracing education in the same way many Pakeha and other immigrants do, and the result is underachieving which ends up as low esteem and an unsatisfactory life.
The education issues are slowly changing. The land issues are slowly being dealt with so what is the real gripe that Maori have with our colonial government system. They are now a big part of it, I don’t get it. For me it comes down to a bitter Maori elite who although they are now a part of the system refuse to accept that system is for them. I believe most Maori would be happy with our existing system when it achieves a little more equity and when their children fully take advantage of the education offered to them giving them a better chance at life in a modern world. I don’t believe co governance will achieve that. Chris’s paragraph is a likely outcome sometime in the future
“At some point, a political party, or group of parties, will again present a constitutional proposition to the nation. Not a statement of principles this time, but a bill requiring the election of a constituent assembly charged with drawing-up a constitution which, when completed, will be presented to the New Zealand people for ratification”.
The problem, as I see it, Graeme, is that the advances of the past 30 years, while undeniable, have been enjoyed disproportionately by a Maori middle-class whose numbers have multiplied in tandem with the rolling-out of Treaty settlements.
For the Maori working-class, things have not gone so well. In their case the golden years were those between 1950 and 1985. A recent statistic communicated to me by Dr Chris Harris demonstrates the point neatly:
"In the face of forty years of economic restructuring and exploding house prices, Maori homeownership in Auckland has plummeted from over 50 percent in 1986 according to the 2020 Ngai Tahu Research Centre report 'The Impact of Housing Policy on Maori in Tamaki Makaurau', to just 18 percent as of the latest census, a figure given in Auckland's 'State of the City 2023' report."
As Dr Harris noted: "This is really a five-alarm sociological fire, given that a homeownership rate of 18 percent is significantly less than half of the homeownership rate for African-Americans today or for Northern Irish Catholics on the eve of the Troubles."
If the economic injustices inflicted upon Maori by neoliberal capitalism are ever recognised as clearly as the historical injustices inflicted by colonisation, then the Revolution cannot be far off.
Point taken Chris. In Hawkes bay I have noticed Iwi housing projects popping up, some in quite poor areas, however the pressure of the huge numbers requiring housing, or wanting home ownership in the Auckland area especially are enormous with your figures highlighting just how large a problem it is. I agree the political unrest resulting from this situation is and will be significant. I guess my question for those wanting governance over their own, is how will they improve that situation any quicker. The duplication of administration and services just eating up more of the financial resources required. Of course central government will always get blamed for not coughing up enough.
Chris
I wonder why you write articles like this. Is it just to be provocative, to stir up the passions of both Maori and non-Maori? To re-affirm your left leaning credentials? Why?
To address the points you raise:
“Shared Sovereignty” is an ahistorical fantasy that does not exist in any version of the Treaty. Those who advocate for it are delusional. In any event, Te Pati Maori does not want ‘shared Sovereignty’ they want Maori Sovereignty. They refuse to acknowledge the authority of Parliament whose tax payers fund their MP’s salaries and seek to establish a privileges committee of their own. They refuse to submit to Parliamentary authority relying upon the institution only for their salaries. They are the tip of your spear.
To raise the spectre of ‘armed conquest’ in our current context is grossly irresponsible.
It is not incumbent upon Non-Maori to revisit ‘constitutional matters’. Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 with very few tribal exceptions. Maori were given property rights, albeit they have been abused by the crown, Maori were given British citizenship, that is to say equality before the rule of law.
The Waitangi Tribunal as originally established sought to address historical claims. It has morphed into something ‘other’ presently with more than 200 claims that fall outside of its original mandate. No wonder Richard Prebble called ‘time’ on the farce.
Where does all the talk of ‘mutinous Maori soldiers supported by gang members storming parliament come from? This is irresponsible rhetoric.
We have a ‘citizens assembly’ it is called Parliament. We don’t need another one!
To answer your question as to ‘who enjoys the monopoly over the use of organised violence’? it is the State as expressed through the democratically elected Parliament. No one else, thank God. This is one gift that Western Civilisation has given to us including all Maori, and the majority of Maori Chiefs in 1840 understood this perfectly. They had experienced 30 years of musket wars that decimated the Maori population, and they wanted the British rule of law that stood outside and above their tribal hatreds.
They wanted peace.
Now here’s some uncomfortable truths explained very clearly today by social commentator and researcher Lindsay Mitchell https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/lindsay-mitchell-maori-must-take-control She rehearses one area where, if Maori are to have an economic future, they need to exercise control and I quote:
“There were 17,028 Maori babies born in 2024.
According to an official information response from the Ministry of Social Development, 5,997 were dependent on welfare by the end of the year. That's 35.2 percent. Most would have been born onto a benefit.
Of the 17,397 born in 2023, 7,737 were on a benefit by age two. That's 44.5 percent. The equivalent percentages for non-Maori babies are respectively 11.4 and 14.8 percent
These extraordinarily high Maori numbers aren't due to unemployment - just one in ten of the Maori babies born last year became dependent on a Job Seeker benefit. Eighty percent have sole parents. The future expected time on a benefit for sole parents is 17 years.
Growing up in homes where nobody works is bad for children. They are more exposed to transience, abuse and neglect, violence, poor educational outcomes, poor health outcomes and substance abuse. This is an entrenched pattern of behaviour for too many Maori. It lies at the heart of all of the downstream negative statistics which we are then told to believe are caused by colonisation and racism.
Come on. Non-Maori might feel aggrieved by this finger-pointing but they are not the ones who are hurt and damaged by it. Maori children are.”
The State, iwi, and extended family are no substitute for functional birth families. This stubborn fact is yet to be embraced by Maori leadership. Where is Te Pati Maori on this issue? Nothing will change for Maori until this issue is addressed.
The historical record and current statistical data do not sustain your thesis, Brendan.
The key fracture point in New Zealand history was not the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the granting of limited self-government to the British settlers. Once that was achieved, the initiative, historically, passed to Pakeha - and they used it ruthlessly to dispossess the Maori.
The impoverishment and marginalisation of New Zealand's indigenous people continues to be reflected in the nation's social and economic statistics. The many afflictions attributable to poverty and powerlessness are borne disproportionately by Maori.
All the victim-blaming in the world won't change that fact.
Chris
First of all you do not address any of my critisisms of your post, those that I have called out as being irresponsible.
You go on to say:
“The historical record and current statistical data do not sustain your thesis, Brendan. The key fracture point in New Zealand history was not the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the granting of limited self-government to the British settlers. Once that was achieved, the initiative, historically, passed to Pakeha - and they used it ruthlessly to dispossess the Maori.”
Those are extravagant claims. The Treaty was sought and endorsed by the vast majority of Maori Chiefs and it defined the relationship between Maori and the Crown. Settlers were under the same rule of law as Maori. That was implicit in the Treaty and the third article in particular. They had no ‘limited self government’ as you suggest, they were under the same rule of law as all British citizens, those British by birth, those Maori and others who were British by Treaty fiat.
You go on to say: “The impoverishment and marginalisation of New Zealand's indigenous people continues to be reflected in the nation's social and economic statistics. The many afflictions attributable to poverty and powerlessness are borne disproportionately by Maori. All the victim-blaming in the world won't change that fact.”
Again, you cannot have history both ways. We are told that Maori were successful traders sailing ships between New Zealand and Sydney in the 19th century. This is an historical fact. They demonstrated they were able to embrace new technology and new ideas and to generate commercial profits. Where are those Maori today? What has happened to their entrepreneurship, their resilience, their mana? They have been suffocated under the tyranny of low expectations, under the burden of victimhood, white guilt and intergenerational welfare. They are being destroyed by Pakeha ‘kindness’ and the betrayal of their elders.
Yes, they might want revenge and on one level who can blame them, but blood and violence is not going to lift them out of poverty and despair.
In reality there are successful Maori everywhere. They are overrepresented statistically in our parliament, in our decission making Cabinet. There are Maori Doctors, Lawyers, Dentists, Accountants, Entrepreneurs and business men and women who are not embracing a foe victimhood but prospering in this country in which they were the (perhaps) first settlers, immigrants themselves from another geographical location. Not unlike my Irish ancestors who arrived here as poor immigrants in the late 19th century.
Let’s get real here. New Zealand offers everyone, Maori, refugees from Vietnam, Cambodia, Columbia, Siri Lanka and the Middle East and yes even South Africa an opportunity to prosper. Maori need to start looking forward and not looking back. Hopefully for all our sakes they can make the transition.
Your rejoinder, Brendan, merely confirms your lack of historical understanding.
I do not propose to engage with you any further on these issues until you give me evidence of having made some attempt to broaden your understanding of New Zealand history.
You and I are in agreement when it comes to the question of whether or not Maori ceded sovereignty to the British crown - of course they did. After that, however, it's all downhill.
Hi Chris
What am I to make of this? I have called out those sections of your inital post that are ahistorical in respect to the Treaty and so far you have not refuted my rebuttal. I have named one of them, the idea of co-governance.
Futhermore, I have called out two of your statements that I have deemed irresponsible because of their apparent justification for racial violence and you have not sought to justify either of them.
Perhaps you could could be kind enough to call out those sections of my reply's that you deem to be lacking in 'historical understanding'? It's all very well to make unspecified claims imputing historical ignorance on my part and to take the moral high ground until I educate myself on New Zealand history, but you fail to point out even just one of my inaccuracies.
Perhaps you could help me and your readers by stating what you have read in my replies that are ahistorical and are therefore worthy of correction?
But this is your substack and you don't need to respond or to substantiate any of your assertions.
You have neither the right to demand, nor have you presented anything remotely worthy of, refutation or rebuttal, Brendan.
That my post contradicts your own view of NZ history is very clear, but repeatedly drawing my attention to that fact imposes no responsibility on me, as its author, to justify or modify my own.
I am confident that my interpretation of our history conforms in nearly all important respects to that of this nation's leading historians - a company, Brendan, in which your name is yet to appear.
We must, I'm afraid, agree to differ.
Hi Jim
I suspect it's slightly more nuanced than that. Maori sea trade to Sydney began in the early 1800's shortly followed by the begining of thirty years of inter tribal musket wars that decimated between 20% and 30% of the Maori population. It's difficult to farm effectively let alone ship your produce profitably to Sydney when your tribe is at war for the best part of thirty years. I'm not suggesting your critique has no basis in fact. I have said previously the treaty was not honoured by the Crown in may respects, land being one of them, and I support the work of the Waitangi Tribunal in settling historical claims. More recent claims are another matter entirely. However the sale and confiscation of Maori land is just one of numerous factors at work in that period of New Zealand's history that lead to their economic decline.
We do not fix the mistakes of the past - treating others differently in political, legal and economic spheres according to the consequences of their birth - by repeating them in the future Chris.
We can only address and attempt to remedy these historic injustices through a mechanism such as the Waitangi tribunal, and an egalitarian society that lifts those up at the bottom of the heap, while moving forward as equals.
The left must come back to liberalism on this. If they do not, and continue to push for Maori sovereignty, you invite a fascist reaction from the right in response. History tells us that in situations like this, especially when the group seeking to cement permanent political privilege is in the minority, that it doesn't end well for them, and can easily turn bloody.
You say "it is not incumbent upon Non-Maori to revisit ‘constitutional matters’. Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 with very few tribal exceptions. Maori were given property rights, albeit they have been abused by the crown, Maori were given British citizenship, that is to say equality before the rule of law." I believe my great great grandfather was a treaty signatory, so while I have Maori ancestry it's somewhat diluted, but probably no more so that many Te Parti Maori or Toitu Te Tiriti adherents. I'm proud of my ancestry but I do not identify as Maori, because when I was a great deal younger, and having been raised as completely pakeha. I thought it was unethical. I'm 77 now and I still think it would be unethical. I'd like to see the constitutional matters revisited, so by your definition am I non-Maori or Maori?
I would call you a New Zealander, Aroha.
So do I, but I'm interested in how Brendan would deal with, what for many, is a conundrum.
The question of who can legitimately claim to be Māori is somewhat controversial as I’m sure you know.
Prior to 1974, the legal definition required an individual to be at least half Māori by blood to be officially recognised as Māori. This criteria was embedded in various statutes, including the Māori Affairs Act 1953, which described Māori as “half-castes and people who were intermediate in blood between half-castes and of pure descent”.
Today these restrictions have been removed, and some of my grandchildren qualify as Māori while being several generations removed from pure blooded Māori. Furthermore, if someone ‘identifies’ as Māori regardless of the genealogy who in the modern progressive bureaucracy is going to deny them that right?
None of this would matter except that being Māori carries with it certain privileges, specifically in the sphere of education, and under the previous government, in the sphere of health care. It will likely carry further privileges if you can identify your Iwi and qualify for any benefits that accrue from Treaty settlements. Then of course you can also become part of the Māori electoral role.
Chris has sidestepped the issue by stating you are a New Zealander. Well, yes that is your national identity, but it avoids the question of ethnicity that you appear to be asking.
I’m not sure what constitutional matters you would like to see revisited. Do you think we should go back to the 1974 standard, but perhaps broaden the requirements given further dilution over time? Is having a legal definition important?
Fractions of "blood"??!! Good God!! Where are we - Mississippi??!!
Brendan, in your reply you haven't actually answered my question.
Aroha, can you rephrase your question for me?
80,000 Māori came to Parliament in a hikoi? How did that number double from what was estimated on the day? Does a Pākehā in a hikoi become a Māori for a day? And no property got destroyed that day, so it definitively shows they’ll be completely trustworthy to be given what they want. Give me a break, Chris - every group of people in the world has the same mixture of the greedy and corrupt amongst them as anyone else. This is demonstrated by what we’re seeing amongst some iwi with their dubious revenue gathering practices from anyone who even glances sideways at land the iwi claim their ancestors once did something on. Revenue which in many cases doesn’t seem to make it past the pockets of the iwi leaders. There will be little benefit at all to regular Māori from anything that looks like co-governance or special concessions.
The animus you display here, Katrina, towards your fellow New Zealanders, bodes ill for our country's future.
Repeating the anti-iwi tropes of Maori deprecating individuals and groups does not make them true.
The treatment of iwi by successive settler governments was shameful and certainly beyond the present resources of the New Zealand state to adequately compensate.
You should be praising the patience and forbearance of Maori, not attempting to replicate the divide-and-conquer strategies of our colonial forbears.
Cripes - straight out of Te Pati Maori's playbook. I have said nothing here that hasn't been said by some Maori, too.
And what does that history have to do with us here today? I’m not saying it cannot have bearing, but it is not automatically relevant.
If that story is to guide our future, we need to buy into it. Most of us - the ‘tyrannical majority’ - I believe, don’t. However the opportunity to do the mahi, to get out there and persuade us, is wide open. It has been for the 50 years of the Maori renaissance.
A great test in the near future will be the local body seats referendum.
Agreed.
What does the ideal society look like Chris? Is it one where all citizens have equal rights before the courts, at the polling booth, and in the workforce? If so, then liberal egalitarian democracy, with universal and equal suffrage is the only answer.
This 1840 navel gazing prevents us from moving forward. In 1840 we didn't let women vote, nor did we let people who didn't own land vote. We had to invent the Maori seats so that Maori who owned land in common, could vote giving affect to the treaty, without outraging the uptight Pakeha who by virtue of owning land considered themselves to have voting rights.
Ultimately we must move forward, united in recognizing our common humanity, and the fundamental equality of all human beings. If the treaty says something different, then we need to move past it, just like we move past all relics of the past that are no longer valuable. I do not think we are remotely mature enough to have this conversation as a country presently, and the response to the Treaty principles bill proves it.
Personally, I see the biggest and clearest risk to this country's economic prosperity, and moral authority in the realization of the Maori sovereignty movement. It would make property rights unclear, degrade our democratic institutions, and accelerate the flight across the ditch to Australia. Several nobel prize winners have demonstrated that strong institutions and strong property rights are key ingredients for economic success, and a stable society.
We would no longer be a morally righteous nation, and would share similarities with Xi Jinping's China, Jim Crow America, Apartheid South Africa, The NZ state in the 20th century, The British, French, Spanish, Portugese and Dutch Empires, and most other imperfect unenlightened regimes throughout history - that the consequences of one's birth matters more than the content of one's character.
I agree.
There is a minority group, mainly not Maori, who vocally want a different structure in New Zealand. Mainly university graduates from over the last 50 years. They have been in positions of authority with delegated power - in the courts, civil service and so on. They have taken ultra vires courses of action - because they could. This has pissed off a lot of people.
Geoff Palmer’s treaty principles is the best example: a slippery attempt to avoid the democratic process. A short cut to accelerate the achievement of an outcome that he and others thought worthy. And I think this was a mistake. Because … we get what we have now.
So that is where we are, but how do we go forward?
The Te Pati Maori constitutional proposals look pretty unlikely to happen. The majority will continue to tyrannise (ignore and/or reject) them.
I think the core problem is that there are no viable options on the table for activists to sell, and for the rest of us to get our teeth into. To challenge, develop, compromise and in the end resolve. Inequality is not going to cut it, but are there things that might? Where do our interests converge? Where is the negotiating margin? (“Our way or violence” is not persuasive.) In this vacuum all we have is bitter and twisted argumentation.
Absolutely, John!
That is why we need to elect a Constituent Assembly. A body with the legal obligation to present a constitutional document which the people as a whole can either vote up, or down.
Palmer was indeed a slippery piece of work. Typical academic with his head so far up his own intellectual arse that we could not see where he was going, nor the mess he would create. The irony is that so-called 'Maori' are worse off than ever. Hot tip: Feeding their victimhood ain't gonna help fix 'em.
As for 'viable options', I would aver that we already have (or had) a very good structure for a functional society. Beware the perils of a written constitution, what we have should work pretty well. But it needs strong leadership and politicians who actually respond to the wishes of the MAJORITY. Sorry if that is a dirty word for Mr Trotter and the likes of Willy The Racist, but the people must be heard. They have been in the US, maybe one day they will be here also. I contend most assuredly that the majority of Kiwis don't want a bar of all this racist crap, they just want Parliament to work, to live freely with rights guaranteed under years of Common Law evolution, be appointed on merit and be treated the same. Huh, that sounds similar to what Seymour was proposing I s'pose. Funny that.
I think Chris’s idea of a constituent assembly would be able to have legs though. The answer it comes up with might be able to be a written constitution in the Australian or American sense. My guess is not though. The result would be an accommodation suitable for all of us. A written constitution wouldn’t be very New Zealand anyway.
What if we reframed the Treaty as a document that today means we all get to rub along together as we currently do, all of us, but with greater symbolic recognition for our indigenous dimension.
I’ve got no idea what possible solutions people might come up with but I would really like to see a bunch of them. I think the core tenets of liberal democracy have no chance of being displaced. But I’d like to see the conversation going. At the moment it is constipated.
There is the possibility of finding a consensus such that further hot-heading does not have any popular oxygen. And we conclude a big beautiful deal (hmmm where have I heard that) that has wide buy in.
I think, bottom line, most people are sensible and able to be cooperative if treated with dignity, even if it means accepting something that at the start of the process they would have rejected out of hand.
I like your optimism, genuinely. But as I have stated and believe, most people do not want to get bogged down in the 'indigenous' vs 'others' debate. It is pointless and enrichens only the 'elite' Maori who thrive due to the misfortune of others. 'Maori' as a primary identifier is also well past its 'Use By' date. Are we not all just New Zealanders with varying ancestry? Or do we tend to conflate colour with 'Maoriness'. I suspect if Seymour were darker, Willy would not mock his Maoriness so much. One's tribe should not define one's character. We worked hard to move on from the class system of yesteryear.
Our country as a whole, and each group within it, would do better if we remove the victimhood angle and we cared for those at the lower end of things due to need and little else. Resources are finite and we certainly waste a fuck-ton of them on race stuff when they could be put to far better use. Sadly there is no 'beautiful deal' out there, as radical Maori want power and wealth. They should instead want for a satisfying and enjoyable life. More the fool them for their machiavellian drive toward false gods. And more the fool us for tolerating & empowering their avarice.
Thanks Boris. I can be a bit naive and optimistic.
I don’t think ancestry counts as being a New Zealander, personally. That’s why I don’t think separatism along ethnic lines is at all a likely outcome. But people can take pride in things, and associate with things with a felt pride and identity without it giving them extra power at the ballot box.
Symbols are not nothings, and there is no skin off any of our noses to acknowledge a uniqueness of things Maori.
There is dignity here that need not subtract from any of us. This is what I mean about looking for a negotiating margin. Where do our wishes have overlap?
Parallel parliament? Three Waters? Forgeddaboutit. But what are the possibilities?
I think the process is actually the key issue here, which is why I’m drawn to the constituent assembly. Or an extended structure where more people can be involved to blow off steam.
"We worked hard to move on from the class system of yesteryear."
And failed.
"But people can take pride in things, and associate with things with a felt pride and identity without it giving them extra power at the ballot box."
Well said indeed John. To each their own and no person should have extra rights or privileges due to them being fractional descendants of Early Settler Maori. Nobody is stopping Maori celebrating their culture as they choose and wish to fund.
The Treaty was quite clear on this and yet Seymour was attacked for daring to further formalise it. The wonderful thing is that we don't really need a 'negotiated solution'. The negotiations took place in 1840. We would all live as one people, with one set of laws and rights. And the Crown (and elected Parliament) would govern us with a social contract of empowerment. The solution is in place, it simply needs people to accept the gift and get on with life.
No question, that would bring the conversation out into the open, on the stage. It would be tidy as well. Comprehensive and thorough.
I’m thinking we might not want it quite as quick or tidy as that though. Remember the MMP process. I thought that was a good one because it allowed a good deal of public engagement. These issues are hot and could do with the opportunity for community discharge to get to the point where buy-in is possible.
An effective process is one where there is a degree of public exhaustion towards the end. The thing goes round and round until everyone is super sick of it and the perspectives of all parts of the community are well and truly out there. Everyone knows where everyone stands, and all the arguments have been aired ad nauseam. When it comes to the vote it is not necessarily a foregone conclusion, but after the vote no one is going to be saying “Hey but…”. Or if they do the people around them will turn away.
A Constituent Assembly is more technocratic - well reasoned, differently thorough - but I don’t know if it would put the issue to bed. (Yes of course it should, but if the body politic still has energy, it likely won’t.)
btw I’m an engineer, so I gravitate towards sensible, clear, “put the problem on the table in front of us and sit on the same side and look at it” technocratic solutions. It’s just not that that is obvious to me in our situation now.
The virtue of a constituent assembly is that its delegates must be elected - a requirement inevitably inviting the participation of political parties and obliging them to stake out clear positions on the full range of constitutional issues. This should assist greatly in clarifying the available options.
The formulation of the constitution could then proceed with all participants fully aware that trade-offs and compromises would, of necessity, constitute crucial aspects of the drafting process.
Intransigence would not be a viable strategy unless the big players made it impossible for minority groups to contribute meaningfully to the final result.
Such high-handedness would, of course, be a serious political error, which could not be hidden from the voters, and would likely incur their wrath.
The optimal path for all involved would be to work together co-operatively to produce a constitution broadly acceptable to a clear majority of the people.
Piece of cake!
That is my kind of proposal. It is what I would write. It is sensible and logical. It is so frickin’ obvious.
I have a reservation, and that is about how emotions can be satisfactorily earthed in the community. Earthed enough anyway. Discharged. Your process makes sense to me. Other people want to rage and vent, to pound the table and yell, and I think it would be worthwhile if they could somehow. I don’t know how, but I think it would be desirable.
Maybe the constituent assembly sessions could be followed up with televised community sessions. Not that these will contribute to the assembly, except in some cleaned-up way. But it would allow for rage to be present, and yet not fire-hose into the constituent assembly.
People need to be able to yell and at some level, ‘know their voice is heard’ even if in a symbolic way.
Meanwhile the actual real work goes on in the assembly.
Yes, the delegates to a Constitutent Assembly "must be elected".
But how? By some form of proportional representation, I assume?
Perhaps you have already written elsewhere about the CA election process?
Not sure why I’m biting at this pointless & delusional article, but here goes in brief.
1. What a crock of poo. Maori ‘sovereignty’? Never was, never will be. This country is called New Zealand and is full of New Zealanders.
2. ToW (or te Tiriti if you wokily prefer) was a deal done with the disparate groups of Maori in 1840. Sovereignty was not so much h ‘ceded’ (for there was none to give) as ‘recognised. All folk born in NZ post 1840 got all the benefits of ToW so it really became meaningless for anyone thereafter born.
3. The reality is that we are all so damn lucky to be born here. Opportunity galore. Sticking your head in 200 year old sand and constantly looking backwards is an insult to all those who built this great culture & land. The British type culture I mean, cos the Maori one has little to offer a modern world. That’s the reality and the sooner the victims embrace their good fortune instead of whinging about fallacious concepts such as ‘Maori Sovereignty’, the better off they will be.
Or just re-read Brendan’s many vg points above.
I really am struggling to understand the point of your article tbh.
Reading these sentences, Just Boris, I am forced to conclude that the pot of excrement has been filled by the author of the comment - not by the originator of the post.
How do the concepts of "the Tyrany of the Majority" and "Maori Soverignty" line up in practice? it seems to me that in the alleged interests of fairness a certain group would like to abolish the current practice whereby all ethnic groups in NZ (including citizens of Maori descent) get to take a democratic stand in collectively selecting our Government and voting for the policies most closely aligning to our own, in favour of a tyranny of the minority in which citizens with some strands of a certain DNA have a stronger political stature. Presumably in this new Aotearoa-NZ political structure the majority will be expected to sit quietly and firmly shut their mouths while living compliantly.
Martyn Bradbury makes a big deal about how Maori will not accept second class citizenship. I suggest very few NZ citizens will willingly step away from democracy in favour of a more tribal or DNA-based governance in which they become foramlly second class citizens in a way that Maori do NOT experience today. Yes Maori are over represented in the worst social statistics but it is not true that they are legally different rights, as would be the case in the proposed changes. Some will accuse the people not wanting race-based governance of being racist, but to most of us democracy beats racism every time. If NZ ever suffers the horrors of a civil war it may well arise as a reaction to the current anti-democratic dreams of the Maori Soverignty movement.
Surely the irony should be very clear to everyone that the current policies of the NZ Political Left would, if left to mature, inevitably provoke a pro-democracy revolution in response?
Thanks for the thought which demonstrates there is nothing new in what we are seeing and hearing today. Two thoughts:
1 Given our size isn't our parliament a citizen assembly. Any reason why it cannot do that well is a sign that it is broken corrupted or manipulated. If that is true, why would we expect some random draw of 100 people to fair better?
2 Has any nation divided against itself been able to stand? No! so it is better to focus on what is Good what is True and what is Beautiful if we want to see a desirable outcome for all who settled here since the signing of the Magna Carta (1215AD).
‘Tyranny of the Majority’ seems like an odd concept in a democracy that counts votes.
In our system minorities use persuasion to try to convince the majority.
Change from FPP to MMP anyone? - yes
How about a change of the flag? (Go laser Kiwi!) - no
End of Life? - yes
Cannabis? - no
Sometimes it takes a long time to change minds, but it won’t happen in this case until the persuasion process starts.
Point well made. I’m keen to hear an argument that shows any benefit at all from setting up a form of parallel Govt. Can’t see it tbh but it sure would cost a bit. Or maybe let’s just put it to the people along with a referendum on getting rid of all forms of race-based elections. Skin colour & tribal affiliations seem like a pretty stupid & dysfunctional way to group a society.
Feels like your views have expanded. Got the feeling Chris, like myself, saw the Hikoi as performative and symbol of weakness rather than strength. I largely agree that a nuanced approach to issues could be taken but likely won’t as the slightly deviation from ideological purity on the left will lead to accusations of nazism/fascism etc.
Pretty grim there Chris I think old people like us should stay out of it . Māori needs to be a compulsory subject taught in schools and the language as it was going become part of our life this fascist regime small ACT Big ACT and the old spice party need to be out of government and Māori and Pakeha Academia judges and maybe some trusted ex politicians need to have some input and let us start to see how this will look a co governance . I have no issues , it can be no worse than being ruled by bosons pledge, God forbid . I would rather a co governance situation any day than a far right coalition for which I will be marching on Parliament
Compulsory Maori? Why? Daft idea although pretty much already in place. Far better to stop all the cultural BS te Reo stuff and teach civics & health to all. As part of this they could briefly learn the basics of multiple cultures, not just Maori.
You want co-governance? I would be interested to hear what benefit you think it could bring? Indeed, is there anything you can name in Maori culture that we could not just lose completely tomorrow & be no worse off as a nation?
It is sentiments such as these, Just Boris, which will propel our nation towards serious civil strife.
That is unfortunate because it means there is civil strife that we need to have.
Sneaky minorities take on the majority at their peril.
Hi Boris
You realise you may have been born here but your ancestors immigrated to a country that belonged to someone else ? The English colonised this countrry slaughtered thousands of Māori while they were about it , the Māori never ceded ownership of this country they just signed a treaty with the Crown that gave them rights and we as a nation must honour because the crown said we would. I think the least you could do is read some history before you comment . My ancestors came hear to get away from a shithole world for poor people called Great Britain the part they came from was called Scotland . I am very happy to be here personally and would really like to see co governance work here but to do that everyone has to understand Māori culture . There is not much show with old rascists that just want to feel superior to everyone because they are white so as the Catholics do start on the kids and the people like me that are interested the rascists can sit in the corner and play like the old South Africans until white people are properly assimilated into the Māori culture then co governance will work properly .
Yo Steve. Some bullet points for you to chew on. Much like the musket balls all them other Maori dined on when they were being wiped out by Te Rauparaha and friends.
1. We all migrated here dude.
2. The English Govt, ie The Crown, did not 'turn up and slaughter thousands of Maori'. Hobson and co went to great lengths to protect Maori. Read Nigel Biggar (Colonialism - A Moral Reckoning) and you may understand the British were not nearly as bad as many make out. They could have wiped out Maori with a few more ships, but they tried the Treaty method as Vicki probably did not want more squabbles all the way down here. Dunno, but that was what they did.
3. "Maori never ceded Sovereignty'. If you mean they had no such thing to cede, then bravo chap, we agree. But if you contend they somehow retained that thing they did not have, and are somehow owed it today, then you cannot read. Both Treaty versions are clear that the Crown would govern the land. Read Bassett or even Sir Apirana Ngata. Ngata might be a good start at understanding the Maori version don't you reckon?
4. Great Britain 'a shithole'? Shame on you. Great Britain is (at least has been up to now...) a great country, a wonderful Empire and has delivered some of the greatest advances to society in history. If you are a Scot, then double shame on you and your haggis. Your lack of gratitude for a wonderful existence is pathetic.
5. Co-Governance as you suggest won't work. Has never worked anywhere. I don't need to understand Maori culture, it is not my culture. Others are free to embrace it, but I have no time for it for I find it lacking in so many ways.
6. I assume you meant to label me a 'racist'? How would skin colour even matter? That is just daft. I find British/European culture to be superior simply because, well, err, um, it is. In just about every way. Name me any significant area where Maori culture is superior? It is not mean to say this, it is simply a fact that one culture evolved in a busy & engaging part of the world, the other was stuck down here all alone and did not.
So, you failed to rise to my challenge, the points you made all failed and thus I suggest Sir that you are rather poorly informed on this matter.
Sorry that is a long and windy rhetorical load of old cobblers from my point of view . I don’t agree with anything you say , after a successful career I can tell you that the only things that work really well are the things that people say haven’t been successful or tried before . I am happy to listen to what Māori want as co governance and the reason that is because they are not run by any outside influences they only care about their land and themselves and I know what you will say to that but again I don’t care . I will vote that way as will plenty of other New Zealanders . The younger generation is not as racist as the boomer generation so it will happen . The English supplied the muskets to Te Raupraha so who’s to blame for that slaughter . If New Zealand is to go forward then people that don’t want to understand the culture should be offered repatriation to the land of their forefathers they are no use here
Look this is ancient history. A minority want to change the present day New Zealand? There is a process. Get on with it.
Creating a story, one of many possible stories about the past is fine. So get out there and sell it.
Attempting to impose a new world view is not the way to move forward; that way lies serious civil strife.
I couldn't agree more, John.
It was the blank refusal of Maori activists to respond forthrightly to journalists' questions about the sort of New Zealand they were hoping to build that inspired me, way back in 1995, to draw up my own "Constitution of the Bi-Cultural Republic of Aotearoa New Zealand". A better effort, even if I do say so myself, than the fuzzy conclusions of "Matike Mai Aotearoa".
Why should people buy something they haven't been allowed to inspect? If you want to sell it - show it.
Hmm, it seems a lot of the comments are by supporters of ACT's TPM.
Not much chance there of any recognition that the Treaty/Te Tiriti is in two languages.
One of the annoying aspects of Seymour is that he constantly says not one person has a coherent argument against his Bill. Blithely dismissing Finlayson, Shipley, Paler and many others as if they know nothing.
Looking forward.
I would not dismiss a Maori "parliament" so readily. It is easy to imagine a Maori elected body (voted on by those on the Maori roll)comparable to a TLA that had statutory authority over things Maori (Te Ture Whenua, Whanau Ora, Kura Kaupapa Schools, the Maori Health Authorities, etc). Both the allocation of the Maori appropriations by the New Zealand Parliament and the accountability for the expenditure meaning scrutiny of the entities spending the money.
The next "left" government might readily establish such an entity as part of their coalition agreement. Such a government is almost guaranteed in the elections of 2032 or 2035.
Or, the snap election of 2025, Wayne?
Why do you think there will be a snap election in the next 8 months?
It can't conceivably be in the interests of any of the three parties in government to cause such an election.
There is no burning platform that is the basis of such an election.
Certainly not constitutional.
And definitely not economic. The likely difficult economic situation caused by Trump argues for stability and continuity. In such circumstances governments try very hard to hold together, not cause even more instability by going for an out of cycle election.
In a sedate, predictable, and vaguely rational world, Wayne, your objections to the very idea of a snap election would be unanswerable.
Now, if you could just provide me with the universal co-ordinates, and point me in the direction of your interstellar vehicle, I'll be off and away to that happy world before you can say "right-wing populism".
Chris, you are the one who raised the prospect of a 2025 snap election.
You must have some basis to suggest it.
I just want to know why you made such a suggestion. Presumably you have heard something or have thought there is something in the current political environment that makes it possible enough to raise it.
Try the Politik website.
Thanks. It would appear sources ((Chief of Staff?) in NZF are talking to Richard Harman about this possibility. I am pretty sure it would not be Winston. I just can't see NZF precipitating a coalition crisis of this scale and neither can I see Seymour doing that. Difficulties, yes, but a snap election?
"The next "left" government might readily establish such an entity"
That would be almost universally despised, and it's proponents along with it, for very good reasons. It wouldn't be too surprising though, considering the sleazy introduction of the He Puapua agenda.
How about we forget about race altogether for a change, everyone has the same rights and responsibilities regardless of ancestry or "identity".
That would certainly be my preference, David, but for nearly 40 years it has been clear to me that, for a very substantial number of my fellow citizens, simply being a human-being is not enough. Their ethnicity trumps their humanity. The question thus becomes: "How do we deal with that cultural and political reality?"
"Their ethnicity trumps their humanity"
That may be true for some, and that's their choice I guess. It doesn't mean that our government, or our institutions should be involved; it belongs in the private sphere - same as religion. That's how we deal with it - by largely ignoring it.
Entrenching ethnicity into government and law (as Wayne has suggested/speculated) is a hell of a road to go down. Hopefully reasonable heads will prevail.
David,
Do you really see Maori giving up their aspirations?
I certainly don't, in fact it will get stronger. I know from my wider whanau how deeply the issue of Maori identity is felt, especially among younger Maori. The majority within the whanau having tertiary education and increasing positions of responsibility, including as MP's. In my view these aspirations will inevitably find some expression in governance.
What would be the problem if a Maori elective body had delegated authority from the Parliament to govern things that are quite clearly Maori?
Would a subsequent right leaning government think it worthwhile to abolish it if it was well established. In my view, probably not.
You don't find it a little odd that, as your wider whanau are already in "positions of responsibility, including as MP's", they aspire to governance based on race?
Perhaps it's really all about unearned and unaccountable power; protected and sanctioned by our despised Western institutions of course.
No, I don't find it odd. On matters such as Te Reo, Ture Whenua, Whanau Ora, etc, these are all seen as within the domain of te tino rangatiratanga. As such they all fit within the commitments the Crown made to Maori in Article 2 of the Treaty. Hence why Maori governance over these things is seen as appropriate. It is not a reaction to "despised western institutions."
I might add the relevant MP's are descended from the leaders of the Maori Battalion. They understand the price of citizenship. They regard as serving in the Parliament as an honour.
By what power would the "chiefs" exercise their authority though Wayne?
If it is to be by the power of the state (or The Crown) then that is where the authority must lie. What other mechanism is there? This is the fundamental flaw in the idea of co-governance.
The chiefs of the treaty, and their people lived in a world that no longer exists - save in the imagination of fools, frauds and firebrands.
No Left Turn. There is a conservative strategy driving the constitutional aspects - privatisation, conservation, common law and customary rights, even 'subsidiarity' - hence the ideological contest to define 'the rule of law' in the Courts. Parliament is struggling to represent contemporary constituencies, not helped by MMP. In the longer run perhaps Article Three is going to prove more problematic than Article Two with ACT having been left to occupy the high ground.
The Treaty was written with great care, and numerous rough notes were floated about. The final English draft was written by James Busby on 4 Feb 1840 and given to Rev Henry Williams and his son, both fluent speakers of Maori, for translation into the Maori language. It was this, the Maori language version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, which was the only one presented to Maori people and allowed to be signed by the Maori chiefs. Gov Hobson made this mandatory and only after ensuring total understanding and acceptance by all Maori.,
Te Tiriti O Waitangi states all the rights and protection to the "Chiefs Tribes and all the people of New Zealand"
Since the 1970's, vested interests have warped, twisted, re invented the Treaty to conform to goals since then being aggressively, belligerently, furthered.
Our Government must find a spine. We need to rein in the separation ideas. We must be 'One People' . Anything less, is bound to end catastrophically, to the detriment of our country and all our peoples.
Have our people read Sun Tzu, Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King et al
This country, our people, could be a beacon to the world if we achieve equality and harmony.
Bravo for critiquing your youthful thinking, Chris. That's healthy. A Constituent Assembly? I think this is as naively optimistic as my earlier hopes for a Royal Commission enquiry into the place of the treaties in NZ's future. My Royal Commission pursued a contest of ideas rather than a referendum's simplistic contest of numbers. But it would have foundered because it would be impossible to find truly impartial commissioners to consider issues on which views are so aggressively polarised already. And, because invested Māori would have insisted on 50:50 representation on the commissioner panel.
I fear that the same polarising of treaty opinion would pervert the honourable intentions of a Constituent Assembly. The Assembly could not avoid having to come to a position on the meaning and purpose of the original 1840 treaty, since today's openly seditious reconstructions of that treaty are the ground on which Māori nationalism stands and will defend at all costs. If the spirit of co-operation and consensus is to govern Assembly affairs, those radical constructions of the treaty will have to be appeased; radical Māori will not surrender the well-spring of their cause or the privileges they been gifted in response by feckless politicians. That means that the constitutional debate will be off to a corrupted start. It must accept to some extent that today's perversions of treaty meaning and intent are legitimate. Czechoslovakia speaks to us here. Peace in our time will not be possible. Appeasement will extinguish hope of a genuinely just determination of our constitutional future since it must accommodate the aryanising project of Māori, and its constitutionally corrosive anti-colonial agenda. The Assembly risks becoming complicit in the gathering alienation of non-Maōri from their country of birth (TPM's separation of the tangata whenua class from the settler class, the latter permitted to remain here at the discretion of the self-annointed racial exceptionalists).
So what are the safeguards, Chris?
Following, fascinating dialogue, am learning! Thanks
In some ways you have answered your own questions Chris. Without arguing the semantics of how the colonisation of NZ took place, the end result is where we are today. I believe your conclusion to your essay is about right, but IMO the justification for it isn’t.
We can look at the injustices that Maori have endured and sympathise with their stand to a point but the story is not all bad. The last thirty years have been pretty good. Progress has been made on many fronts. Treaty payouts have provided funds that Iwi are using to benefit their own. We are seeing Maori housing projects sprouting up, and we are seeing good representation of Maori in both local and national government, suggesting an acceptance of the colonial structure at a high level. We are seeing better numbers of Maori in professional jobs as in doctors and lawyers. What we are not seeing yet is Maori embracing education in the same way many Pakeha and other immigrants do, and the result is underachieving which ends up as low esteem and an unsatisfactory life.
The education issues are slowly changing. The land issues are slowly being dealt with so what is the real gripe that Maori have with our colonial government system. They are now a big part of it, I don’t get it. For me it comes down to a bitter Maori elite who although they are now a part of the system refuse to accept that system is for them. I believe most Maori would be happy with our existing system when it achieves a little more equity and when their children fully take advantage of the education offered to them giving them a better chance at life in a modern world. I don’t believe co governance will achieve that. Chris’s paragraph is a likely outcome sometime in the future
“At some point, a political party, or group of parties, will again present a constitutional proposition to the nation. Not a statement of principles this time, but a bill requiring the election of a constituent assembly charged with drawing-up a constitution which, when completed, will be presented to the New Zealand people for ratification”.
The problem, as I see it, Graeme, is that the advances of the past 30 years, while undeniable, have been enjoyed disproportionately by a Maori middle-class whose numbers have multiplied in tandem with the rolling-out of Treaty settlements.
For the Maori working-class, things have not gone so well. In their case the golden years were those between 1950 and 1985. A recent statistic communicated to me by Dr Chris Harris demonstrates the point neatly:
"In the face of forty years of economic restructuring and exploding house prices, Maori homeownership in Auckland has plummeted from over 50 percent in 1986 according to the 2020 Ngai Tahu Research Centre report 'The Impact of Housing Policy on Maori in Tamaki Makaurau', to just 18 percent as of the latest census, a figure given in Auckland's 'State of the City 2023' report."
As Dr Harris noted: "This is really a five-alarm sociological fire, given that a homeownership rate of 18 percent is significantly less than half of the homeownership rate for African-Americans today or for Northern Irish Catholics on the eve of the Troubles."
If the economic injustices inflicted upon Maori by neoliberal capitalism are ever recognised as clearly as the historical injustices inflicted by colonisation, then the Revolution cannot be far off.
Point taken Chris. In Hawkes bay I have noticed Iwi housing projects popping up, some in quite poor areas, however the pressure of the huge numbers requiring housing, or wanting home ownership in the Auckland area especially are enormous with your figures highlighting just how large a problem it is. I agree the political unrest resulting from this situation is and will be significant. I guess my question for those wanting governance over their own, is how will they improve that situation any quicker. The duplication of administration and services just eating up more of the financial resources required. Of course central government will always get blamed for not coughing up enough.
What ever happened to a good old fashioned class analysis Chris?
See above ;-)