Timely release of special report
It’s a timely coincidence that the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights and fundamental freedoms of indigenous people in New Zealand has been released this week - the same week that the Maori electoral option opened, greeted by claims of “state-sanctioned separatism” by the National Party.
The report makes for interesting reading, and is available online here. Helen Clark has already called it “unbalanced”, but I have a feeling many Maori will feel differently. It recommends, among other things, that the Treaty of Waitangi should be constitutionally entrenched, and that the Foreshore and Seabed Act should be repealed or amended. Big calls. No wonder the Government is not welcoming them with open arms!
Bookmark to:
April 4th, 2006 at 2:11 pm
Does Meteria seriously believe this?
“I strongly believe that the Maori electoral option should be open all the time, not just every five years. The fact that Maori are forced to wait for five years to change from one roll to the other is frankly undemocratic.
“A Maori voter might make the decision to move to the Maori roll might because they are unsatisfied with the representation they are getting from candidates on the general roll. Yet because the option only opens every five years, they are forced to stay on the general roll for the next election. This seriously undermines the democratic process and highlights the structural inequalities for Maori of the Westminster system we operate under.”
As a non-Maori, where do I go if should I ever become unsatisfied with the representation I’m getting from Marion Hobbs?
April 4th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
Frog - that was a carefully worded post. Do you agree with the findings?
April 5th, 2006 at 8:01 am
I don’t know about Frog, but I understand “entrenchment” as being the end result of a process that brings the treaty language to a constitutional convention that then resolves Maori rights in language that IS enforceable and does make sense. If you examine the document even briefly, the precursor to the entrenchment statement is that the language of the treaty in its various linguistic forms is contradictory and difficult to apply as law. I take the statement to mean that it needs to be sorted out and made a regular part of the constitution we don’t really have.
The wisest course of action for government at this point, would be to ask for clarification of the “entrenchment” phrase, as this has been seized on by several people to simply mean embedding the current treaty AS-IS in a constitution. My own take on the meaning is different, and I regard those people as willfully mis-understanding the meaning of the statement.
Then IMHO, and I am not yet a citizen so it is a VERY humble opinion, the constitutional convention should be joined with Maori having an EQUAL representation at the convention. Power at the convention is divided 50-50, and it must be separately ratified by Maori and Pakeha before being effective. Can it be done? Probably, and with difficulty, but it is the only way to actually deal with the issues that the treaty, which embeds racial discrimination in NZ society, has created. Whether a constitution based on it would pass UN review is another issue.
I think that that should also be a question posed to the commission, just to make sure they understand the real nature of what they’ve proposed.
A Constitution based on the treaty will almost inevitably divide the population along the Maori/Pakeha line. That’s inherent in the treaty itself. Different heritage, different rights, at least different voting options.
I suggest, without expecting it to be taken up, that a constitution that creates not just dual electoral roles but in fact a dual parliamentary system, would be required to properly capture the intent of the treaty. The parliaments must BOTH agree to a measure for it to become law. Such a system has no precedent I know of, but such a government COULD make laws that are enforceable on all citizens equally and would have the moral authority to “own” the seabed and foreshore.
Just my $0.05 ( two cents US ) .
respectfully
BJ
April 5th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I have thought a lot about the treaty. It gives Pakeha the right to settle here on land we have paid for; the crown/ govt has the right to make laws, however, the chiefs still have authority over tribal lands and fisheries. In essence the Maori own everything and we only own our backyards and municipal bouroughs (or something). In the official (objective?) census we are New Zealand Europeans, but Maoris ethnicity is of no interest.
The Greens see nothing amiss with a nation where an ethnic group own/control/ have authority over the foreshore and seabed etc (for the next 1000 years and beyond). Justice must be done or “blood will flow”. One must consider the “Maori world view” where Maori have inherited Kaitiaki Responsibilities (KR’s) and have knowlege past down from the spirit world. I think Forest and Bird do a great job with their “Best Fish Guide”.
Henry
April 5th, 2006 at 11:42 am
“It gives Pakeha the right to settle here on land we have paid for”
Thought that was the nub of the problem. We often did not pay for the land, if payment was made it was often seen more of a rental not a permanent arrangement, or if it was seen as a normal sale the sale price was too low?
If the European settlers didn’t destroy the growing economic base of the Maori in the 1800’s we would not be having treaty settlements and probably not Maori seats in parliament (perhaps Pakeha seats anyone
)
April 5th, 2006 at 8:58 pm
The crux of the matter is this: 90% of white New Zealand (of which I am one) are, if not proud of our ‘colonial record’, at least relieved that our track record in host peoples treatment is far better than almost anywhere else. A quick glance over the Tasman is all it takes to assuage a lot of guilt!
I’m not saying this is right or wrong, just that this explains why even the Greens are none too keen to embrace the UN findings.
April 6th, 2006 at 10:34 am
When you say our treatment of Maori was better than most treatment of colonised peoples, I think you mean that we were usually shit scared that Maori patience would eventually run out and they’d kick our sorry arses back to Europe. Consequently, our theft of their resources and decimation of their society was carried out more gradually and cautiously than in some other countries. This we then cleverly presented as evidence of our humanitarianism.
The colonial government here has been nothing less than barbaric in its treatment of Maori, but you do have to give them credit for a certain amount of low animal cunning.
April 6th, 2006 at 1:09 pm
For sure. But as long as Mr & Mrs White And Middle Class can look across the Tasman and say, “hey! At least our grandfathers didn’t try to eliminate their race right up until the 70s”, a report like this is not going to generate a lot of traction here.
Anyway, do the Greens agree with the report or not???
April 7th, 2006 at 4:18 am
CitFoldGlue - I don’t think we are organized so that agreement or disagreement is simply determined. We have principles that guide us, but to ask whether the PARTY agrees with some specific report that not half the members have yet read through? Each of us will answer the question individually and eventually a consensus will emerge.
respectfully
BJ
April 12th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
*sigh*
Do you, BJ, agree with the findings? How about other Green members? I voted Greens, my partner is a member, but we both agree with Helen on this one.
April 12th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
I would have to read it through several times to say I agree or disagree. I have not the time to complete that task once at present, and the likely result would be partial. The document is not without size, and it covers a lot of ground.
I noted SOME of what I agreed with in a post earlier in this thread. In particular the need for a constitution that entrenches treaty principles but without using those words that make the treaty itself a support system for an several armies of lawyers, litigants and expert witnesses.
I may have read it differently than most Kiwis will… there are some trick words in English. “Tabled” means the opposite thing in American to the way it is understood here, and entrenched means something a little different perhaps as well.
A point of disagreement, I don’t think that the report sufficiently considers the divisive aspect of the treaty. That document does not provide any clear picture of how the people can be divided into Iwi and Pakeha and still united as a country. The instant the constitutional convention formalizes such a division there will be a new report written critical of our racist constitution, with no notice of the fact that the treaty itself binds us to exactly that.
I personally think that NZ SHOULD consider setting out on the path to getting itself a formal constitution. It can recognize the Queen or not, no matter really. The important thing is that it creates a formal framework for the laws we currently enjoy and limits to the powers the state currently exercises over us. Also, by clarifying the words and superseding the treaty, it would clear the air considerably…
I think it would save us money in the long run… but I shudder to think what an army of unemployed lawyers could do to the country.
That’s ALL I can say, I skimmed the few points that I was hearing bandied about on the radio. I have not any knowledge of other provisions.
Sorry, but I am REALLY busy… and I would as soon pet a cobra as try to get Iwi and Pakeha delegates to agree on anything as powerful as an actual constitution.
respectfully
BJ
April 13th, 2006 at 8:25 am
BJ
I have heard/read our legal experts commenting from time to time that we do, in fact, have the equivalent of your “American Constitution” in the body of our laws etc … with the real advantage that it therefore updates itself regularly! (This, a legacy of “New Zealand”, as a British Colony, originally operating under the British system which had evolved over many centuries.)
These knowledgeable people see this as a good way of doing things, and “Constitutional Law” is an important part of our legal system and legal training.
As a side thought … I wonder how well the much vaunted talisman of “the American Constitution” is performing in the current goings on in (and of) the USA ?
eredwen
April 13th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
Eredwen - Touche’ !
It worked for a long time, until the education of the people, who after all must shoulder the burden of self-government, failed.
As to the reasons, many and complex they are, but Jefferson and Franklin both warned that the current goings-on in the USA and its subsequent loss of freedom would be inevitable. I doubt either of them would have speculated on the government lasting 200 years. They seemed to expect the need to water the tree of liberty would arise far sooner.
As may be, I have heard such opinions as well. Unfortunately they do not serve when confronted with the treaty. The legal eagles who think a Constitution unnecessary are the beneficiaries several times over, of the treaty’s fundamentally fuzzy verbiage.
respectfully
BJ