by Catherine Delahunty
A couple of bloggers who comment on the performance of Maori MPs have recently included me in their analysis because of the Te Tiriti focus in my political work. One of them commented that I am a “born again Maori” whose heart is in the right place. It is flattering to be included but curious that some cannot see that my work is driven by a commitment to Te Tiriti, not a yearning to have a whakapapa I do not have.
My whakapapa includes a strong Irish tradition of activism and my education has included a grounding in Te Tiriti, the articles and the relationships. My understanding is that all of us who are not tangata whenua are Tangata Tiriti, the people who benefit from the 1840 agreement which is yet to be honoured but which gives us status under Article 1. The honouring of the agreement is our responsibility as beneficiaries of the agreement. If we don’t take on this challenge we are occupiers, not honourable negotiators, because majority rule isn’t any part of the arrangements Te Tiriti offers us. So I see nothing odd about standing up for Te Tiriti rights be it a land issue or a polluted river or a matter of social justice, water or education.
I speak out on Te Tiriti issues because it is the responsibility of all of us, Pakeha or tauiwi from other places to monitor the Crown actions in our name. If we are part of the kawanatanga or non-Maori governance structure we have to make sure that we keep our representatives up to scratch and committed to the fairness which has yet to be implemented in this country.
This is not simply a theoretical position – it means going on hikoi, speaking out with respect to Te Tiriti and often being misunderstood as either a traitor to western assumptions of legitimate dominance or a wannabe Maori. I have learned from some of the best who work on these issues that silence is consent. Some of us believe this could be a better country if Te Tiriti was fully honoured in local, regional and national life and that all of us would benefit.
We celebrate progress and we challenge unexamined privilege, I am grateful to my mentors both Maori and Pakeha who keep me at least attempting to play a useful role. Pakeha like Mitzi Nairn who started anti-racism work in Auckland years ago, Professor David Williams who is leading Treaty lawyer and Christine Herzog of the Treaty Resource Centre to name but a few.
I am also proud to be in the Green Party where our constitution upholds the indigenous text of Te Tiriti. It is a bit of a shame that my voice is noted as unusual, after all it takes two to tango, and Tangata Tiriti really cannot rely on the Government of the day to make this work. We need to engage critically to make sure our side of the bargain is something we can all be proud of.
Published in Justice & Democracy | Society & Culture by Catherine Delahunty on Fri, August 10th, 2012
More posts by Catherine Delahunty | more about Catherine Delahunty
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Loading...
“My understanding is that all of us who are not tangata whenua are Tangata Tiriti, the people who benefit from the 1840 agreement which is yet to be honoured but which gives us status under Article 1. The honouring of the agreement is our responsibility as beneficiaries of the agreement.”
How can we be beneficiaries of an agreement which has not been put into effect? In fact we are beneficiaries of the use of force that allowed us, or our ancestors, to settle here whether Maori liked it or not.
It always seems to me that the term ‘tangata tiriti’ is liberal hogwash. No Maori was ever consulted when my ancestors chose to settle here, nor were Maori consulted on the policy that governed immigration. No Treaty clause makes control of immigration the right of those who hold ‘kawanatanga’ and no government bureaucrat considered Article 1 of the Treaty when deciding to admit my ancestors, so on what basis am I ‘Tangata Tiriti’?
Like or Dislike:
9 
8 (+1)
Good to debate this, are you saying Te Tiriti is meaningless because its been breached? I think Te Tiriti has the potential to holld the Crown to acount, the past dealings have not been fair but i would rather be party to a Te Tiriti relationship than a war – and if it to be a positive force in our life then we are going to be the beneficiaries, but I don’t expect everyone to agree. I have met people who don’t want to be connected to the Crown, but all western thinking from anarchism to neo liberalism is still operating within a western framework, for me Te Tiriti is the opportunity to reframe the discussion of our political life and have a new negotiation, being an invader just isn’t building justice based change. My ancestors arrived from Ireland with their own experience of oppression and their racism, can we do better?
Like or Dislike:
6 
7 (-1)
The Treaty wasn’t ‘breached’ it was never put into effect. Why do you ask if I think it’s ‘meaningless’ – nothing I said implies that. I only discussed the term ‘tangata tiriti’ – I diodn’t say anything about the Treaty.
“I think Te Tiriti has the potential to holld the Crown to acount,”
Actually it’s not ‘Te Tiriti’ that allows Maori to hold the crown to account – it’s the legislation the crown has put into effect which has almost nothing to do with the Treaty – it’s more of a case of the so-called ‘Treaty’ legislation superseding the text of the Treaty itself. The crown has never agreed to be accountable to the Treaty. that would be too challenging. It has only acknowledged the so-called ‘principles’ of the Treaty, which bear little actual relationship to the articles of the Treaty, and which the crown wrote unilaterally.
“the past dealings have not been fair but i would rather be party to a Te Tiriti relationship than a war”
So would I – I’d like to believe there are fairies at the bottom of the garden too – but any realistic reading of our history tells us that we (Pakeha) have been much more beneficiaries of a war, than of a treaty. It was the wars of the 19th century that established New Zealand’s pattern of governance and land ownership, not the Treaty.
“I have met people who don’t want to be connected to the Crown, but all western thinking from anarchism to neo liberalism is still operating within a western framework”
Well of course western thinking is operating within a western frmaework, what’s your point?
“for me Te Tiriti is the opportunity to reframe the discussion of our political life and have a new negotiation”
I agree on the need to reframe the discussion and have a new negotiation, but this is unrelated to Te Tiriti, and suggests the Treaty is lacking, so why this ‘tangata tiriti’ phrase? To say the Treaty – a formal agreement – is “is the opportunity to reframe the discussion of our political life and have a new negotiation” suggests that when you say ‘Te Tiriti” you are treating the Treaty as something other than what it is – there’s nothing in the text that suggests the need for new negotiation – what do you actually mean when you say ‘Te Tiriti’?
“being an invader just isn’t building justice based change.”
Of course not, but historically, the crown is an invader, like it or not. We can’t just pretend it wasn’t because it would have been nicer, or more just, if it had been that way.
Like or Dislike:
11 
1 (+10)
Like or Dislike:
7 
1 (+6)
Mine was an uptick.
Totally agree that this Tangata Tiriti is hogwash for 80% of New Zealanders. They simply dont care enough about the treaty to worry about it.
Treaty is only kept alive by acadamia students, tutors plus politicans and treaty layers.
Walk any street and ask the people about Tangata Tiriti. Blank stares will be the answers on the relevance of it in todays NZL multi cultural society.
Rodney Hide summed it up best in his NZ Herald column.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10826283
Like or Dislike:
8 
4 (+4)
Questions about most matters of that level of sophistication would provoke blank stares from the public. Should we ditch everything that’s not found between the covers of Womans Weekly?
Like or Dislike:
9 
3 (+6)
greenfly,
I said Tangata Tiriti as a concept is irrelevant to most people. Moast people see themselves as New Zealanders of equal status, not seperated by colour or birthrights Not tangata this or tangata that.
The treaty has but minor importance in everyday life for most people.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5 (+2)
Like or Dislike:
6 
3 (+3)
greenfly,
Mused over porridge about your thoughts
Elistist love to denigrade. Greens starting to sound like Labour.
You can understand what I’m saying, but dont think anyone else can?
You better then the rest?
Ill versed are we? I think what the rest of us think is not ill versed at all but reflective of where the treaty train is heading.
Seperatism, plain and simple.
But if that is what the Greens want in this democracy, go ahead and run the election on it.
Bet the Greens wont run an election caimpaign on a seperated New Zealanders along, us Tangata this and you Tagata that, lines.
While not native myself, my children, grandchildren and great grand children are definately Tangata Whenua and if the Greens/Mana dont like that, tough.
We are here to stay and will participate fully in the New Zeraland democracy where we are all equal.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
Gerrit, you seem to be sayingh something completely different to me – I’m saying the term ‘tangata tiriti’ (and the weak analysis that goes with it) is liberal hoqwash, you seem to be objecting to the Treaty itself being considered important.
The Rodney Hide quote shows a similar misunderstanding. The Treaty text is almost entirely ignored by government. And in any case, is Hide recommending we ignore every ‘tatty old text’? Do we chuck out our British legal traditions because they are old? Our international agreements that are currently inconvenient? Hide is bullshitting – it’s not the irrelevance or otherwise to modern government that he dislikes about the Treaty, but the possible recognition of values that are not his own and the recognition of Maori property rights. If he was honest, he’d say this, rather than trying to pretend its the age of the Treaty that matters.
“They simply dont care enough about the treaty to worry about it.”
Probably true – but the same can be said about a lot of things. Most people are too busy dealing with the pressures of everyday life to give much thought to the causes of those pressures. This is a matter of concern rather than something to be brushed off.
“my children, grandchildren and great grand children are definately Tangata Whenua”… “Moast people see themselves as New Zealanders of equal status, not seperated by colour or birthrights Not tangata this or tangata that”
Make up your mind.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
Sam,
No, the treaty can only be honored if the two faction can be divided along Tangata Whenua and Tangata Tiriti lines.
Only by having the birthright seperatism can the treaty train continue.
I have made up my mind. We are ALL Tangata Whenua and as such the treaty is null and void. It is meaningless (the treaty) unless you can seperate the races in a racist fashion.
How in a democracy you can have seperatism where less then 15% of the population, seperated by race, have “rights” above the rest is strange to me.
I’m like Catherine Delahunty though
Just that I see unexamined privilege as where one race is deemed more equal then ALL others in an equal democracy.
I celebrate progress towards an equal democracy, irrespective of race or birthrights.
But look forward to the Greens having policies of seperatism on the agenda at the next election so that the people of this democracy can vote for or against “unexamined privilege”.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4 (0)
What you are advocating is that we get to impose our culture, government and legal traditions on Maori, and deny them property rights, since we are the majority. (Is that right? If it isn’t please explain your position, as that’s what I take from your words)
Rodney Hide, in his factually incorrect and generally rambling and absurd commentary you linked to earlier, ends by calling for parliament to declare the English version of the Treaty to be recognised. I presume he know’s this isn’t going to happen, otherwise he wouldn’t be demanding that: “Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;”
Note that’s “full, exclusive and undisturbed” which means a huge chunk of New Zealand would have to be returned to its previous owners. No negotiation, no deals, no trade offs, just hand it back.
Rodney can’t even get his biblical history right. The thing that concerns me, though, is that he uses the vague and hesitant Treaty analysis of many social democrats, as exemplified by Catherine’s ‘Tangata Tiriti’ term, as a means of attack. If people insist on creating a framework for dealing with the injustices of colonisation that isn’t rooted in our real history, which pretends the Treaty says things it doesn’t (such as creating a ‘partnership’), then this form of attack is easy to carry out.
Like or Dislike:
6 
2 (+4)
That birthright separatism exists in the House of Lords in Great Britain too, and it does not appear to have impeded their actual ability to provide something similar to a working democracy.
I do suggest that if we want “one law for everyone” we work towards putting the birthright separatism into a compartment somewhat removed from the public, that guarantees the Maori a reasonable and continuous representation, with real power, in a government that makes laws that we all must obey.
That is the only way through this I can see. We have to have something to replace the Treaty that gives the Maori a realistically comparable power to that the Treaty itself provides for in its “birthright separatist” way… or we have to live with the perpetual carping and legalistic nattering of our lawyers and tribal representatives and all the rest… in perpetuity.
Long overdue is a Constitutional Convention for this country.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Worth remembering that it was Maori who first demanded ‘one law for all’ (“Kotahi te ture mo nga iwi e rua” as Rua Kenana put it). This was rejected by the Crown.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
“We are ALL Tangata Whenua and as such the treaty is null and void.”
Declaring yourself ‘Tangata Whenua’ (in the wacky tradition of Trevor Mallard) is irrelevant – the Treaty doesn’t mention ‘Tangata Whenua’.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
As a socialist I disagree with birthright separatism.
Apart from what should be everyone’s birthright in a country like ours. Enough to basically live on, feed, house and look after ones health and reasonably participate in society. A minimum income..
Everything else should have to be earned according to ones contribution to society.
This is closer to original Maori ideas of property, and European Ideas of the commons (Such as the “Charter of the Forest) than current arrangements.
RWNJ’s, however are totally inconsistent in asking for “one rule for all”.
They expect property rights they have gained in the “Ovarian lottery” (Hat tip to W Buffet) to be respected, but not those of Maori.
If we allow wealthy Pakeha to hang onto ill gotten gains then it is a moral imperative to at least try and compensate Maori in some way for the loss of land, they owned.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Sam,
Catherine divides the people of New Zealand along these lines
So the treaty does not define Tangata Whenua?
Why then the reference to Tangata Tiriti as having status?
And is this status in relation to Tangata Whenua? If yes then Tangata Whenu is referenced in the treaty.
I guess that is the problem with an ill defined (179 word) treaty, open to all sorts of interpretation?
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Kerry,
Problem is not the rectification of past wrongs. That is fair and reasonable. Even RWNJ can agree to that. And what that has to do with property rights is beyond my simple understanding.
Socialism wont work if we have privately owned (Tangata Whenua or Tangata Tiriti) property. You cant return any property to private entities, only back to the state.
What the Greens are proposing is a seperate ruling entity created by birthright. That is totally against the principals of both democracy and socialism.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
Correct.
“Why then the reference to Tangata Tiriti as having status?”
Beats me.
“And is this status in relation to Tangata Whenua? If yes then Tangata Whenu is referenced in the treaty.”
They aren’t.
“I guess that is the problem with an ill defined (179 word) treaty, open to all sorts of interpretation?”
Nope, the Treaty isn’t “ill defined” or open to interpretation, and its brevity makes it easier to understand, not more difficult. The problem is that its all too clear (as I noted above in response to Hide’s call for the English text to be recognised), and consequently such things as ‘Treaty principles’ have been invented to muddy the waters.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1 (+5)
The past wrongs were the removal of property rights. In Western terms.
RWNJ’s who say the treaty is irrelevant are denying the property rights by inheritance they claim for themselves.
Socialism is not inconsistent with property rights. It is inconsistent with the accumulation of unearned wealth simply because someone was born to wealthy parents.
One of the reasons why Greece’s poor are still better off than Britain’s is that Greece still has commons. (Village land) In Britain the commons were stolen..
Like or Dislike:
4 
2 (+2)
“Elistist love to denigrade. Greens starting to sound like Labour.”
Aside from “elitists” and “denigrate”, what the Sam Hill are you talking about? There was no ‘elitism’, nor was there any ‘denigration’. I’m wondering if your porridge might have been the sort that has the little fingernail clippings in it.
“Ill versed are we? I think what the rest of us think is not ill versed at all but reflective of where the treaty train is heading.”
You may think that, Gerrit, and believe that New Zealanders, armed with all of the facts of the matter of the Treaty, have decided that it’s irrelevant, but I don’t agree at all. It seems to me that general knowledge of the Treaty is very shallow. I don’t believe it is taught to any great depth at school, it’s not commonly described or discussed in the popular media and most of those who I talk to about it and hold a negative view, seem also to have dismissed it prior to having explored the details of the Treaty or the argument that supports it. If that’s “elitism”; believing that the majority of New Zealanders haven’t studied the thing to any significant depth, then so be it. That’s what I mean by “ill-versed” – we’ve not generally applied ourselves to learning what’s needed to make a rational decision on the issue. If saying so is to “denigrate” other New Zealanders, then I guess I’m guilty as charged but it seems to me that you are granting most of us more credit than we deserve around this issue.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1 (+4)
It’s not just elitism based on birthright here though, it’s worse than that. Maori have full rights on both sides of the treaty. They are ‘the crown’ as much as anyone else, as that catch-all term includes everyone. But non-maori appear to be unable to be on the ‘other’ side.
I’ll repeat what I’ve said many times.
Tangata Whenua = all born New Zealanders.
We are all immigrants
When the first Maori stepped ashore, were they Tangata Whenua then? I’d suggest not. So at what point or by what criteria did those immigrants become so? And by the same token by what criteria do the later immigrants NOT become Tangata Whenua??
The treaty is a crock.
By all means settle historical claims but please PLEASE lets move on from this divisive racial crap. I marched against apartheid back ‘then’ I’m even more opposed to it now.
Like or Dislike:
5 
3 (+2)
In respect of the Treaty, it is an agreement between the crown and Rangatira. It’s not a matter of ‘Maori’ being on both sides. A lot of people, of all political shades, seem intent on seeing the Treaty in racial terms. It is not, and never has been, an agreement between races.
“By all means settle historical claims but please PLEASE lets move on from this divisive racial crap.”
This “divisive racial crap” is mostly about historical claims. The trouble is that many, again of all political shades, aren’t prepared to settle historical claims. They think they can throw a few dollars at Maori and ‘move on’, without recognising the colonial nature of New Zealand law and government, let alone doing anything about it.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2 (+3)
You are missing the point. The treaty was not a statement of what was before the conflict between the Maori and the Brits. It is a settlement BETWEEN the Maori and the Brits, and in it at that time, the difference was perfectly clear to everyone. Only now is there confusion and that, only because people have forgotten (as they are not mentioned here) the wars.
Since it is a treaty in settlement of a conflict it dates from the time of that conflict and settles things between the people who were here before the Brits came and the British Crown, not us.
However, it remains binding on us all, as our rights here are subsequent to that treaty and reliant on it. I see a lot of nonsense above. I would disagree with “birthright separatism” as well Kerry, but for the fact of the treaty. Given what it is and how it came to be I do not see ANY recourse other than that “birthright separatism” in some form to fairly implement it, unless the Maori themselves, of their own will, allow for that recourse.
That is their right according to the treaty itself, and only they have the power to set it aside. That power does not rest in the hands of the majority, or of the Crown, or of any other entity on earth. It is theirs.
Hence my notion of bringing it into the government rather than into the courts, and neutralizing it with respect to the larger community. I am not married to any solution but I should hope that there would be some solution that will work, because I am sick of watching lawyers making so much of so little for so long.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
So, theoretically, it’s possible that a white guy can be born onto a bit of earth, maybe called New Zealand, and depending on what is said on an old piece of paper that young child could be trespassing – at birth (???). Can anybody see how inherently wrong this is?
The treaty is not honorable because our ancestors had no right to state who owns what on this earth that is “god given”, with respect to the coming generations. If anything is to be anyone’s natural birth right it is equal ownership (or ‘custodianship’) to this natural earth. Contracts that contradict this principle are illegitimate – or should be respected as so. You can’t (shouldn’t) make deals on what is not yours to make deals over in the first place – ie, the next generations land. Burn the treaty.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Sam
Holy cow, now I have seen everything.
Absolute it is between races, how else can the two sides be divided? The division is between races of people.
One side is Maori, the other is All races of people who arrived after them.
I cant become a Maori (even if my honorary middle name is Ranganui) simply because of my birth race. So I will always be seperated by race, I cannot join the Maori race.
Please, lets not delude ourselves.
Problem is that the historical claims cannot ever be settled without as BJ says Maori agreeing that they are. Likelyhood of that happening is zero. The treaty train is full steam ahead.
So what is your answer? How do we un-recognise this “colonial nature” of law and government?
What do you envisage as a wokable and equal democracy? Or dont you see an equal democracy for New Zealand?
You see a seperate Maori parliament as desired by the Mana party?
A seperate parliamant, selected by 15% of the population that has binding power over the rest of New Zealanders parliament?
What will it take?
Like or Dislike:
3 
5 (-2)
Actually Gerrit, it is a treaty between the signatory tribes and the Queen of England and those who inherit status from that side in the signing.
My understanding is that the tribes can bring in anyone they like – and as a member of one of the tribes you would be on the other side of the treaty.
It is EFFECTIVELY a division on racial grounds, but it is legally and technically between the tribes and the crown, not the “race” of Maori and the crown.
My suggestion is a Constitutional convention… one is long long overdue here, and an agreement that supersedes the treaty and ensures the status and power of the tribes in a more reasonable way. The treaty is VERY difficult legally… quite vague in some ways, and it is not unlikely that it was written to be precisely that.
We really can do better.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
BJ,
All for a constitutional convention. I cannot see a way out of the current impass without one.
Be interested if the Greens were keen to start to discuss a constitutional framework (leave a timeline out for now).
I suggest that we use as a starting point the Canadian constitution.
http://www.mapleleafweb.com/features/canadian-constitution-introduction-canada-s-constitutional-framework/
They have included degrees of autonomy for Quebec and aboriginal tribes into their constritution whilst being derived from the principles of the Magna Carta.
Lets at least start talking about what a New Zealand constitution might contain.
Would be a major differentiation for the Greens (showing leadership) over the Labour party to begin the process. Who knows Russel might be PM yet!
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
No treaty should ever be in perpetuity. How dare our forebears assume that what they agree upon be binding, in every detail, upon all who follow. (apart from anything else, where else would a contract with two differing versions be acceptable).
Any treaty should have a compulsory ‘sunset clause’ (say 99 years, thats already 4 generations).
By the way what happens when those with a molecule of Maori blood become more than 50% of the population? Will ‘the others’ be the minority? Will ‘maori’ become ‘the crown’.
It’s a crock. Great for the lawyers though!
Like or Dislike:
2 
3 (-1)
“No treaty should ever be in perpetuity.”
So Tainui, Ngai Tahu, Ngati Tuhoe et al could say, deal over, interlopers. It’s all ours again, bugger off!
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
greenfly,
Absolutely and you can imagine the resulting civil war. There are many on both sides of the fence that would dearly like to see such confrontation.
We have to find a way to prevent that.
BJ idea of a constitution is the only solution.
What would you like to see in the New Zealand constitution?
Not directly constitutional but I would start by adopting Aotearoa as the official name and a black silver fern flag as the replacement of the Australian styled one.
Could even go with the Maori Indepenence flag it we had the addition of a blue and a green scroll to signify we ALL came across the water to settle this furtile land.
As I said not constitutional, but at least a rallying point.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
One solution is when we are all mixed. Which is happening fast anyway.
I think a lasting solution will end up someway between “the commons” and the Maori tradition of guardianship.
It will not come from allowing private entities to grab “the commons” which were Maori owned, for private profit, while excluding Maori.
At some stage though we will all have to accept that compensation has been made to the extent it is fair, reasonable and possible.
Going back to pre 1840 is no more possible than those of Pictish descent claiming the UK.
I too feel uncomfortable when a politician, whose father was from the UK, claims he has more right to be here than myself, because of about 1/8 Maori blood, if that. Maybe he should get 1/8th of treaty settlements?
My parents, grandparents and great grandparents were Pakeha New Zealanders. One was one of the first Pakeha/Maori in NZ.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
Oh dear Greenfly, you’re normally smarter than that.
Just who should ‘bugger off’? Those with non Maori blood?
Gee that’s everybody.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Nope, the British crown is not a race. Rangatira are not a race. Iwi that didn’t sign are as Maori as those which did.
The Treaty is an agreement between (most of) the leadership of the original owners of New Zealand and the British crown.
If you see the Treaty as representing a wider concept than the actual agreement, as Catherine and others appear to do, you could say its between the original owners (99.9% Maori plus a handful of Pakeha who had been adopted into iwi) and those who came under the auspices of the British crown (mostly European but including a whole lot of others including Pacific Islanders and Chinese).
Currently, Treaty negotiations take place between representatives of iwi (of a wide mixture of races) and representatives of the Government (of a wide mixture of races).
So why do you define the Treaty as between races?
The rather pointless comments about mixed ancestry above do bear out the point that this is not about race.
Like or Dislike:
4 
1 (+3)
“Problem is that the historical claims cannot ever be settled without as BJ says Maori agreeing that they are. Likelyhood of that happening is zero. The treaty train is full steam ahead.”
Actually a whole bunch of iwi have agreed that their historical claims have been settled. Problem is, this agreement was reached by the Crown saying “this is all we are offering, take it or leave it” which has resulted in grumpy acquiescence, rather than genuine agreement.
“So what is your answer? How do we un-recognise this “colonial nature” of law and government?”
Not a matter of ‘un-recognising” it, it’s a matter of de-colonising it. That means incorporating a hefty degree of tikanga into law and government practices. Doesn’t mean dropping everything European or accepting everything Maori. Does mean incorporating much more Maori practice than just ceremonial stuff. I don’t see this as easy.
“What do you envisage as a wokable and equal democracy? Or dont you see an equal democracy for New Zealand?”
That’s a huge question. I believe in direct democracy rather than representative democracy, so I’d prefer to see a whole raft of local communities practicing their own democratic culture rather than a centralised single system. If the latter continues, my best hope would be for something rather cobbled together as I’ve described above.
“You see a seperate Maori parliament as desired by the Mana party?”
Nope. I don’t agree with separatism on a national scale. Don’t much like it on a small scale either, but if some bunch of people want to live in a community with only descendants of a certain ethnic group, I can’t really stop them.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
“So, theoretically, it’s possible that a white guy can be born onto a bit of earth, maybe called New Zealand, and depending on what is said on an old piece of paper that young child could be trespassing – at birth (???). Can anybody see how inherently wrong this is?”
This isn’t theoretical at all – this is the practice in some European and Middle Eastern countries (probably others, I don’t know for sure), where birth doesn’t result in automatic citizenship.
“You can’t (shouldn’t) make deals on what is not yours to make deals over in the first place – ie, the next generations land.”
So you’d scrap inheritance laws, and have land returned to some sort of common pool on the owners’ death? I’m generally OK with that idea, but I don’t think it could work within a capitalist system, or one bounded by states. At a community level I think it would work.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1 (+2)
I don’t know if I would go so far as to scrap inheritance entirely.
Just enough so that one family cannot accumulate ever increasing unearned wealth over generations.
I think it is reasonable to allow inheritance of say, the value of a reasonable house and section.
They did it in UK for a while with death duties. Hence all the stately homes handed over to the Heritage trust.
Productive land should maybe be leasehold only.
Allowing for people, such as sharemilkers, to buy their way into a farming business without having to make huge capital gains to cover mortgage interest.
But. You cannot, as the rednecks want to do, take away Maori inheritance rights only.
I think it was Hone or Peter Sharples (Can’t remember which) who said. “Fine, We will give up the foreshore and seabed into common ownership, so long as the same thing happens to FS and SB owned by Pakeha”.
I think in that there lies an answer..
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Kerry,
I’m confused by your statement.
No family (whanue) inherentence. Cool. But are you suggesting that Maori families are excluded and are not required to dis-inherent their offsprings?
Yep that will make for an equal democracy.
How about tribal owned assets?
If they can keep their investment flowing from one generation to the next, I will start my own iwi.
Productive land lease hold only? You saying to Maori (and all other peoples) that they have to give up their lands to the state?
Good luck with that as it is a clear breach of the treaty and about as likely to fly as to the moon as I am.
State socialism wont work under the treaty as it stands for it requires all assets to be owned by the state. Taking away ownership from iwi and hapu.
Or are you suggesting that Maori entities can hold private land but the rest of New Zealanders cannot?
Got a link to that last statement of yours. Never heards of that one before and am curious to who actually said that and in what context.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Taking away ownership from iwi and hapu
This depends, does it not, on the extent to which iwi and hapu own part of the state?
Socialism is distinct I think, from the question of ownership of the land. One is about an economic system, the other defines the rights one has to a specific sort of property… and come in varying “strengths”.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2 (-2)
Interesting
Speaking as a middle aged middle class white boy I have no problem with Maori being Tanga Te Whenua.
Yep, this is a Maori land. Maori belong. But it is my land too, and I belong. I find the intensity of this debate puzzling. What exactly is the problem?
There are many many injustices and liberals like Catherine are working towards something resembling justice. This is a process not a goal and if it took us 150 years to get here why are some rushing to fix it?
We need to address economic injustices in this country. I oppose the treaty settlements in principle as they are a very clumsy mechanism for doing it – but my opposition is not absolute. There are many wonderful things about the process. There is a lot of good that can come from the recognition of an injustice and the wielding of large sums, whilst inefficient and encouraging elitism, has done more good than harm.
BTW let’s address other economic injustices too!! Addressing the inequality between rewards for labour and capital would be a good start. I could go on and on but I’ll spare you (this time).
Tanks Sam for your contribution – you can really make me think. I do think “liberal hogwash” was a bit harsh! I see the truth behind your comments though.
peace
W
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
samiam – “Just who should ‘bugger off’? Those with non Maori blood?”
Nope – those who aren’t able to make claims to the Waitangi Tribunal as ‘tangata whenua’. The claimants have to verify their status before being heard or having a claim awarded and that will do fine as a ‘pass not’.
Without the Treaty, a new, hotter kettle of fish will come to the boil, as Gerrit points out.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1 (-1)
Sam,
Yes it’s tricky. But in principle natural resources should be as collectively owned as the air that we breathe. We should aspire to moving closer to this direction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“I do think “liberal hogwash” was a bit harsh!”
If somebody mounts an effective defence of the term ‘tangata tiriti” I’ll withdraw the comment, but so far nobody has even attempted to.
Cheers
Sam
Like or Dislike:
2 
0 (+2)
“in principle natural resources should be as collectively owned as the air that we breathe. We should aspire to moving closer to this direction.”
I completely agree, just that as this requires the abolition of virtually all current economic and political practices, and that the vast majority of New Zealand’s resources that you want to collectivise are in Pakeha, government or overseas hands, it doesn’t seem to have much to do with a debate about colonisationn and the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sam – except that we can start by chucking the treaty away. Have a vote on it.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3 (-2)
So you are saying that in order to encourage the collectivisation of resources, we should start by removing what has often been the sole obstacle to individual private ownership of resources and really annoy the group of New Zealanders who are most committed to collective ownership? That’ll work.
Instead of starting with the removal of the property rights of Maori, why not start by collectivising all the property owned by people who’s names start with ‘A’ and then slowly work on through the alphabet? Makes about as much sense.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0 (+4)
Sam,
Yeah just start by chucking the treaty away.
Like or Dislike:
2 
6 (-4)
Sam, the term is easy to defend. It refers to non Maori who migrated here and became citizens because of the Treaty.
The real question is how the term is used.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
SPC, I know what it means, I want somebody to defend it in light of my earlier criticisms – particularly the idea that immigrants became citizens because of the Treaty – which I think is historically untenable.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0 (+1)
Sam, without the Treaty there wwould have been no colonial government, thus no organised settlement.
Immigration occured because there was organised government – that the colonial government often acted without reference to the Treaty still does not allow any conclusion otherwise.
So Tangata Tiriti refers to those who have become tangata whenua because of the Treaty. Whereas the indigenous people, the original tangata whenua – the Maori who would have been here anyway.
So the argument can be made that those “tangata Tiriti” can be as supportive of the TOW justice as Maori without wanting to be Maori – they are just being equally tangata whenua. It’s just a commitment to justice in the way we organise our government today.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
What became of the forgotten tribes of NZ that where here before the Moari
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
“without the Treaty there wwould have been no colonial government”
Why? Lack of treaties didn’t stop any other colonial government. Ignoring the Treaty from day one didn’t stop the New Zealand government establishing itself. On what basis do you think the non-effective and ignored Treaty was required to institute the colonial government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Neil Wainwright:
They did sign a treaty. (And they were rather tasty slow-cooked with seasoning).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sorry. I mean’t “didn’t”
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Sam, well aside from the fact that a Treaty preceded an organised government and the point is therefore moot (a Treaty was followed by organised government and immigration followed that) – there is no precedent where a Treaty proposal was rejected and organised government followed anyway.
So why was a Treaty proposed? Partly because of sensibility at the time about behaving in a civilised way and partly because there was nothing appealing about the alternative – conquest.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1 (+1)
In most cases, colonial government was instituted regardless of there being no Treay, so it certainly isn’t a prerequisite. Several iwi did reject the Treaty proposal and colonial government still took control. The Treaty was for the most part ignored as the government was set up, and was followed by numerous wars to consolidate its power and extend its reach. Immigration began before the colonial government took power and was a major argument for the Treaty’s necessity. The Treaty seems to have been a response to immigration rather than the other way around.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2 (+1)
Sam, colonial government was not established everywhere – only where it was feasible. Here, was it feasible without a Treaty?
There was not prior immigration here, just a few traders (and missionaries) in a limited form of settlement. The idea of organised immigration with organised government necessitated a Treaty. No one proposed a conquest first.
Imposing a government over Maori objection would not have been undertaken – the imperial army that won the war for the colonial government was not possible without prior organised government. That was not possible without a Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1 (0)
Nobody proposed a conquest, but the New Zealand company, and its predecessor, proposed, and began to organise, immigration prior to the Treaty. The basically announced they intended to immigrate regardless of government moves. Wakefield was buying land in Wellington, and colonists were arriving, before the Treaty.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)