Winston whines; so a written constitution calls

By
Stephen Minto
-
59
1750
Mr Peters is actually attacking private property rights!
 
The Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the Crown and the Maori land owners of New Zealand. Article 2 guaranteed Maori full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries and other properties. Maori were the private property owners of it all; except the bits they chose to sell.   Article 3 rmade Maori British subjects with all the same rights and privileges, and those rights must include protection of private property.  Article two made this private property guarantee stronger by recognising that private property can be collectively or individually possessed. Everything in New Zealand was recognised as Maori private property.
 
The Crown for many years did not honour the treaty and the Maori private property rights guaranteed within the Treaty. This left Maori without significant income assets and left to live in poverty. This is the situation for many today and it faces all of us. But some people think that Article 1 of the Treaty meant Maori gave away full sovereignty thus allowing the government to do what it liked with Maori private property, and what happened in the past is legitimate because of Article 1.  But Article 1 does not create an authoritarian state where Maori private property rights exist at the whim of the Crown. (Though Maori may in practise have experienced it like this). Britain was a constitutional monarchy which is a democracy where private property rights are respected
 
So when Mr Peters speaks of honouring the Treaty as creating ‘inverse racism’ with Maori now ascendant over pakeha he is actually saying property rights can be stolen and not respected with proper compensation. For example the compensation to Tainui for land confiscation amounts to only 3% of the value of what was stolen. Imagine if farmers had land taken for roading and they only got 3% of the land value back.  Wouldn’t that be outrageous and unjust?  But Mr Peters is in effect saying this is okay. So should we do this for roading changes? 
 
Mr Peters rails that Maori are getting more rights than Pakeha. This is simply not true. For example three waters. The Treaty of Waitangi recognises and guarantees Maori as having private property rights over water.  It is only right that the government engages with Maori about their private property. Maori rights to equal treatment for their private property rights have simply been trashed by our previous governments and their courts. And the basis of this was mass immigration, without a written constitution and courts with the rights to protect them, that marginalised the Maori community.


Also I’m ignoring here the obvious significant differences between the Maori and Pakeha versions of Article 1 which clearly show Maori were not surrendering sovereign tribal authority and that co-governance rights are in the Treaty. It’s just this reading is not essential to show rights are not currently equally held.  
 
Those who complain about Maori privilege are actually making their own rights more vulnerable. Wouldn’t the complainers efforts be better directed to the business community working hand over fist to increase immigration so they can pay lower wages and not have to pay higher tax to train and educate our own citizens? When immigration is completely open for business our New Zealand tall poppies will always be overshadowed a few taller ones from overseas (simple bell curve effect). Often people come here as a stepping stone to the lucky country with which we have open borders, and it is wealthier.  And its mass immigration that is one of the factors putting pressure on our essential infrastructure like housing and health. Why isn’t Mr Peters pushing for higher taxes on businesses who are requesting and pushing for greater immigration so these businesses pay for the essential infrastructure? 
 
Why is Mr Peters beating up on Maori who just want their property rights respected equally to others?  The Treaty of Waitangi is our treaty, all New Zealanders, whether we like it or not. It is our word and for our personal integrity we must honour and respect our word.  Some say it isn’t and assert they didn’t sign it. Well driving on the left hand side of the road is not something they signed either. Big trouble if you don’t respect that. And yes those who disagree can pursue a change and want to put us all through the huge cost of completely changing our current fleet of cars with the dangers of some forgetting and driving on the wrong side. Best of luck on that. But for the Treaty they will have to have a pretty good offer because Maori as the other party to the Treaty have lost so much that they will be relunctant to give it up. Current Maori just like the original signatories of the Treaty will be highly unlikely to simply surrender full sovereigtny to the Crown, for nothing. Those who want to simply rip it up and not negotiate don’t mentally to live in a democracy where you must respect others. They can go to Putin’s Russia and get conscripted. See how nice it is when somebody bullies and pushes you around. 
 
With Winston’s whining and New Zealand society changing quite dramatically through immigration, does this raise the risk of a second wave of less rights for Maori? Who else? LGBTQ people? (Pushing down on minorities is a world trend at the moment). Now is the time to learn from the past and recognise the need to protect all peoples rights equally in New Zealand. We must urgently develop a proper constitution with a court system that can defend civil rights from the risks of tyranny by a majority who if mislead by demagogy and misinformation may make laws that violate civil and Treaty rights of New Zealanders. New Zealand has not been an equal and just society let’s make it one with a strong written constitution.  

59 COMMENTS

  1. If commentators could try not to use derogatory emotive language such as referring to Winston Peters as “ whining”, the level of discourse could be elevated, and so might everybody else and issues addressed on established facts, or efforts made to establish facts. One fact is that Peters, like him or not, has a legal degree, and has lead his own political party, and has been deputy PM, which is more than most people manage. I suggest that throwaway comments about the Treaty or about long established legal concepts such as sovereignty, aren’t particularly likely to deter the disenchanted from supporting Peters as the best of a bad bunch. He’s not a “whiner”, his speaking skills have made him one of the best Parliamentary performers, and his humour is also rather welcome in an environment of gloom and doom merchants.

  2. ” Maori were the private property owners of it all; except the bits they chose to sell”….then they sold most of it.

    In some instances, the Crown has made ‘full & final’ settlements for pieces of land up to four times.

    • Sold most of it? Considerable tracts of land were sold under false pretenses. Think of it like this, your neighbor sells me your house, I turn up and throw your arse out onto the street. Land deal completed. And if you complain about it I can always fall back on the argument that you are a typical whining Pakeha always looking for free shit and hand outs.

      See how that works?

    • Agree @Boris.
      We must not let a rogue populist like Peters derail National and ACT’s tax policies.
      The only way to recover the economy from 6 years of mismanagement and neglect by Labour and the Greens, is to elect a fiscally responsible alliance between National and ACT.
      We don’t need Winsome Peters, who has become an obsolete political dinosaur.

      We cannot let long-overdue adjustments to personal tax, business tax and an overhaul of GST, to be lost in the clutter of Peters’ racism claims.

  5. So what more do we do Stephen?

    You see my understanding is that co governance will delute the power of my vote. I will fight anyone to ensure this doesn’t happen. Because although democracy is imperfect, I believe it is the best we’ve got,

    I have always just wanted to see people well housed, well paid, with good health care and access to education. All people.

    The govt has done something to redress the wrongs in the Treaty settlement process. Like all attempts to get justice, it will never truly compensate (just like for people wrongly imprisoned a lump sum never does). Tanui now own one billion from their Treaty settlement. Nga Tahu is a very wealthy tribe (what a surprise their riches only trickle down). Maori of course can purchase any land up for sale if they have the means. A relative of mine (Maori) has found themselves a part owner off a particularly valuable bit of land in the South Island.

    One of the issues for me about cogovernance is the sneaky way Labour have gone about it eg the Rotorua Admin Bill that Tamati Coffey brought to parliament. And I am sick to death of a bull shit narrative being told eg about Tohunga Act and the omission that it was. Maori that pushed for English only in school.

    Usually if you receive a settlement in compensation for a wrong, that’s it. Full and final. Then it’s up to you to find a way to heal yourself. Not be stuck ina endless grievance cycle

  7. If you really believe that 85% of the population agree that they and all their descendants will be legally and politically 2nd class citizens then have a binding referendum to say so
    Otherwise give up on the idea that the first group of immigrants have special rights over subsequent ones

  8. A very good article until you compared Maori to LGBTQ. There is physical evidence that people are Maori but nothing that can be measured (Blood, DNA, chemicals, etc)will show sexual orientation. We live in a free society so if enough people decide a behavior is acceptable then we need to accept their choice but the choice over sexual orientation is no different from a personal choice over religion. You cannot measure a person’s religion (although certain lifestyle choices can allow us to make an accurate guess) & it is totally wrong to force religion on anyone.
    I guess my main point is that Maori have a solid evidence-based basis for their treaty rights while LGBTQ people deserve to be treated fairly because they have the same right to live as the rest of us.

  10. Hardly wheel, you don’t know jack shit about co-governance and treaty settlements in the past. You seem also to be preoccupied with Finlayson, he’s looking for a bf too..

Comments are closed.