Last night I was pleased to be invited to attend in person a televised debate on the Treaty of Waitangi (The Treaty), hosted by The Working Group (TWG) – NZ’s number one political podcast.
I had been invited partly as a previous guest on TWG, partly as a long time acquaintance of the host “Bomber” Bradbury, and partly as an independent journalist for Seeby’s Rumination’s (we’ve made the big time folks! I’m actually doing real reporting now).
I think that this debate was a fantastic initiative, as tensions on the disputed Treaty have been running fairly hot in New Zealand as of late, partly due to the introduction of Seymour’s “Treaty Principles Bill”, which seeks to establish a firmer agreement on what the Treaty actually means for all New Zealanders.
A large part of the confusion around the Treaty stems from the fact that it was written in two languages, so there are two separate versions of the Treaty, and the 500 or so Maori chiefs who signed the treaty mainly signed the Maori language version, and the British signed a different version in English. This then led to disagreements around what things like “Ceding sovereignty to the Queen” actually means in principle.
Starting in 1975, the NZ Government took a more liberal position on the Treaty and then ever since we have had a type of morphing and expanding co-governance which sometimes works, but often has blurry lines.
It’s difficult to have two captains of a ship so to speak, so while we need to respect the Treaty and honour it’s agreements, I think Maori and Pakeha also need to agree on something solid in order to move forward – which if you ask Seymour is exactly what he’s trying to achieve!
Anyway, It was good two intelligent representatives from either side of the “number 8 fence” share their views in a civil manner, rather than the sometimes tense confrontations that have occurred on annual Waitangi day celebrations.
If you’re a New Zealander, I think we could all benefit from understanding each other’s point of view, and so I encourage you to watch the debate on YouTube below.
However, I’m also going to summarise my personal observations from the debate if you keep reading, so you don’t need to watch the video if you just want to get my opinion.
The Arrival
The debate was held at Mediaworks impressive head office in College Hill, Auckland. I arrived first, greeted by TWG hosts Bomber Bradbury and Damien Grant, and soaked up the grand spaces, while waiting for other people to arrive
 |
 |
Next to arrive was Helmut Modlik, speaking for the Iwi side of the argument, wearing a large white bone carving around his neck, and with an entourage of half a dozen people.
Helmut certainly had some “Mana” in his stride, and I liked the way that he asked about my unusual name and where I was from, in the delightful way that Maori people do – names, places, and ancestors being more important to them over perhaps the jobs and titles that westerners ask about. He made me feel special.
Helmut’s wife was carrying a copy of “The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi by Ned Fletcher”, an intimidating 1,000 page book that would certainly cripple someone if dropped on a foot. I could peek at notes hiding in the pages and the effect was intimidating “These people have come prepared”. I have absolutely no idea how the 9-page English version of the Treaty can have been expanded into a 1,000 page book, but clearly there must be some things I don’t know in there. Or perhaps this is just what academics in universities do – expand simple things into giant books that other experts in the field are then forced to read if they want to claim to be informed.
David Seymour arrived last, but perfectly on time, 10 minutes before the show started, accompanied only by his wife. Unfazed and smiling, he still looked out numbered.
Despite the fact that everyone was there for a sparring match, everything was civil and there were handshakes and hongis all round – something that is great about New Zealand – adversaries can get along.
All in all we were a group of about 20 people: The debaters and supporters, a film crew from Maori TV, a couple of random reporters (including me I suppose), and the hosts.
 |
 |
 |
David Seymour’s Position
Semour, to me, seemed to be making some very logical points, I think his 3-minute opening monologue was a thing of beauty
- Different rules for different races has never worked anywhere it’s been tried, it just ends up in apartheid and fighting.
- One rule of law needs to apply to all New Zealanders so we all have the same opportunities to thrive and the rules are clear.
- People need to be treated equally, separating people by ancestry is racism. You can’t solve racism by introducing different polices based on race.
- His Treaty Principles Bill still allows for things like Treaty Settlements, it just clarifies governance and removes confusing “co-governance” scenarios.
This all seemed to make sense to me, and clearly Seymour is one of the sharpest, if not the sharpest speakers in NZ Politics at the moment. Love him or hate him, he’s eloquent and smart if you actually take the time to listen to him properly.
 |
Helmut Modlik’s Position
Helmut took the position that :
- Maori never ceded sovereignty because they never understood that to be the case in their version of the treaty.
- It is preposterous to assume that 500 proud warrior chiefs would ceede sovereignty of their lands to a queen on the other side of the world, when she only had a few white people in NZ at the time.
- If Maori never ceeded sovereignty, then there is no basis that Maori can be governed by the crown, and therefore we must find a way to co-govern.
- While I understood the position that Helmut took, it seemed to me that there were no real solutions presented for how Maori suggest we make co-governance work elegantly, just from the Maori perspective, that’s what they want.
500 Chiefs signed The Treaty – Why?
Clearly I’m not an academic or Treaty expert, and I haven’t read the 1,000 page book on The Treaty mentioned above. I have however in my times read some NZ history, and I thought I had a pretty good understanding of why Maori *might* have ceded sovereignty when signing The Treaty (something that is now often disputed by some but not all Maori as per Modlik’s arguments).
- Before the Signing of the Treaty in 1840, Maori had been trading with Europeans for 50+ years, and understood things like the power of the British Empire.
- While trading with Europeans, one of the things that were traded were Muskets, and this resulted in the Maori Musket wars of 1820, this meant that the death rate of inter-Maori wars was becoming a massacre compared to pre-musket wars, becoming British citizens would enable the Maori Musket wars to end.
- Due to the introduction of new Diseases from overseas, by 1840 30% of Maori had died, and there were fears that Maori might die out if the Maori wars didn’t stop.
- In the 1800’s New Zealand was not really owned by anyone and had become a lawless and unsafe place for both Maori and European settlers, becoming British citizens would mean that we got a police force, laws, and therefore law and order.
- The French were eyeing up New Zealand as a potential colony, and there were fears that if the people of New Zealand didn’t become British citizens, then we would be forced to become French citizens, and that would be worse.
- Sir Apirana Ngata wrote that Maori understood that they ceeded sovereignty in his books in return for becoming British Citizens, and gave many of the reasons above.
These matters are all covered in the following You Tube video, and explained better than I could explain them. If we are to try and reverse engineer what the Maori who signed the Treaty may or may not have been thinking when they signed it and what their intentions were, then we need to not just try to read, translate and analyse the Maori version of The Treaty, but ALSO analyse the history and the historical context in which the Treaty was signed.
Post Debate Discussion
After the debate, I got to talking to one of the “Iwi side” entourage, and unfortunately we reached an impasse in our opinions almost immediately.
The example that this person gave was was that Maori generally have poorer health than Pakeha. Therefore, they believed that until Maori health is just as good as Pakeha health, the Treaty is not being honoured, and solutions such as a separate Maori health authority, and additional funding is not only justified, but an absolute need.
My view – perhaps influenced by Seymour – is that if agree via the Treaty Principle Bill that all NZers are to treated equally, and we all have exactly the same access to hospitals, GPs etc, then why should skin colour matter? My view is that this a poverty issue, not a skin colour issue, and that poor health outcomes are probably just as likely for poor white people as they are poor Maori – in which case we should be providing additional assistance to ALL poor people with poor health outcomes, not just Maori with poor health outcomes.
Even more troubling for me was was the fact that the discussion led to talking about how to deal with “edge cases” (My Ex wife – who is Scottish and has blonde hair and blue eyes, but was in fact 1/32nd Maori), doesn’t need any additional healthcare assistance from a separate Maori authority but would receive it. The Iwi side of the argument was resolute – if you’re 128th Maori, you’re Maori, and if you’re 0% Maori you’re not Maori.
I’m just not sure how it’s going to work long term dividing up the country into Maori and Not Maori with different governance rules for each and special benefits for some and not others.
As Seymour said, separating people via skin colour has always become problematic every time it’s been tried
As always, this whole Treaty thing is messy. We all need to try to work together to find a solution, and the start can be having the debates like the one that I just witnessed.
Kia Kaha Aotearoa.
Seeby Woodhouse is a NZ tech entrepreneur, CEO of Voyager and posts on Substack.
I agree ,poverty is most likely the cause of poor health for all people of NZ .But a look at the posable cause in the Maori population may well be linked to the loss of their whenua and the ability to use that land to prevent that poverty.I watched a doco on news room about the crime of perpetual leases of Maori land in NZ .This is a sad example of theft by stealth .
How is it right that if I am the lease holder and no longer want that piece of land I can just sell it to someone else at an increased value .Should it not be returned to the leasor as would be the case if I was leasing a car ,building or a race horse .The owner of that whenua would then be able to put that land to use to fix the poverty they now live in .A case in that doco showed a man living on the street in Gisborne even though he owned land up the coast that had been taken from his whanau and leased to pakeha and he has no access to that land to make his life better wether it be to house him self or feed himself .He has a home but cant live there can he because he has been striped of that right .How would a pakeha react if the government came along and said we are taking your land for free and giving it to someone else .?If that Maori chap wants his whenua back he has to pay current market rates if it comes up for freeholding .So the land was taken at no payment then the Maori had to pay the subdivision cost to add insult ti injury .
remember “Kotahi tatou katoa’
Maori health outcomes have improved markedly since they sold their lands, with significantly longer life expectancies since settlers arrived.
Hard to argue with that logic – imagine you will just be labelled racist instead.
Settlers bought disease which killed many Maori. That’s most certainly not an improvement.
And read your history they did not ” sell” their lands and do not have a longer life expectancy.
Total misinformation on your behalf.
FLEECED ii the name of the investigation doco on newsroom
Firstly your video choice is rubbish it got 9 likes made about 5 months ago and the narrator is just promoting european exceptionalism narratives that Maori have had shoved down their throats for decades. You’ve admitted that you’re not historically literate and your comments and video choice proves your point.
Let examine your narrative of Frenchman De Thierry? “The French were eyeing up New Zealand as a potential colony” This guy De Thierry was brought up in England so was more english than french and was a one man grifter that was out to make a profit with Northern Chiefs like Hongi Hika before his death in 1827 supposedly gifting him land for metal objects mainly axes and other tools made of metal. Remember the british at this point had already colonised Australia so were in a more stronger position than the French and the british had been trading with Maori since their arrival to Australia as a colony from 1788 so established a more personal relationship than what was established with the French.
And the video you’ve chosen doesn’t mention the “Bigge commision” in 1815-20 on how to acquire the country from the “New Zealanders” whom the british recognized as the indigenous population of Nu Terini. There were also think-tank or Non govt orgs set up after “He Whakaputanga” 1835 Declaration of Independence sign between Northern Chiefs & King William 4th on how to acquire the country off the “New Zealanders” for colonization which gave shady individual like convicted kidnapper, child molester “Edward Gibbon Wakefield” to push his land grab capitalist agenda for colonizing Nu Terini.
Maori neva ceded sovereignty maybe you and David should read a bit more about our country history in its entirety instead of promoting 5min one-sided youtube videos plus Maori have been subject too westminster laws for ova 160 odd years a system exported from europe so significantly benefit pakeha whether rich or poor and this is reflected in other british colonial settler societies like Australia, Canada, USA, who indigenous peoples share similar fates. There more nuances in this issue than a 5 minute Youtube video with 9 likes maybe you should be a bit more informed before publishing your opinions?
Free Nu Tireni
If we take as given that Maori never ceded sovereignty, how will New Zealand society move forward to a consensus of what/what/when/who and how this society will be formulated and function.
David Seymoure is presenting one of many potential answers.
Time for Maori to provide their answers. All we get is what you keep presenting ad infinitum, the past, how and wrong it all was. Nothing good happened.
So paint a picture of how you see the future with all the past grievances settled (if possible and how) and how you see New Zealand society move forward to a consensus of what/what/when/who and how this society will be formulated and function.
Gerrit, the adults with credibility and full knowledge of law, history and many other expertise surround these issues have been debating this for ova 50 years! The experts have concluded & decided on remedies which is taking our country forward peacefully and does not oppress non-Maori. The Co-governance model in areas significant to the first nations peoples is working not perfectly at first but the sky hasn’t fallen from the heavens.
What your Idol Seymour is proposing is a (Yes or NO) vote to an ignorant wider public on issues as constitutionally important to this country peaceful existence and expertise like Judges lawyers, historian, etc..who have dedicated their lives to their profession have in depth knowledge of laws and other factors that a layman wouldn’t understand.
If we want to see a doctor about a health issue we don’t ask a lawyer for advice similarly legal constitutional issues we don’t ask a mechanic about the Magna Carta and how its shapes our laws today. There are framework in place that works and the future you harp on about has left you behind which doesn’t oppress no-one but is also beneficial for the peaceful exist of our country future.
Free Nu Tireni
So you don’t have a clue on how this co governance and Maori self determination is going to function in our multi cultural society. 50 years of muddling and no path forward?
Experts can conclude anything they like but will the populace agree? We still live in a democracy, no? Can we question these “experts” on how they got to the decision they made and the process involved? Or do we have to tug the forelock and except all they say?
What are these remedies you talk about going forward? They are certainly not being explained in detail (as per the secretive He PuaPua report) to Tauiwi. When is the consultation with Tauiwi going to start on that report?
The reason Seymour is gathering votes and agreement at pace is that he is proposing a path forward. Now I don’t agree with 100% what he is saying but at least he is outlying a path. Yes maybe it is time for a simple YES / NO answer (50 years and counting and still no pathway that unites New Zealanders – you really have to question the pathway choosen).
What is your path forward except to let “experts” lead you to the promised land that may or may not (even after another 50 years) be what you want. What do you personally think New Zealand society will look like?
New non Maori Hapu and IWI type social and cultural organisations have been, and will continue, to keep forming. Certainly happening in South Auckland. This what I mean by Maori being left behind in the future as more groups form to have influence in our society. These groups are not influenced by the past nor bound by land ownership but joined by culture, common interest and an ability to influence legislative changes.
Maybe just maybe we are at peak Maori discussions and this time frame is the last time anyone will listen to what Maori co governance is. To convince people start outlining how New Zealand society will function under this co governance aspirations. Either switch people on to your view point or loose them fir the future.
Naku te rourou nau te rourou ka ora ai te iwi. Show what is in your basket and let us gather pace going forward.
Gerrit, your word salad rant is just slogans rehashed to make you sound plausible. The catchy phrases that appeal to people’s ignorance like you’ve insisted that He Puapua was a secret report’ which it wasn’t if you just used google it wasn’t government policies it was a brainstorming exercise putting ideas forward and the government has the final decision simple.
Democracy get weaponized to mean “Majoritarianism” Hitler had populace support look what happened to 6 million Jews holocaust in europe in the 1940s is that your idea of a democracy? Clearly you are too woke to even contemplate having a meaningful conversation about the future of our constitutional arrangements. If I’m sick I’d rather have a doctor not a mechanic give me advise
You clearly have a chip on your shoulder when it comes to Maori who frankly have the worst outcomes of social stats in this country but somehow these experts need to be questioned about how they came to their conclusion when practical evidence isn’t difficult to find in our prisons, mental health units, homelessness etc..
Does Seymour really have wide support for his Treaty Principles bill? All my pakeha relatives and friends hate the idea and I believe it’s a divisive tool and a distraction to confronting real issues like housing, food security, cost of living growing the economy etc..
Finally the Co-governance is working and to my knowledge hasn’t stopped nor hindered New Zealanders and immigrants from using our national parks, mountains, rivers or lakes etc.. and Seymour is a libertarian who actually supported this arrangement because it devolve the financial responsibilities to Iwi away from govt creating their own financial plan on how they can raise money to keep the huts in our national parks maintained the roads secure rivers cleaned lakes safe for all New Zealanders and tauiwi (visitors) it’s a win win situation thought through with a combination of experts local councils and tangata whenua what not to like about this amicable arrangement?
You dont like that video because it is a kick in the nuts for all those people that have reaped capital gains on those lands while the right full owners live in poverty .As for the young soldier in that video whos land was stolen while he was fighting the white mans war on the other side of the world ,he is just one of the long list of Maori who went to two world wars and were fucked over when they returned .While pakeha were given ballot farms etc Maori were excluded because they were Maori and for no other reason .One rule for all my arse .
Woodhouse seems the type whose only tool is a hammer and thinks that everything is a nail. You explained the flaws in the evidence he used to form an opinion on well and at least this article gives a valid reason to avoid his blog.
My children should own one tenth of Wellington. Their ancestors signed a legal bill of sale, selling 90% of the land to the settlers but retaining one tenth for their hapu. They don’t of course. They should also own vast areas of land in Taranaki. They didn’t want to sell this so it was taken by force by a combination of British Infantry regiments and armed civilian militia. Even if their ancestors did sign away their sovereignty, they were not afforded the rights and protections of British citizens. The army of the Queen killed them and stole their land. As a settlement for this attempted genocide they have been given a few million dollars to play with.
You may be well meaning Mr. Woodhouse but you miss the point entirely of this sovereignty debate. My understanding is that Maori raising the issue of sovereignty do not want “different governance rules” nor do they want “special benefits for some and not others”. They want the same rules and the same benefits all citizens should enjoy. The difference is they want to be in charge of delivering those rules and benefits to their people. The current pakeha system has failed them they want the chance to achieve equity through that which was promised them in the Treaty tino rangatiratanga
The Boulcott’s Farm was an issue with Poneke hapu “Ngāti Hāua-te-rangi” 1842 another issue for Governor George Grey was the kidnapping of Te Rauparaha of Ngati Toa from his marae Taupo now known as Plimention in 1847 representing the crown could push thru force land deals once they locked him up firstly in Manukau at the lodge of waikato rangatira “Te wherowhero” than transported to Van Diemen Island (Tasmania) and was released in 1849 dying that year in Otaki.
you are correct they just want what is the right to live a good life on their whenua and to raise their kids on that whenua along with their extended whanau .This right was taken from them and now they are expected to take the ultimate insult and buy that whenua back at current market prices which are the reflection of the massive amounts of tax free capital gains made over the years which only benefited pakeha.
Seeby – You raised some interesting points…thank you
Seymours case rests on the bullshit Pakeha claim that we are One people .
We are NOT – ONE people.
We have NEVER been ONE people
We will NEVER be ONE people.
We must destroy the Pakeha bullshit lie that we are ONE – people .
Then the whole White Pakeha bullshit lie will collapse like a house of cards.
Helmut should have left the books at home and focused on destroying the One people lie.
Tangata Whenua resist ferociously White bullshit lie that we are ONE people.
That is the political club White people have been using to bash us with these past 100 years.
BTW I am not “Maori”.
To call me Maori is wrong and is cultural ignorance.
I am Ati Pamoana.
I am Tangata Whenua
Kia Ora Katoa Tatou.
So how will all the different people co exist? Bearing in mind you are fixated with the Maori versus White divide when in actuality you need to address the Maori versus Tauiwi divide.
Non Maori population is roughly 50% European (including those darker skinned Dalmations, Greeks, Spanish, etc) and 50% non white from Indian, Se East Asia, China, Korea, continental African, etc blood lines.
Question to you is the same as for Stephen; Paint a picture of how you see the future with all the past grievances settled (if possible and how) and how you see New Zealand society move forward to a consensus of what/what/when/who and how this society will be formulated and function.
One thing for sure is we cannot go on as we are, regurgitating the past without a forward path.
For there are generations upon generations of Tauiwi here (myself have already spawned four generations in my 3 score years since arrival) that are not going away (being Born Of This Land) that Maori HAVE to consider fitting into New Zealand society.
The Maori good – White bad argument is not applicable anymore. Tauiwi are moving on and the real danger is Maori so fixated on the past that they will never ever catch up to the future.
Kia whakatōmuri te haere whakamua: ‘I walk backwards into the future with my eyes fixed on my past’ is not the way forwards
Still waiting for your army of asians that you alluded to in one of your previous bellicose rants to military attack maori??? I’ve already given you my answer to your enquiry and frankly Gerrit I find you a repulsive little bigoted twat that need to get historically literate than you probably might have something worth commenting about pertaining to our country rich history?
The church I attend has 5 different language groups for the study time (Portuguese, Korean, Russian, Chinese and English) while sharing the main service and we all get along fine. There is also a substantial African presence as we are not far from the University so get international students as well.
If people could learn to consider more than their selfish ambitions it makes it a lot easier to get on with people from different backgrounds.
David Seymour’s case is that there can only be “one rule” for all.
What that means in practice though is “White Pakeha” rule for all.
That is the crux of my opposition to the “One law for all ” bullshit.
Because in practice “One” rule for all actually means “White Pakeha Rule” for all.
People can’t see it, don’t want to see it, are afraid to say it
or if they are White people born here they totally agree with it.
I am long aware that there are at least 75 different Nationalities here now and more than a hundred languages spoken not to mention a myriad of cultural , gender, educational, political, spiritual variations.
But that only makes the Seymour demand that every one must be
a White, British mono cultural ,mono lingual red neck even more bullshit.
So destroying the “one people ” (read white British red neck ) myth is critical.
Seymour is just playing on appealing to White, Pakeha prejudice and ignorance and getting away with it. Doesn’t fool me any, But them I am Tangata Whenua.
you are correct they just want what is the right to live a good life on their whenua and to raise their kids on that whenua along with their extended whanau .This right was taken from them and now they are expected to take the ultimate insult and buy that whenua back at current market prices which are the reflection of the massive amounts of tax free capital gains made over the years which only benefited pakeha.
So under one rule for all I will be able to rock up and take back land that was stolen in the past from whanau .
Gerrit, your worldview is so black & white claiming that “maori are fixated on the past that they will never ever catch up to the future.” you make a lot of assumptions do you have a crystal ball? Maybe you need to get out of your bubble more? Did you attend the biggest Haka at Eden park last month? There were plenty of “tauiwi” enjoying themselves embracing the Maori culture.
You need to chill out and relax it’s beneficial to your well being instead of getting all bothered and caught up in your fantasies
Kaua e mate wheke mate ururoa – Don’t die like an octopus, die like a hammerhead shark.
Yeah I have to agree, Seymour got away with his lies and Helmut didn’t hit back hard enough about what Act is really up to with this bullshit bill.
Clearly if Maori had kept their land and were allowed to continue trading as they were before the land was stolen the Maori economy would be way bigger than the 20% of GDP that it is today .I would suggest most of that growth has happened since the first treaty settlements happened and Maori were able to invest in farming and other massive business like the current Inland ports they are developing .The increase in that growth will only get bigger they have more capital to invest in long term projects as they seem to take a long term view ..
Maori very clearly ceded sovereignty its right there in the treaty.
The vast majority of “lost” land was sold by Maori.
But it’s interesting listening to a German dual citizen in the debate lecture kiwis on his different Maori rights by birth.
KCC, Waikato invasion saw Tainui lost 485,620ha in one years similarly the Taranaki invasion saw them lose.358,320ha Ova a period of 15 years. More than 4 million acres of Māori land were confiscated at this time, including large areas of the Waikato. The Native Land Court (and various Native land laws) led to a further 8 million acres passing to European ownership between 1865 and 1890. Most of the Ngai Tahu purchases were deemed illegal and made under duress noted by English P.C breaking British Magna carta laws from 1215 AD.
what a crock of shit that is .
Our economic religion says we don’t need to be One People, and it claims it’d be better if we weren’t. Any kind of community or cultural identity is a barrier to free trade. SO WHAT THE HELL IS SEYMOUR ON ABOUT? The One People argument in our economic climate is null and void. The only sane point he makes is that a new agreement is required. Unfortunately, neither he or any of our politician’s or activists are capable of the effort. Both parties want to win everything, instead of co-exist in a constructive way.
There are multiple grey areas that play into the environment of political cognitive dissonance that need to be addressed, case by case, and that case by case nature of our present reality offends politicians who want one rule to fit all circumstances. What else would they be doing, other than finding solutions to these loose ends? Oh that’s right, preying on the weak and vulnerable, inciting conflict, and generally stealing stuff.
The example of maori health is perfect. We are told maori generally have poorer outcomes so even if the rule was on need rather than race, they would figure highly as patients. But in a political environment that seeks one rule for all, because it “costs less” and because we are told by our otherwise untrustworthy politicians and activists that maori see the world and health differently to pakeha, why would an “on need” health system not match the majority of its patients? But hang on, poor white people also have similar poor outcomes, what about their cultural outlook? What’s the solution? Probably to have two separate health departments, UNTIL SUCH TIME, as EVERYONE is on a similar trajectory of health, and then maybe, thanks to neo-liberalism reaching a puke-inducing extreme, each health provider can choose to clothe themselves in maori, european, chinese, south american, or north african culture to suit the majority of their clients just like a good ol’ business model would attempt to do. To try to say this is entirely outside the comprehension of ACT, or any other political party is utterly ludicrous! It isn’t even complex! If it fails to lift health outcomes, it’s because the constant poor outcomes for housing, employment and living standards keep falling under neo-liberal policy. Want success? Vote for something else!
If maori never ceded sovereignty, they cannot defer to the UN over indigenous people’s guidelines in debating legislation that concerns them. We’d have to agree the that Labour and the Greens attempted to screw maori big time, which would be the end of anything but a power swap between National and Act. Only way to solve that, is cognitive dissonance, which is what happens in reality. A dispute over sovereignty usually results in civil war. Is that what maori want? I very much doubt it. Neither do the middle classes. Our economic religion says trade solves conflict, so there is the opportunity. No one cares about social cohesion here anymore, but if they did, you might also raise the question of whether we want to try to get along or just start hacking at each other and officially endorse racism. That’s what the “never ceded sovereignty” argument ends at. A literal dead end. It shouldn’t even matter. When you see someone not of your race on the street do you rush up to them and assault them? Would it work at the office? No. To communicate you have to engage like a civilised person, and to develop enduring social policy you cannot despise the recipients of assistance. ACT and National think you can just bash away at people you despise. They aren’t leaders or competent politicians. Only cognitive dissonance can solve that problem.
It is completely disingenuous to be talking about being British citizens in exchange for nineteenth century protection when the measure of citizenship has changed four times over the last fifty years. Guess what? Policy changes. Treaties change. Processes change. Why do we think it’s still 1840? In 1975 the perspective on the Treaty changed again, we all celebrate that change, but not the next? Relying on historical details as if time stands still is pointless. Seymour is lying when he says his changes will not effect claims. Neo-liberalism, the law and commerce, will push maori into using a system they don’t have the political resources to beat. What would be more valuable than contracting out Treaty claims? It’s at least as valuable as privatised health or social welfare. Do we not know our own economic ideology? Don’t like that? Vote for something else. The Treaty wasn’t ever designed to hold back this kind of greed. It’s a target because it is the only barrier to total insanity. Co-governance as defined by the Left is the same thing, by stealth. Two People interfaced by trade is the only safe solution at this time, neither side can be trusted.
There are so many historical inaccuracies and misconceptions in this article that I won’t attempt to respond to any of them.
Instead I will try to clarify the position of tangata motu.
1. We are not seeking race-based privileges for anyone or a race-based social order. The colonialist regime is fixated on race. That is why they, including David Seymour, insist that only a member of the British race can be head of state in the Realm of New Zealand. Tangata motu are defending freedom and autonomy for communities, of iwi, hapu or any other social grouping. Maori live in community and identify as members of their whanau hapu and iwi community. David Seymour wants to make them nothing more than “citizens”, effectively eliminating Maori as Maori. That is unacceptable to us.
2. Rangatiratanga does not obstruct or undermine democracy. On the contrary rangatiratanga is the only genuine form of democracy this land has ever known. The system that Seymour seeks to impose on us is a travesty of democracy in which an unelected foreigner is designated head of state for life, politicians are answerable only to that unelected head of state, and the people have no effective means of controlling the politicians, notwithstanding the triennial election charade. I could analyse the system in detail to show its defects in philosophic terms but I will leave that to another time and place. All we need to know is that the general public, Maori and Pakeha, are appalled at the way in which the Realm is governed, the corruption of the colonialist political class, and their complete absence of effective accountability to the people.
So rangatiratanga it will be, no ifs and buts, regardless of David Seymour and his Treaty Principles Bill.
Hear Hear.
Seymour is doing nothing more than sliding a wedge of division into a future where Maori are to be sidelined… again. To him and his ilk, Don Brash et al, Maori are nothing more than an impediment to a libertarian dystopia.
Ain’t gonna happen.
Be interesting to explore the concept of rangatiratanga as a form of self government for ALL New Zealanders.
Am thinking of self determination for diverse groups such as the Sikh community as but one example (Muslim another). Should self determination be enabled for any Tauiwi grouping at the same strength as Maori?. At a stretch you could have Brian Tamaki having self determination rights with his flock (absurd I know but if one group of people are afforded the right to self determination, so should any other in a democracy).
Each grouping represented in the peoples parliament with equal rights.
The kicker off course is the question of the common domain (think roads, health, electricity, foreshore access, etc.) How will the common domain be administered?
I have a feeling though your are thinking that rangatiratanga will only apply to Maori. The rest of Tauiwi as a separate but a separate single entity self governing body.
Even with only two self governing bodies one end up with the question of administrating the common domain. Or will we have separate Maori hospitals for example in a Maori health care system?
Like you say it needs further discussion and planning but the obstacles are tremendous in having two or more self governing bodies and a common domain. Think taxation as but one obstacle. Separate taxation regimes and collection plus dispersion?
I look at the native American Indian on their reservation and how that is a complete failure in providing for the indigenous people well being (yes I know the history but we can discuss the future). The reservation has become a trap for the young people (unless they want to be casino workers or sit on the couch and receive the welfare that the casinos profits distribute to the tribal members) and I would hate for any young Maori to be caught in that trap that self governance brings to a minority group of people in the wider community.
Gerrit, Maori are indigenous to this country let that sink into your head before making outrageous claims. Self determination is recognized in the Tiriti O Waitangi article 2 specifically “Tino rangatiratanga” this is the founding document of the society that we have today without the 1840 Treaty pakeha wouldn’t exist as an homogenous group in this country.
Muslims, Sheiks, Hindus, are religions that have no origins in this country so self determination doesn’t apply to their status. History is important to know so fools like you can’t make shit up! History gives people certainty of where they belong in their societies it grounds people and gives them strength and confidence. Their are valid reasons why indigenous peoples are burden with inequitable because of colonization.
Free Nu Tireni
Geoff Fisher disagrees with you and explains it better below.
Not making any claims; just opening up discussion points. Your only discussion stance is we were here first and this makes us the true (or in your words the first) people and nothing will override Maori as the co government with all the rest of us in a westminister parliament.
Unfortunately for you that is no longer a strong argument in that millions of New Zealanders also consider themselves through linage over multiple generation to be “Born Of This Land” and consider themselves indigenous. Now you may not like that that is your freedom but equally those “other” indigenous peoples see that as their freedom.
I like the notion that “Rangatiratanga is a taonga open to all people” as explained below perfectly. Much better system of government than the westminister system. But for that to work the Treaty of Waitangi will need to be amended to take the crown out of the equation and the Rangatiratanga of each group of people be recognized individually in a new treaty. Do we actually need a new treaty or a proper constitution to lock the Rangatiratanga off the peoples, in place?
The colonisation chip on the shoulder will only fall away when you embrace the Rangatiratanga of ALL the people.
Cry me a river Gerrit guess you don’t understand the english language
indigenous
/ɪnˈdɪdʒɪnəs/
adjective
1.
originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.
“coriander is indigenous to southern Europe”
Similar: native-endemic-local-domestic
Opposite: non-native-introduced-imported
2.
(of people) inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists.
“she wants the territorial government to speak with Indigenous people before implementing a programme”
Similar: native-original-earliest-first-aboriginal-initial-ancient
Sure you can claim self-determination but indigenous sorry that just not grounded in facts however you can say that you’re a fifth generation New Zealander if that tickles your fancy?
So Kupe and the Ngapuhi people were the first colonists thus not indiginous (They colonised an empty land). Seeing New Zealand is on the third wave off colonisation (Maori, English and Now Asian) both Maori and English colonist are by your definition “indiginous”. Fantastic news.
I’m not a fifth generation New Zealander. My great grand children are, I’m an import.
Rangatiratanga is a taonga open to all people. It is an ancient and simple system of governance which only seems complex or problematic to those who have known nothing other than the highly unnatural western system which operates as a struggle between factions to obtain absolute power over other factions.
In rangatiratanga we have a diversity of iwi, hapu and whanau of varying sizes. So you can have a hapu of a thousand or ten thousand, each with its own rangatira. Members of a hapu self-identify with that hapu, and the hapu recognizes those who authentically identify or are otherwise admitted to the hapu. Compare that with the Westminster system of artificially created constituencies of uniform size where people are assigned to a constituency by the state regardless of their real life attachments.
“Brian Tamaki having self determination rights with his flock” is not at all absurd. It is the way that rangatiratanga works. We have these hapu where a rangatira protects, cares for and provides for his or her hapu. I presume Tamaki does that. Even though I do not fully agree with his ideas, I respect his status as rangatira of those who choose to come under his korowai.
When rangatira come together in a runanga or whakaminenga they bring with them the”proxies” of their hapu. In olden times their status in a runanga would have been determined by the strength of their taua, only more or less related to the number of their hapu. However in modern times the total number of their hapu would strictly determine their influence in the runanga.
You can see that rangatiratanga is much more flexible and responsive to the popular will than the Westminster system. It reflects real social relations. Most importantly, it does not function on the “winners and losers” principle. (“We won, you lost, eat that” in the famous words of Sir Michael Cullen). A rangatira’s mana and influence changes only by degrees as the size of his or her following increases or declines. The followers of a rangatira can never be disenfranchised by loss of an election or failing to reach an arbitrary threshold for accession to power.
“Self-determination” is just one element of rangatiratanga. It means that in the matters that are of sole concern to a hapu, the hapu is the sole determiner. When it comes to wider issues there is a runanga or whakaminenga where each rangatiratanga appears not just in his or her own right, but holding the proxies of the hapu. So in a national whakaminenga of Aotearoa you would not have 120 members votes. You have have five million proxy votes, making very clear where the true power lies – with the people.
There are other differences between rangatiratanga and the Westminster system. Rangatiratanga is transparent. Everyone knows who supports and is protected by a particular rangatira. “E matau ana ahau ki a ratou, e aru ana hoki ratou i ahau”. Because there is no secret ballot there is no possibility of electoral fraud or false allegations of fraud. Thus the integrity of te rangatiratanga is assured.
I will end as I started by stressing that rangatiratanga is open to all. It exists now for Maori. There is no reason why it cannot be adopted by Pakeha and all others. Any two or more of you can become part of te rangatiratanga without seeking or needing permission from any other authority.
Thank you Geoff, that is a breath of fresh air. I like that system. Would we need a constitution and possibly a disolvement of the TOW to encompass this?
Gerrit, you’re not indigenous doesn’t make you less of a New Zealander though if that makes you feel good?
Adoption of rangatiratanga by non-Maori to the point where it became the method of governance for the nation as a whole would amount to a revolution. Therefore it is unlikely to be given legal effect by the present parliamentary system unless preceded by a fundamental change in public opinion. It is pertinent to note that to date parliament has not even been prepared to go as far as allowing for a democratically elected head of state for New Zealand.
However rangatiratanga already exists in the Maori setting, and will continue to develop, particularly under the pressure being applied by the present coalition government. As I said before there is nothing to stop non-Maori from setting up parallel rangatiratanga institutions of their own. Such institutions would not have state authority but they would allow non-Maori to make themselves familiar with the tikanga, and learn how rangatiratanga allows for respectful, constructive and effective political engagement.
Eventually, when a significant majority of non-Maori as well as Maori are fully conversant with the principles of rangatiratanga then it would be natural to make it the official method of governance for the state.
Such a process would take years or decades to complete. It would necessarily be a peaceful process and it could not happen overnight. But it can start now, and it can start with small groups who are prepared to honour the principles of rangatiratanga and to collaborate with other groups who represent different interests and who may have different social and political views, but who are willing to work together on the basis of those principles.