Thanks Gary for bringing David Lange's very pertinent speech to our attention. How ironic, given the last Government in particular, for a Labour PM to voice such a diametrically opposite of woke, 'the Treaty means nothing to me'. Although clearly this is not quite right at least in the sense that if those Maori chiefs had not agreed to British sovereignty, the British might well have left NZ to the French.
Other than that what stands out to me is: "The treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with, but it could never have assumed the importance it has without the complicity of others." It is complicity of others, in which passive is almost as bad as active, that is in my view the biggest danger to our democracy. The nation has become too accustomed to a tilted democratic playing field, which is now perceived as the norm. Only a counter social re-engineering effort of some sort will be able to fix that. Perhaps, irrespective of their reality, a "principles" debate would be a damn good start.
You've taken the same line as Winston Peters: 'a wise leader from the past said that there's nothing more to the Treaty than a groundwork for establishing a settled form of government for the whole country, so let's not imagine that it's anything more than that...'
Peters of course repeatedly references Ngata, Pomare, Buck and Carroll. You've added Lange. That's now five authorities. It used to be said that everything can be established by two or three witnesses. It was even in the Magna Carta to this effect. Nowadays we can be prosecuted (for over-speeding) on the basis of one photographic image. And not even that, it could be simply a calculation of one's average speed between two points on the highway....
Not too many years back, we held to a common law position that the public roads were owned by everyone, and the government (either central or local) held the responsibility to maintain them. We had the common law right to free passage, and in exchange we paid duties or taxes on petroleum fuels. Now the public roads have been redefined as the personal possessions of the Minister of Transport. We traverse them as guests...
Our original constitution, from 1852, gave us a Legislative Council, to be a check on the arrogance of a majority government. We suicidally amended that in 1950...
In February 2022 the High Court ruled that the 'vaccine mandate' for police and military personnel contravened certain parts of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, especially freedom to refuse medical treatments, and freedom of religious expression. The Government at the time ignored this, and spitefully ignored the protestors camping in the Parliamentary grounds, many of whom had lost their jobs...
Would not a properly constituted Legislative Council have taken note of this court ruling, struck down all of the so-called 'vaccine mandates' and instructed the House of Representatives to reconsider, on the basis of adequate public consultation and a wide variety of expert advise....?
But we now think we know better than the wisdom of those who bequeathed to us our original constitution...
Of course the Treaty didn't take any 'sovereignty' from the Rangatira. They did not have any 'sovereignty' of government over the whole territory. That simply didn't exist prior to 1840/41.
Nevertheless, it is perhaps clear that the intention of the Second Clause was that the 'chieftainship' of Rangatira would be respected, as chiefs within their own hapu. Well, I would like to be chief in my own family too....
My point is that there are more serious constitutional questions that really need to be tackled, which current attempts just don't begin to approach....
For example, the idea of a referendum on only a few questions about the meaning of the Treaty is ludicrous and without real context. We really need to be more clear about our whole constitutional foundations, including our legal heritage from English common law, and how this has been amended by successive activist governments that feel they can change anything, under urgency, simply because they have a majority vote in the House.
But who is there to really stand up for and protect our fundamental rights?
Let's present a thorough-going Constitution that addresses the whole situation and puts it all in the right proportions, not some piecemeal political play-thing...
Our courts have demonstrated they don't need a written constitution to subvert the will of the people expressed through legislation of a democratically elected government, and to take it upon themselves to create law that accords with their personal preferences. A written constitution would further this ability and should be opposed.
It is for this reason we could not possibly have under this or the last government: an honest, genuine, and objective written constitution due to the capturing of narratives that Maori never ceded sovereignty and should be given the rights to self-determine, vested interests in the commanding of vast resources of compensation and establishing separate public services for Maori by Maori, and on top of these- the right to veto any governance for all public service funding decisions. It is for this reason, I submitted that the government should hold off on the following UNHRC recommendation* in the interest of decency, democracy, and equal human rights for one and all under one flag:
"*46. The State party should :
(a) Strengthen the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the existing constitutional arrangements; UN Human Rights committee’s 6th periodic report New Zealand 2016"
My view aligns with yours that we should not open up that can of worms lest we condemn future generations to a series of UN decreed ethno-political objectives entrenched in NZ law.
I think all governments have just three options re the so called principles. Accept whatever activist courts decide the principles mean, define the principles or simply remove them from legislation which is what I prefer
Thanks for this, it was an interesting read. Winnie’s ‘there are no principles’ argument is right, but wrong because adherence to the ‘made up’ principles are mandated in every Govt department or related entity. So either remove all references to such, or let Seymour’s Bill enshrine the equal rights all Kiwis must share.
And yes indeedy re ‘time & space’. The Treaty should no longer have any standing. It was an agreement for the ‘people of NZ’ at that time. It is not valid for modern New Zealanders, for whatever ethnicity is claimed, they are still automatically endowed with the rights in the Treaty, simply by virtue of birth rather than requiring any treaty ‘pact’ with the Crown.
Thanks, Boris. I have reservations about the second paragraph. In the same way that it is a reality that there are no principles of the Treaty, it is also a reality that there is a Treaty which imposed certain enduring obligations on the Crown in return for the acknowledgement that the Crown had the right to govern. Apply the Treaty according to the meaning of the words *as the meanings of the Māori words were in 1840* and there is no problem.
What I think you are saying in your second para (very much agreeing with the first) is that the Treaty has been fulfilled in the sense that modern New Zealanders of whatever race, creed, or cultural leaning don't need to question that for example they will be protected by the Crown (how and to what extent is another matter but is the same for all). So to that extent the Treaty is no longer relevant ("means nothing"), other in dealing with any outstanding property related claims (article 2), which should also have been fulfilled long ago.
Yup, spot on. The ‘deal’ was that the ‘people of NZ’ (ie those living here not as British citizens) would get said citizenship (& all its immeasurable benefits if we are honest) which included land ownership rights, in exchange for accepting what was effectively British rule. Well, Parliament has ruled (with royal assent) since then and anyone born here gets all the aforementioned benefits for free. Ergo they have no need of a Treaty. Any Crown obligations now under Article 2 can only relate to verifiable breaches back then and most certainly do not extend to all the special privileges granted to some New Zealand citizens who just so happen to belong to certain clubs (aka Iwi).
Yes indeed. That status for all was really established by Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, with British sovereignty over NZ being recognized in international law, hence only then truly established, consequently effectively fulfilling that aspect of the Treaty. So the Charter is NZ's founding document with the ToW more of a precursive political condition.
Many thanks for bringing forward the Bruce Jesson Foundation memorial lecture by David Lange.
It has also been said by Brash that “We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both…” What partnership? – DonBrash.com “Its democracy or partnership – we cannot have both.” Democracy or partnership – which do we want, because we can’t have both? – Point of Order (wordpress.com).
Is there still value in having the Treaty principles debate?
Even if they do not exist, would that debate at least bring about a re-examination of the preceding conditions for their earliest mention, by the TOW Act 1989? A debate about the intention of parliament to introduce consideration to the "spirit" of the treaty (which may have been more accurate), would educate the public and highlight the revisionism and lack of legal basis for defined "principles"?
This is my point about the reality and the legislatively created fantasy. It gives rise to the alternatives presently on the table of trying to reverse nearly 50 years of activism based on a fiction by removing references to the principles of the Treaty from our legislation and public life (which the NZ First Party/Nat coalition agreement calls for, but there is no sign of action), or saying we can't turn the clock back but as Parliament created the problem it can now solve it by defining the principles based on what the Treaty actually says (which is the ACT Party position).
A wonderful explanation of what most of us believe to be the best form of Government for New Zealand.Democracy must trump co-governance.
Thanks Gary for bringing David Lange's very pertinent speech to our attention. How ironic, given the last Government in particular, for a Labour PM to voice such a diametrically opposite of woke, 'the Treaty means nothing to me'. Although clearly this is not quite right at least in the sense that if those Maori chiefs had not agreed to British sovereignty, the British might well have left NZ to the French.
Other than that what stands out to me is: "The treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with, but it could never have assumed the importance it has without the complicity of others." It is complicity of others, in which passive is almost as bad as active, that is in my view the biggest danger to our democracy. The nation has become too accustomed to a tilted democratic playing field, which is now perceived as the norm. Only a counter social re-engineering effort of some sort will be able to fix that. Perhaps, irrespective of their reality, a "principles" debate would be a damn good start.
Completely agree.
You've taken the same line as Winston Peters: 'a wise leader from the past said that there's nothing more to the Treaty than a groundwork for establishing a settled form of government for the whole country, so let's not imagine that it's anything more than that...'
Peters of course repeatedly references Ngata, Pomare, Buck and Carroll. You've added Lange. That's now five authorities. It used to be said that everything can be established by two or three witnesses. It was even in the Magna Carta to this effect. Nowadays we can be prosecuted (for over-speeding) on the basis of one photographic image. And not even that, it could be simply a calculation of one's average speed between two points on the highway....
Not too many years back, we held to a common law position that the public roads were owned by everyone, and the government (either central or local) held the responsibility to maintain them. We had the common law right to free passage, and in exchange we paid duties or taxes on petroleum fuels. Now the public roads have been redefined as the personal possessions of the Minister of Transport. We traverse them as guests...
Our original constitution, from 1852, gave us a Legislative Council, to be a check on the arrogance of a majority government. We suicidally amended that in 1950...
In February 2022 the High Court ruled that the 'vaccine mandate' for police and military personnel contravened certain parts of the NZ Bill of Rights Act, especially freedom to refuse medical treatments, and freedom of religious expression. The Government at the time ignored this, and spitefully ignored the protestors camping in the Parliamentary grounds, many of whom had lost their jobs...
Would not a properly constituted Legislative Council have taken note of this court ruling, struck down all of the so-called 'vaccine mandates' and instructed the House of Representatives to reconsider, on the basis of adequate public consultation and a wide variety of expert advise....?
But we now think we know better than the wisdom of those who bequeathed to us our original constitution...
Of course the Treaty didn't take any 'sovereignty' from the Rangatira. They did not have any 'sovereignty' of government over the whole territory. That simply didn't exist prior to 1840/41.
Nevertheless, it is perhaps clear that the intention of the Second Clause was that the 'chieftainship' of Rangatira would be respected, as chiefs within their own hapu. Well, I would like to be chief in my own family too....
My point is that there are more serious constitutional questions that really need to be tackled, which current attempts just don't begin to approach....
For example, the idea of a referendum on only a few questions about the meaning of the Treaty is ludicrous and without real context. We really need to be more clear about our whole constitutional foundations, including our legal heritage from English common law, and how this has been amended by successive activist governments that feel they can change anything, under urgency, simply because they have a majority vote in the House.
But who is there to really stand up for and protect our fundamental rights?
Let's present a thorough-going Constitution that addresses the whole situation and puts it all in the right proportions, not some piecemeal political play-thing...
Our courts have demonstrated they don't need a written constitution to subvert the will of the people expressed through legislation of a democratically elected government, and to take it upon themselves to create law that accords with their personal preferences. A written constitution would further this ability and should be opposed.
It is for this reason we could not possibly have under this or the last government: an honest, genuine, and objective written constitution due to the capturing of narratives that Maori never ceded sovereignty and should be given the rights to self-determine, vested interests in the commanding of vast resources of compensation and establishing separate public services for Maori by Maori, and on top of these- the right to veto any governance for all public service funding decisions. It is for this reason, I submitted that the government should hold off on the following UNHRC recommendation* in the interest of decency, democracy, and equal human rights for one and all under one flag:
"*46. The State party should :
(a) Strengthen the role of the Treaty of Waitangi in the existing constitutional arrangements; UN Human Rights committee’s 6th periodic report New Zealand 2016"
My view aligns with yours that we should not open up that can of worms lest we condemn future generations to a series of UN decreed ethno-political objectives entrenched in NZ law.
I think all governments have just three options re the so called principles. Accept whatever activist courts decide the principles mean, define the principles or simply remove them from legislation which is what I prefer
I agree, Barrie, except I doubt the last is practicable after 50 years.
"not practicable", does this mean removing them from legislation will be up against case law precedent in the courts?
Thanks for this, it was an interesting read. Winnie’s ‘there are no principles’ argument is right, but wrong because adherence to the ‘made up’ principles are mandated in every Govt department or related entity. So either remove all references to such, or let Seymour’s Bill enshrine the equal rights all Kiwis must share.
And yes indeedy re ‘time & space’. The Treaty should no longer have any standing. It was an agreement for the ‘people of NZ’ at that time. It is not valid for modern New Zealanders, for whatever ethnicity is claimed, they are still automatically endowed with the rights in the Treaty, simply by virtue of birth rather than requiring any treaty ‘pact’ with the Crown.
Thanks, Boris. I have reservations about the second paragraph. In the same way that it is a reality that there are no principles of the Treaty, it is also a reality that there is a Treaty which imposed certain enduring obligations on the Crown in return for the acknowledgement that the Crown had the right to govern. Apply the Treaty according to the meaning of the words *as the meanings of the Māori words were in 1840* and there is no problem.
What I think you are saying in your second para (very much agreeing with the first) is that the Treaty has been fulfilled in the sense that modern New Zealanders of whatever race, creed, or cultural leaning don't need to question that for example they will be protected by the Crown (how and to what extent is another matter but is the same for all). So to that extent the Treaty is no longer relevant ("means nothing"), other in dealing with any outstanding property related claims (article 2), which should also have been fulfilled long ago.
Yup, spot on. The ‘deal’ was that the ‘people of NZ’ (ie those living here not as British citizens) would get said citizenship (& all its immeasurable benefits if we are honest) which included land ownership rights, in exchange for accepting what was effectively British rule. Well, Parliament has ruled (with royal assent) since then and anyone born here gets all the aforementioned benefits for free. Ergo they have no need of a Treaty. Any Crown obligations now under Article 2 can only relate to verifiable breaches back then and most certainly do not extend to all the special privileges granted to some New Zealand citizens who just so happen to belong to certain clubs (aka Iwi).
Yes indeed. That status for all was really established by Queen Victoria's Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840, with British sovereignty over NZ being recognized in international law, hence only then truly established, consequently effectively fulfilling that aspect of the Treaty. So the Charter is NZ's founding document with the ToW more of a precursive political condition.
Many thanks for bringing forward the Bruce Jesson Foundation memorial lecture by David Lange.
It has also been said by Brash that “We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They can’t coexist and we can’t have them both…” What partnership? – DonBrash.com “Its democracy or partnership – we cannot have both.” Democracy or partnership – which do we want, because we can’t have both? – Point of Order (wordpress.com).
Is there still value in having the Treaty principles debate?
Even if they do not exist, would that debate at least bring about a re-examination of the preceding conditions for their earliest mention, by the TOW Act 1989? A debate about the intention of parliament to introduce consideration to the "spirit" of the treaty (which may have been more accurate), would educate the public and highlight the revisionism and lack of legal basis for defined "principles"?
This is my point about the reality and the legislatively created fantasy. It gives rise to the alternatives presently on the table of trying to reverse nearly 50 years of activism based on a fiction by removing references to the principles of the Treaty from our legislation and public life (which the NZ First Party/Nat coalition agreement calls for, but there is no sign of action), or saying we can't turn the clock back but as Parliament created the problem it can now solve it by defining the principles based on what the Treaty actually says (which is the ACT Party position).