|
 Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
20
April 2008
The
Promise of the Treaty
|
Printer
friendly version (PDF) 
View
>>> |
The
Maori Party is calling for Maori seats to be established in
Auckland local authority areas. They believe that the creation
of Maori wards or a Maori seat quota would ensure that
“tangata whenua play a meaningful role in governance” and
that the Maori vision of “partnership” is honoured (See Herald
>>>).
They
are using the Royal Commission of Inquiry on Auckland
Governance as an opportunity to advance their cause. Under its
terms of reference the Commission is required to “consult
and engage with Māori in a manner that specifically
provides for their needs” (see “Consultation
with Maori” >>>).
Submissions
to the Royal Commission – which can be made online - close
on Tuesday 22nd of April at 4pm. For more details click
here >>>)
Labour
has long promoted the Maori vision of “partnership”.
During its first term in office, the Labour Government passed
the Local Government Act to facilitate the involvement of
Maori in local authority decision-making. It also passed the
Local Electoral Act to enable local authorities to set up
separate Maori wards. The fact that the Bay of Plenty was the
only region in the country to establish Maori seats shows how
little popular support there is for race-based representation.
Those who oppose racial seats point to a fair racial
representation on councils and community boards up and down
the country - without any need for regulation.
During
a Parliamentary debate in 2006 on Maori representation in
local government, MP Pita Sharples explained the viewpoint of
the Maori Party: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the founding
document of Aotearoa. Interwoven throughout the Treaty is the
significance of tino rangatiratanga—the political authority
to be self-determining. The presence of tino rangatiratanga
affirms our ongoing ability to be self-determining, which is
essential for our survival, dignity, and well-being. That is
the promise articulated in the Treaty, in that parties to the
Treaty are entitled to representation in the organs of kāwanatanga
governance”. (To view the debate click
here >>>)
Most
Maori and non-Maori alike reject the partnership
interpretation of the Treaty as a construct of activist
judges. Instead they subscribe to the promise of the Treaty
expressed by the great Maori leader the Hon Sir Apirana Ngata,
that the Treaty gave New Zealand a Sovereign Queen, created
private property rights, and established equality under the
law.
In
his book The Treaty of Waitangi, Sir Apirana explains
the Maori version of the Treaty: “The Treaty found us in the
throes of cannibalism. These were lawless times. Therefore the
Queen was desirous to establish a Government with a view to
avert the evil consequences to the Maori people and to the
Europeans living under no laws".
Under
Article One, Maori Chiefs "do absolutely cede to the
Queen of England forever the Government of their lands".
Under Article Two, “the Queen of England confirms and
guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes and to all the people of
New Zealand the full possession of their lands, their homes
and all their possessions”.
Under
Article Three, “Maori and Pakeha are equal before the Law,
that is, they are to share the rights and privileges of
British subjects”.
He concludes his comments on the Treaty of Waitangi with sage
advice: "The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and
Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame
our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they
were powerful". (An EBOOK of Sir Apirana Ngata's The
Treaty of Waitangi is available as an exclusive free offer
with every subscription to the NZCPR - click for details>>>)
The
Hon Michael Bassett, this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator,
was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for ten years from 1994
to 2004. In his article “The Waitangi Industry”, he shares
his insight both as a Tribunal Member as well as a Minister in
the Lange Labour Government:
“There are few futuristic ideas that have lost their sheen
as quickly as the notion that settlements of Maori grievances
would improve New Zealand’s race relations. Our ancestors
were sceptical. There were inquiries into grievances in 1921
and 1927, and Prime Minister Peter Fraser told Maori in the
1940s that he would settle the eleven sets of identifiable
grievance that Maori had against the Crown. Several “full
and final settlements” were made between 1943 and 1947”.
He
goes on to explain: “Liberally-inclined politicians
gradually convinced themselves that the complaints of those
who had missed out on the 1940s settlements ought to be
thoroughly investigated. Norman Kirk’s Minister of Maori
Affairs, Matiu Rata, was opposed; the Waitangi Tribunal
erected in 1975 was to look at the Treaty of Waitangi and to
ensure that its “principles” were applied to future public
policy. No provision was made for delving into past history.
Young, vocal Maori radicals protested. Eventually they
convinced a later Labour deputy leader, Geoffrey Palmer, and a
Maori Affairs spokesperson, Koro Wetere, to promise to
introduce a mechanism for examining historical grievances.
These had expanded in number since the first settlements. The
Lange Labour government in which I was a minister was
sceptical about whether the exercise would do anything useful
for Maori, but in 1985 we allowed the Waitangi Tribunal to be
expanded”.
Michael
outlines the results, “Rorting the Tribunal process has
become the name of the game. A whole industry numbering
somewhere around 1,000 people gathered around new grievances
that keep being dreamt up. Quite small family groups now call
themselves tribes; personal disagreements with relatives get
blown into major claims. And the taxpayer keeps paying up”.
To read the full article click
here >>>.
During
the Parliamentary debate on the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Bill,
which established the Waitangi Tribunal to examine
contemporary claims, and the 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment
Bill, which extended the powers of the Tribunal to investigate
grievances back to 1840, many reservations were expressed. The
Right Hon Sir Robert Muldoon raised concerns about the
divisive nature of the 1975 Bill, “It must be emphasized
that we are in fact one people and the question can be asked
whether special legislation of this type makes us one people
or two peoples”. And the MP for Tarawera, Ian McLean raised
the alarm over the 1985 Bill, calling it “dangerous” and
stating that it had “the potential to trigger disastrous
tensions between Maori and Pakeha”. He went on to warn that
the future of Maori people would not be aided by “looking
backwards rather than forwards; they should be looking forward
to their future and to the future of their children”.
These
warnings proved prophetic. The Treaty of Waitangi settlement
process is widely regarded as racist and divisive. It is
viewed as morally wrong that today’s struggling taxpayers
are asked to pay - yet again - for alleged injustices that
occurred hundreds of years ago.
According
to the latest available figures from June 2007, the total
settlement redress this time around, is $794 million in
taxpayer funded cash and assets. This is the cost of settling
fewer than twenty historical claims. Many more claims are in
the pipeline.
While
there is no limit on the growing number of contemporary
claims, the cut-off date for the lodging of historical claims
(those that date from before 21 September 1992) is 1st
September 2008. The target for settling these claims is 2020.
If the total value of these settlements exceeds the $1 billion
‘settlement envelope’, a ‘Relativity Clause’ in the
$170 million Tainui and Ngai Tahu agreements will be activated
in order to ‘top-up’ these claims to maintain relativity.
(Details of the progress of Treaty settlement claims can be
viewed on the Office
of Treaty Settlements website >>> Full details of individual
claims can be found there including for example the agreement
regarding the claim for the Waikato
River >>>)
The
estimated total cost of legal assistance
for claimants
–
much from Legal Aid – is in the region of $70-80 million.
The cost of running the Waitangi Tribunal has grown to over
$10 million a year, and the cost of the Office of Treaty
Settlements to around $18 million a year. Some $6 million of
that is spent on the managing the portfolio of regionally
landbanked properties, that are waiting to be given to
claimants as part of the settlement process. There are around
800 properties in the landbank, including former hospitals,
schools, halls, hostels, farms, commercial premises, dwellings
and vacant land. Their stated value is around $250 million.
(Full details of the location and description of these
landbanked properties, can be seen here
>>>).
The
taxpayer funded Maori grievance industry has damaged New
Zealand. By perpetuating the ‘victim-status’ of Maori, the
elitists have prospered while other Maori wait for riches that
will never come. The sooner the Treaty process is finished,
the sooner the dispossessed can prosper and New Zealand can
begin to heal its self-inflicted wounds.
The
poll this week asks: Do
you believe that Maori wards should be established in local
authority areas. Go
to Poll >>>
If you
would like to comment on this issue please click
>>>
Skip to top |
Skip
to this weeks poll |
Send to friend
Your
Comments:
Reader's
comments will be posted on the NZCPR Forum page click
to view >>>.
Skip to top |
Skip
to this weeks poll
Send
to a friend:
|
