Leave a reply

About the Author

Dr Muriel Newman

Dr Muriel Newman

Dr Muriel Newman is the founder and Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research – a public policy think tank she established in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. Her background is in business and education. A former Chamber of Commerce President, she currently serves on the board of a children’s trust.

Undermining the Rule of Law

Print Friendly and PDF

Posted on April 20, 2014
By

lawDemocracy is based on four key elements – free and fair elections, the active participation of citizens in politics and civic life, the protection of human rights, and the upholding of the rule of law. 

By ensuring all citizens are treated equally, the rule of law prevents discrimination on the basis of race, religion, ethnic group, or gender.  With an independent judiciary to ensure that no-one – not even a monarch or elected ruler – is above the law, upholding the rule of law is a safeguard of crucial importance for the citizens of any modern democracy.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Judge Anthony Willy – a retired District Court Judge and former Canterbury University Law Lecturer – has examined the state of the rule of law in New Zealand and shares his concerns. In his briefing paper, Privilege and the Rule of Law, Judge Willy explains that nothing is more important to the preservation and enjoyment of the freedoms we take for granted than the protection of the Rule of Law:

“The purpose of this brief and of necessity incomplete excursion into the constitutional significance of the Rule of Law is to examine the constitutional health of New Zealand in 2014, a country which any informed commentator will assert pays careful attention to the observance of the Rule of Law. We certainly have all of the trappings: a democratically elected Parliament with universal franchise, a strong Judicial tradition, the members of which enjoy guaranteed tenure, and are independent of Parliament and the Executive, the process of judicial review by which the decisions of officials and Parliament can be tested for legality and due process, a Bill of Rights which enshrines all of the content of the rule of law in unambiguous terms. So it would appear that constitutionally all is rosy in this garden of ours.

“And so it is with one worrying exception and that is the growing trend in some areas of public policy towards preferring the economic and civil rights of Maori people above those of non Maori, for no better reason than their ethnicity. No other ethnic group is seeking privileges not available to all, but the same arguments would apply if one should emerge.”

He argues that while reverse discrimination initiatives introduced over the years in the name of improving Maori health, education, and welfare, have been widely accepted by the public, it is the more recent demands for the ownership and control of public resources – and the sharing of sovereign power – that are causing concern.

“Maori are embarked on making more and more strident claims to unequal treatment based solely on their ethnicity. Among the more worrying are: Claims of a political nature for example to share in the sovereignty of New Zealand,[i] claims to unelected representation as of right on a number of public bodies such as Regional and District Councils, claims to the right to occupy increasing areas of the fore shore and seabed to the exclusion of other members of society, claims to a rent from assets such as geo thermal steam, and increasingly to share in the value of river water where it is of some economic significance. There are also claims to intellectual property rights to vegetation which grows commonly in New Zealand, and to the air waves, on the basis these are treasures which are protected by the Treaty of Waitangi. These claims are facilitated by the growing trend towards provisions being inserted into plans prepared by regional authorities under the Resource Management Act giving emphasis to often vaguely worded Maori rights and claimed privileges.”[ii]

Judge Willy explains that, “The basis for these claims rests solely on the proposition that the claimants are to some extent of Maori descent. If successful therefore they are thus in clear breach of a fundamental component of the Rule of Law. If such claims are to be granted solely on the basis of race, then what next. No member of the society any longer has the protection of the equal treatment component of the Rule of Law, and as a concept regulating the conduct of the affairs of society The Rule of law is fatally compromised. The inevitable consequence is that New Zealand will cease to be a society in which the Rule of Law is paramount, to one in which race based privilege or some other criterion depending on which group is seeking the privilege, becomes the deciding factor in who gets what benefits from society, and what opportunities are open to whom.”

The never-ending demands by iwi and the continual appeasement by governments are clear indications that New Zealand’s political system has been captured by an interest group pushing for Maori supremacy. Fundamentally, Maoridom’s elite have persuaded politicians that their genetic inheritance guarantees them superior status to all other citizens. Dressed up as bogus claims of Treatypartnership and sovereignty rights, successive governments have knowingly compromised the rule of law by granting special privileges based on superior race demands.

This is extremely dangerous.

Corporate iwi are now claiming their genetic inheritance gives them the right to become a ruling class in New Zealand. They are demanding reserved seats so they can sit at the ‘top table’ alongside the government – without having to be elected. Yet reservedseats are an anathema to democracy – they not only undermine the rule of law, but they also corrupt the one-person-one vote principle on which our system of government is based.

In a 2010 speech, the Minister of Maori Affairs Pita Sharples, revealed a deep disdain for democracy, calling “one vote for one person” and “democratic elections”, “artificial political concoctions”. He explained that, “The Maori kaupapa were principles that promoted ‘equity’ and ‘inclusiveness’, surely the ideals of a ‘civilised’ society. We must begin to recognise that democracy has many expressions, many ways of mobilising voices and representation, rather than statically holding onto dominant axioms.”[1]

It is the long term aim of the Maori sovereignty movement to hold, not just one or two reserved seats on governing bodies, but 50 percent. Even though Maori represent a minor part of the population and the two race-based parties combined gained less than 3 percent popular support at the last election, in this post Treaty-settlement era, their crusade is for a half of governing seats to be determined by race for use by their appointed elite, with 50 percent for everyone else. In spite of the fact that such co-governancearrangements fly in the face of the rule of law and democracy itself, the government – both local and central – are already establishing such arrangements to control crucial public resources, such as the Waikato River, the Hauraki Gulf, and the Urewera National Park. The naked ambition of iwi driving this agenda (as submissions to the government’s constitutional review reveal only too clearly) is to set themselves up as a permanent ruling elite. By holding 50 percent of the votes on governing bodies, they can control the country by default. That government is playing along – threatening the integrity of the rule of law and democracy itself – is deplorable.

Unfortunately, while the public are increasingly alarmed by these developments, many elected representatives are supportive.

These issues reached a head in New Plymouth last week when the Mayor put forward a proposal to the 15-member District Council to appoint six iwi members with full voting rights onto influential council committees. He justified the proposal on the basis that “Iwi participation in local government is necessary because they’re our treaty partner”.[2]

Under the Local Government Act, councils are required to provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making process. In most cases, local iwi have privileged status as an ‘affected party’ under the Resource Management Act, which means that councils will refer consents to them as a matter of course. Most councils also have liaison committees to ensure that local iwi are kept well informed, especially on issues involving submissions.

The problem is that many cash-rich iwi now want more. Being able to approve or block consents is no longer enough. They want decision-making rights – not through the normal democratic process, but through the back door.

The New Plymouth District Council vote showed five council members were in favour of race-based representation, while seven were opposed; three were absent. While the motion was defeated, the matter does not rest there.

Te Atiawa iwi representative Peter Moeahu threatened the council: “It is of grave concern when New Plymouth councillors deliberately act contrary to local government law and spit in the face of iwi, the Crown’s Treaty partner. The law is clear: Council has a legal obligation to engage with iwi. They refuse to do so. I am in Wellington next week and will raise this issue with government officials. I expect other iwi of north Taranaki may do the same.”[3]

After the move to appoint iwi onto the District Council was defeated, the Taranaki Regional Council chief executive Basil Chamberlain revealed that they too were planning to appoint iwi with full voting rights onto influential council committees. The chief executive explained that “the issue was still under discussion and would be confirmed when Treaty settlements went through”. [4]  Council minutes from a meeting on March 18 stated, “It was noted … that the matter of Iwi representation on some standing committees of the Council was still being carefully worked through with Taranaki Iwi and will possibly be another twelve months before given effect to.”

The Local Government Commission, under the leadership of Basil Morrison (who is also a member of the Waitangi Tribunal) is now pushing a race-based agenda. In any area where amalgamation is being considered, the Commission is recommending super councils and Maori statutory boards. If the Commission tries to force through such changes against the will of residents and ratepayers, locals have an opportunity to fight back through region-wide referenda. However, if the Commission tries to force through its agenda against the widespread wishes of the public, then the Commission itself should be sacked – for failing to respect the views of locals and for undermining the rule of law.

Upholding the rule of law is crucial to democracy. This week we have launched a petition calling for the abolition of the Maori seats. The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended the abolition of the Maori seats, if MMP was introduced. While strong advocacy by Maori leaders ensured the seats were retained, their existence – through Maori-only parties holding the balance of power – is now leading to an escalation of race-based laws and extremism, which is seriously undermining democracy and dividing our country. It is time race-based seats were removed, to strengthen the rule of law and to heal our democracy.

 

THIS WEEK’S POLL ASKS:

Do you agree that the race-based Maori seats undermine the rule of law and democracy in New Zealand?

Click HERE to vote

         

Read this week’s poll comments daily HERE  

 

 

This is what the Constitution of New Zealand says.

Leave a reply

 

On the Constitution of New Zealand: An Introduction to the Foundations of the Current Form of Government

 

 

 

The Rt Hon Sir Kenneth Keith, 1990, updated 2008

A constitution: What is it?

A constitution is about public power, the power of the state. It describes and establishes the major institutions of government, states their principal powers, and regulates the exercise of those powers in a broad way. While all constitutions have these general characteristics, each constitution is affected by the national character of the state it services.

The New Zealand constitution: Its main features

The New Zealand constitution is to be found in formal legal documents, in decisions of the courts, and in practices (some of which are described as conventions). It reflects and establishes that New Zealand is a monarchy, that it has a parliamentary system of government, and that it is a democracy. It increasingly reflects the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is regarded as a founding document of government in New Zealand. The constitution must also be seen in its international context, because New Zealand governmental institutions must increasingly have regard to international obligations and standards.

The Constitution Act 1986

The Constitution Act 1986 is the principal formal statement. The Act first recognises that the Queen – the Sovereign in right of New Zealand – is the Head of State of New Zealand, and that the Governor-General appointed by her is her representative in New Zealand. Each can, in general, exercise all the powers of the other.

The Act then deals with the Executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

The provisions about the Executive emphasise its parliamentary character. Only Members of Parliament may be Ministers of the Crown and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries. One Minister may also act for another.

Parliament – the legislature – consists of the Sovereign and the House of Representatives. The members of the House are elected in accordance with theElectoral Act 1993. Each Parliament has a term of three years, unless it is earlier dissolved. The Governor-General has the power to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament. After each general election, Parliament is to meet within six weeks of the date fixed for the return of the writs.

The Constitution Act provides for Parliament to have full power to make laws; a Bill passed by the House becomes law when the Sovereign or Governor-General assents to it.

The Constitution Act reaffirms the constitutional principles about parliamentary control of public finance: the Crown may not levy taxes, raise loans, or spend public money except by or under an Act of Parliament.

The provisions about the judiciary also relate back to long established constitutional principle. To enhance their independence, the Judges of the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal and the High Court are protected against removal from office and reduction of salary.

Other sources of the constitution

The other major sources of the constitution include:

  • The prerogative powers of the Queen under which, for instance, the Queen issued the Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor-General of New Zealand in 1983 and conferred her powers in respect of New Zealand on the Governor-General. The Queen appoints the Governor-General who, in general, exercises her prerogative powers. The Queen or Governor-General appoints and dismisses members of the Executive Council and Ministers of the Crown. Those powers are part of the common law. They exist independently of statutes, although statutes can, of course, limit or even supersede them.
  • Other relevant New Zealand statutes, such as the State Sector Act 1988, the Electoral Act 1993, and the Judicature Act 1908, relating in turn to the three branches of government, as well as the Ombudsmen Act 1975, the Official Information Act 1982, the Public Finance Act 1989 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990.
  • Relevant English and United Kingdom statutes, such as Magna Carta 1297, the Bill of Rights 1688, the Act of Settlement 1700 (regulating succession to the throne among other matters) and the Habeas Corpus Acts, all confirmed as part of the law of New Zealand by the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988. These statutes also regulate the relations between the state and the individual.
  • Relevant decisions of the courts, for instance, upholding rights of the individual against the powers of the state, and determining the extent of those powers.
  • The Treaty of Waitangi, which may indicate limits in our polity on majority decision making. The law may sometimes accord a special recognition to Māori rights and interests such as those covered by Article 2 of the Treaty. And in many other cases the law and its processes should be determined by the general recognition in Article 3 of the Treaty that Māori belong, as citizens, to the whole community. In some situations, autonomous Māori institutions have a role within the wider constitutional and political system. In other circumstances, the model provided by the Treaty of Waitangi of two parties negotiating and agreeing with one another is appropriate. Policy and procedure in this area continues to evolve.
  • The conventions of the constitution, which in practice regulate, control and in some cases transform the use of the legal powers arising from the prerogative or conferred by statute. The most important conventions arise from the democratic character of our constitution.

Constitutional conventions are of critical importance to the working of the constitution, even though they are not enforceable by the courts. In 1982, the Supreme Court of Canada summarised the constitutional position in that country in an equation: constitutional conventions plus constitutional law equal the total constitution of the country.

The underlying principle: Democracy

The Queen reigns . . .

That basic equation and the democratic character of the main conventions appear clearly in relation to the powers of the Queen and Governor-General under the law. Thus they may appoint Ministers and other holders of important offices (such as the Judges, the Defence Chiefs, the Ombudsmen, and the Controller and Auditor-General), they may dismiss them (following certain procedures), they may summon and dissolve Parliaments, they may assent – or not – to Bills passed through the House, and they may agree – or not – to proposed regulations and Orders submitted to them by the Executive Council and Ministers.

. . . but the government rules . . .

The Queen and the Governor-General are free to take those steps as a matter of law. But, as a matter of convention, they do so only on the advice of the Prime Minister or Ministers who have the support of the House of Representatives – that is, on the advice of those who are elected by the New Zealand voters, and who belong to a party which has a majority in the House; or who are part of a coalition which has a majority; or who, as a minority, are accepted by the House as able to sit on the Treasury benches. There must always be a ministry (the government of the day) to advise the Queen or Governor-General.

. . . so long as it has the support of the House of Representatives

That convention of course incorporates its own limit – one that conforms with democratic principle. If the government loses the support of the House, or if the Prime Minister loses his or her support as the leader of that government, then the ministry or the Prime Minister is likely to change: another party or combination of parties may now have the support of the House, or a new leader may be identified as Prime Minister. Or the Governor-General may face a more difficult situation because the position within the House or the governing party is unclear.

Situations like this were rare in New Zealand under the first past the post electoral system, but have been less rare since the introduction of the proportional representation electoral system. The essential principle in such situations continues to be that the Queen, as a constitutional monarch, or the Governor-General, as her representative, acts in accordance with the advice of the Prime Minister or Ministers who have the necessary support of the House of Representatives. Where that support is unclear, the Governor-General relies on the elected representatives in the House, and especially the party leaders, to clarify whether a party or grouping of parties has the support of the House to govern, or whether fresh elections will be required. In the meantime, the incumbent government continues in office, where necessary acting in accordance with the convention on caretaker government.

This is not to deny the important role of the Governor-General in the business of government. Practice and the Letters Patent indicate that the role includes being informed and consulted, and advising and warning Ministers. The office has central symbolic, unifying, and representative roles, as well as the important legal powers already mentioned.

In a broad sense, it is the ministry or government of the day which governs. The members of the ministry as a whole have the support of the House and must take collective and individual responsibility for their decisions, the decisions that are taken in their name, and the measures they propose. That is the position in law and in convention. That responsibility and power to take decisions results from the electoral process and the political contest.

Real power and legal form

The decisions often take a legal form that departs from that practical and conventional reality; the decision taken in fact by Cabinet has then to be taken, as a matter of law, by the Governor-General in Council, the Governor-General or a Minister, as the particular statute requires; or the Bill passed by the House through all its readings has to be assented to by the Governor-General to become law. The Cabinet, essentially a body established by convention, has no legal power; and the House acting alone has very limited powers to take decisions with full legal effect.

The role of political parties

Political parties provide a vital link between the people, Parliament and the government. The competition for the power of the state, exercised through the House of Representatives and the ministry, is a competition organised by and through political parties. It is party strength in the House after elections that decides who is to govern. It is the parliamentary party or parties with the support of the House (and the ability to ensure supply – the money to fund the state’s functions) that provides the government.

The importance of political parties in our constitutional system is recognised in the Electoral Act 1993 and in Standing Orders. It follows that parties’ internal procedures, for instance in respect of the means of selecting their leaders and members of Cabinet, have an important practical effect on our governmental arrangements. The relationships between parties, including any agreements that they may reach, have become more important under coalition and minority governments.

The role of the Prime Minister and Ministers

The Prime Minister is the head of government, chairs Cabinet and has a general coordinating responsibility across all areas of government. By constitutional convention, the Prime Minister alone can advise the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament and call an election, and to appoint, dismiss, or accept the resignation of Ministers.

Ministers constitute the ministry, or executive arm of government. Their powers rise from legislation and the common law (including the prerogative). Ministers are supported in their portfolios by the public service.

The role of the public service

The role of the public service is stated in some detail in legislation, particularly in the provisions of the State Sector Act 1988, the Public Finance Act 1989and the Official Information Act 1982, as well as a great number of particular statutes. Constitutional principles and that legislation support four broad propositions (among others). Members of the public service:

  • are to act in accordance with the law;
  • are to be imbued with the spirit of service to the community;
  • are (as appropriate) to give free and frank advice to Ministers and others in authority, and, when decisions have been taken, to give effect to those decisions in accordance with their responsibility to the Ministers or others;
  • when legislation so provides, are to act independently in accordance with the terms of that legislation.

Public servants meet those obligations in accordance with important principles such as neutrality and independence, and as members of a career service.

Independent powers of decision: statutory bodies

Members of the public service sometimes have independent statutory powers of decision, over which Ministers do not have control and for the exercise of which they are not responsible. Other parts of the broad state sector are also distinct from Ministers and not subject to their control and responsibility in the same way that departments and their members usually are.

The bodies set up separately from government include regulatory agencies, providers of a wide range of services, state trading bodies, and supervisory, control, or advice agencies.

In establishing such bodies, over a very long period, Parliament has recognised and reaffirmed that much public power should not be concentrated. It should be allocated to distinct bodies with varying degrees of independence from the Executive. This separation and independence may help ensure, for instance, a judicial independence of decision, equitable distribution of funds, the pursuit of commercial profit and business efficiency, or effective and credible processes of independent scrutiny, supervision and advice.

Towards more open government

Over recent decades the processes of government have become more open. Notably, in 1982 the Official Information Act reversed the basic principle of the Official Secrets Act 1951: the principle now is that official information is to be made available to those seeking it unless there is good reason for withholding it. Those reasons relate to public interest such as the national security and law enforcement, and to private interests such as confidences and privacy. Underlying that principle are a number of purposes, including enabling the more effective participation of the people of New Zealand in the making and administration of laws and policies, and promoting the accountability of Ministers of the Crown and officials, with the consequence of enhancing respect for the law and promoting the good government of New Zealand.

The emphasis on greater transparency in decision making and policy development is also to be seen in the legislation governing the government’s spending and fiscal policies (especially the Public Finance Act 1989), and in the operation of the parliamentary select committee processes.

Individuals, autonomy and majority rule

In a range of ways, including those just indicated, individuals and communities do participate directly in political and governmental processes important to them. There is for instance much emphasis in law and in practice on those exercising public power giving fair hearings to and consulting those affected by the exercise of that power. Also relevant is the enactment of the Citizens Initiated Referenda Act 1993.

A balance has to be struck between majority power and minority right, between the sovereignty of the people exercised through Parliament and the rule of the law, and between the right of elected governments to have their policies enacted into law and the protection of fundamental social and constitutional values. The answer cannot always lie with simple majority decision making. Indeed, those with the authority to make majority decisions often themselves recognise that their authority is limited by understandings of what is basic in our society, by convention, by the Treaty of Waitangi, by international obligations and by ideas of fairness and justice.

The international context

Major changes in science, technology, communications, trade patterns, financial systems, population movement, the environment and many other matters of international concern mean that more and more law is made through international processes. The powers of national governmental institutions are correspondingly reduced. This has important consequences for national and international constitutional processes. Under changes to parliamentary procedures, Parliament has a greater opportunity to scrutinise and comment on the more significant international treaties before they are ratified by the Executive.

Changing the constitution

In theory, many parts of the constitution can be amended by legislation passed by a simple majority of the Members of Parliament. That power is, however, restrained by law, convention, practice and public acceptance.

Some limits on constitutional change arise from the international obligations which have just been mentioned.

Certain key elements of the electoral system can be amended only if the people in a referendum approve, or three-quarters of the Members of Parliament agree. The provisions thus protected concern the three-year term of Parliament, the membership of the Representation Commission, the division of New Zealand into general electoral districts, the voting age, and the method of voting. In accordance with that requirement, the amendments made in the last 40 years to those provisions have been made only following agreement between the major political parties in the House or, in the notable instance of the c

hange to proportional representation, following a binding referendum (which had itself been preceded by an indicative referendum).

It also appears to be accepted, at the level of convention, that those voting requirements also apply to any proposal to amend that protective provision. Similarly, Standing Orders provide that an entrenched provision should be introduced by the House only by the vote which would be required for the amendment or repeal of the provision being entrenched. The 1986 Constitution Act itself was enacted with general bipartisan support in the House. And recommendations to the House for new Standing Orders, in accordance with convention, are adopted by consensus in the Standing Orders Committee.

Other constitutional changes arise from legislation enacted in the regular way, such as the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, from decisions of the courts, from new prerogative instruments, and from changing practices (which may contribute to new conventions). Some matters are better left to evolving practice rather than being the subject of formal statement. But such development, like other changes to the constitution, should always be based on relevant principle.

 

Giving Away our Sovereignty for Pie in the Sky

Leave a reply

TPPA Negotiations = Giving Away our Sovereignty for Pie in the Sky

Posted on December 3, 2012 by admin in John Minto, Press Releases

MANA is calling on the government to open up to public scrutiny the TPPA (Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement) negotiations which start their 15th round in Auckland today at the Prime Minister’s favourite venue – Sky City Casino.

“We want to see the TPPA abandoned and the clear light of day is the best weapon to expose these secret negotiations between governments and international corporations” says MANA Vice President John Minto.

“The decisions here are too big to be made by just a few right-wing National cabinet ministers – democracy demands community debate and input. It’s an outrage it won’t even be debated in Parliament before our government signs up”.

“What we know about the TPPA so far from various leaks is that it involves the government giving away our sovereignty for some future pie in the sky”.

“Major concerns include:

1. That TPPA is a Bill of Rights for corporate multinationals to plunder the New Zealand economy even more easily than they can at present.

2. It will tightly constrict any future New Zealand government from regulating any area of our economy in the national interest of New Zealanders.

3. Our government will be open to being sued in international tribunals if it regulate in a way which could reduce profits of foreign corporates.

4. It will mean greater expense for us buying drugs, accessing entertainment, etc …

“The negotiations involve 29 chapters – of which only five deal with trade in goods. The others are demand lists from foreign (mainly US) corporates”.

“The capitulation to Warner Brothers over the Hobbit movies is small change compared to what is planned here. Every sector of our economy will be given the Warner Brothers treatment”.

“Prime Minister John Key has shown he doesn’t have the ability to do decent deals for New Zealand. He’s a walkover for any corporate”.

“New Zealand is set to agree to these concessions in the mournful hope we may get future access to US markets for our dairy products. However even if the US agrees to some future access it will take as long to increase dairy exports to the US as it’s taken to get apples into Australia”.

“We are selling our sovereignty for pie in the sky”.

ENDS

For further comment please contact Malcolm Mulholland on 027 765 6380

 

admin

Post Author

This author has not entered his bio yet but feel free to check out other articles by him anyhow.

Other posts by →

Discussion · 2 Comments

There are 2 responses to “TPPA Negotiations = Giving Away our Sovereignty for Pie in the Sky”.

 

  1. JEONG CHUN PHUOC says:

    Post Author December 10, 2013 at 3:53 pm

    “Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) AND TRADE LIBERALISATION IN ASIA-PACIFIC: THE CASE OF MALAYSIA AS A MEMBER OF ASEAN BLOC”

    Malaysia, and other developing countries in ASEAN region, is keen to liberalise trade and intellectual property rights-related inventions to maximise climate change objectives (CC-os) within the Kytoto Protocol and UNFCCC tracks.

    The on-going negotiations must take into views SMES’ interests, particularly, the transfer of patents to drive green technologies.

    The new MYBIOMASS INITIATIVE by the malaysian government under MIGHT, is a mighty showcase deliverable in the operationalisation of the new TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER MECHANISM of UNFCCC as per COP-16 drummed out in Cancun, Mexico in 2010.

    It is hoped that the TPPA will consider and incorporate green procurement and transfer of green technologies towards climate change objectives (CC-os) direction and not a dampener for Global Environmental Responsibility Framework in Asia-Pacific region.

    ……………………… JEONG CHUN PHUOC, EXT CONS, SL, ADV CLI he can be reached at jeongchunphuoc@gmail.com

    Reply

 

– See more at: http://mana.net.nz/2012/12/tppa-negotiations-giving-away-our-sovereignty-for-pie-in-the-sky/#sthash.5Mdi5BiA.dpuf

Sovereignty

Leave a reply
 

 

MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2010

David Round: The Maori Sovereignty Movement

Labels: ,

Here are some of the ideas about Maori sovereignty as expressed by various Maori leaders in Maori Sovereignty, The Maori Perspective (ed. Hineani Elder, Hodder Moa Becket, Auckland 1995). I mention many of these people in the chapter on sovereignty in my 1998 Truth Or Treaty? Do not think that in the years since then the talk has become moderate or reasonable. It may sometimes now be expressed a little less angrily ~ the ideas are placed before the Waitangi Tribunal now, and are supported by a Maori academic ~ but the policy is still exactly the same. It is just that because now they seem to be making a little headway, there is, for the moment anyway, no need for the aggro. It will still be applied now and then when it looks as though the victim shows any signs of reluctance.

Note several things. This agenda has been around for quite a while. It has been the setting in which all other negotiations so far have been conducted. Other settlements have not been the end of the Maori agenda, but just steps on the way, just softening us up one step at a time. Note that many of the speakers are familiar to us; some are very prominent within Maoridom, and although we may dismiss some others as rabble-rousers, we cannot deny that they do have a following. Note also that some of the real firebrands in this movement ~ Moana Jackson, Annette Sykes, Titewhai Harawira, Tama Iti and Ken Mair are conspicuously absent. Would that have been because their views were even more terrifying?

Just to mention several of those last five, if I may, for a moment. Moana Jackson maintains that by the Treaty ‘Maori allowed for a house of Pakeha culture to be built alongside their house.’ It is not enough to have bicultural room for Maori in the Pakeha house. The Treaty guarantees both peoples the right to house their cultures adequately, and Maori people therefore need an entirely separate independent house. The Maori race ~ whatever that is these days ~ must be entirely independent of Pakeha. In advocating dual sovereignty Jackson observes that ‘at the very least there are more than twenty different sovereignties in the land area of Europe and they seem to operate without too much bitterness or debate’. Does he know the first thing about European history, which, like the history of the rest of the world, is full of bloodshed? The Maori Battalion went to Europe ~ has he never heard of them? Is he actually unaware of Maori history’s dreadful record of war? I find that hard to believe. So why does he say what he does?

At other times Jackson has gone beyond this ‘separate but equal’ view and maintained that ’the Treaty says that people are permitted to live in peace in this country under the mentor of Maori rule’. His English is not perfect, but we understand his message.

Tama Iti believes that sovereignty is ‘repossession of all Tuhoe lands, total control of Tuhoe resources by Tuhoe and determination of the future of Tuhoe by Tuhoe’. Ken Mair has stated that he does not consider himself a New Zealander and that any decision of the courts on Moutua Gardens (or, presumably, anything else) is ‘an irrelevance’.

As I have already written, perhaps among these claims we can obtain reassurance from the actions of two of the protesters who occupied the Takahue School in Northland. They were demanding tino rangatiratanga, but two of their number obtained Social Welfare grants to replace clothing destroyed when some of the protesters burnt the school down. On the other hand, I don’t think Social Welfare payments will stop them wanting a lot more.

I should add that some Maoris quoted in the book say very sensible things, doubting the practicality or wisdom of any return to tribalism, chiefly authority, welfare dependency and, as John Tamihere does, urging Maori ‘not to trade on purist mythology from the 1840s…..Maori cannot turn the clock back’. Even this moderate man, though, thinks that Maori should have no choice but to be put on the Maori electoral roll, and wants the Treaty written into a new constitution.

In the book, Mike Smith claims that the ‘kawana’, the governor, was merely a ‘chief for the pakeha’. Maori ‘have the main contract to look after this place and we subcontracted out some functions , some limited authority to the kawanatanga to look after their own people and ensure that they lived peacefully within…our society. We have the authority, the predominant or primary say in what happens here….Increasingly Maori are saying ‘….If you Pakeha can’t live up to your responsibilities, then we are going to have to make you subject to our jurisdiction, in terms of sorting you out.’

I may have quoted Wira Gardiner, former chief executive of the Ministry of Maori Development and former Maori vice-president of the National Party, before. He ‘rejects the common criticism that tribalism is divisive and is holding Maori back….[W]hat we are seeing in Bosnia is a desire by Bosnians to return to ethnic roots. The Bosnians, Croats, Serbs and Muslims were forcibly placed together this century. The break-up of Yugoslavia shows that tribalism is not dead. Of course it is going to cause trouble. But just because it creates problems doesn’t mean that it’s wrong.’ Gardiner would not share Moana Jackson’s optimism, then, about different European peoples ~ or Maori tribes ~ living peacefully side by side. As I remarked in Truth Or Treaty?, ‘[t]he unspeakable atrocities and bloodshed of Yugoslavia are, it seems, just ‘problems’, about which the former head of a New Zealand government department is not unduly concerned. In his chest, it seems, there beats the heart of a warrior and statesman, not afraid to contemplate the breaking of a few eggs in the new tribal Yugoslavia of Aotearoa. We have been warned.’

Sandra Lee considers treaty negotiations a ‘nation to nation’ issue, like the negotiations on the GATT treaty. Parliament has no business interfering in the matter.

Maarire Goodall believes that ‘many actions taken in the name of the Crown….[and] given a false veneer of legality by parliament have been quite unconstitutional and illegal. In due time the courts will recognise these mistakes….Parliament eventually will recognise a mixed sovereignty originating from both Maori and the Crown.’ Parliament should not be able to legislate against the Treaty, and we can only speculate as to how he proposes that this principle be enforced or applied in practice.

For Hekia Parata, now a National Party list Member of Parliament, ‘there is no Maoridom without the tribes,’ and ‘sovereignty is about restoring iwi decision-making. She does agree, though, that things have changed, and tino rangatiratanga ‘does not have to be territorial sovereignty; it can be cultural or political sovereignty’. The recognition of change is sensible, although it would be even more sensible to acknowledge that change means that any ‘rangatiratanga’ is a dead letter.

Ranginui Walker talks of ‘models’ for the realisation of Maori sovereignty. He thinks that government of this country will become ‘untenable’ unless we have, say, an upper house in parliament with an equal number of tangata whenua and ‘tangata tiriti’ (Treaty people i.e. non-Maoris). Maori would have to be able to prevent legislation. Otherwise they might ‘engage in civil disobedience all over the country. [The government] couldn’t police it. They couldn’t control it. Especially with modern technology ~ explosives, arson and things like that.’

This, too, is clearly a warning we should ponder carefully.

The complacent may reply that these people are the lunatic fringe, and not worth worrying about. They are certainly at what we might think to be on the lunatic fringe. But they are prominent and influential, not remote crazy irrelevancies. Angry violent lunatics sometimes rise to be in charge. Societies do experience revolutions and rebellions. Why, I ask again, should we be automatically exempt? As Maori expect more and more, as our society becomes more polarised, and as it becomes poorer and less able to satisfy continuing and rising Maori expectations, why should we have nothing to worry about?

The Waitangi Tribunal, incidentally, has on other occasions disagreed with its own acceptance that sovereignty was ceded to the Crown in 1840. In its report on the Taranaki claim ~ the report written without actually hearing the evidence of the Crown ‘on many matters’ ~ the Tribunal declares that, with respect to Taranaki claims, the main claim, more significant even than that of land deprivation, is that of ‘disempowerment’ ~ by which it means the ‘denigration and destruction of Maori autonomy or self-government’. Maoris ‘should be respected as founding peoples….and not merely as another cultural minority. It thinks that ‘if the drive for autonomy is no longer there then Maori have either ceased to exist as a people or have ceased to be free’. No prizes for guessing which of these two options the Tribunal will go for.

This is Maori sovereignty. These are the people, and this is the movement, whose flag our Prime Minister orders to be flown from government flagpoles on our national day. Is he unaware of what that flag stands for? I can hardly believe that he is; it would show him and his advisers to be appallingly negligent. Surely the meaning of any flag flying together with our national flag must be investigated before it is flown? But if our rulers know what this flag means, and despite that allow it to be flown, what does that say about them and their attitudes? Whose side are they on?

 
Print Friendly and PDF

AT 12:06 AM
 
 

5 COMMENTS:

Anonymous said…

OK let them have autonomy….
Let them fund it too from their own sources. They can pay their own social welfare,policing/justice dept costs, incarceration, medical, education.. etc etc…how’s autonomy looking now?

Its interesting how this ‘maori bohemia’, incorporating their wonderful culture and wonderful values is all held such high esteem
and reverence for some unknown reason…(well its not really unknown…theres an industry in it)….but it would fall on its face in a nanosecond without the “evil white mans” resources and facilities.
And yet those same ‘western white’ values and work ethics and family values that have generated the prosperity that supports their fantasy, all have no value. In fact they decry it….talk about killing the golden goose.

Therefore they can only perpetrate all this crap with our compliance.

“Sovereignty” would lead back to tribalism in weeks and probably civil war.
The collectivist bohemia they are seeking would be a disaster.

No wonder so many people have moved to Aussie.

JULY 1, 2010 AT 5:45 PM

Anonymous said…

Perhaps New Zealand would prosper if it was accepted once and for all that if it has an indigenous people, they are not Maori, there is more than sufficient evidenc to prove this. If we assume that the treaty was based on an assumption by the Brirish crown that they were, surely the treaty is simply invalid.

JULY 8, 2010 AT 9:58 PM

Anonymous said…

gee i suppose the current system is working out great.
maybe a change would be good.
furthermore, last time i checked Maori pay taxes like everybody else. so they are entitled to their view…this is a democratic country isn’t it?
or is the suppress thing still going on?
maori know they aren’t the harmonious beings, but they are allowed to be peaceful…sometimes…like everybody else

better run quick “the sky is falling”

“breaking views” what does that mean anyway?regurgitated fodder

SEPTEMBER 26, 2010 AT 2:24 PM

Anonymous said…

Keep your blood money – I would rather live in a grass hut in the dirt – then accept you filthy blood money.

OCTOBER 25, 2011 AT 4:57 PM

Paul said…

I’m not sure whether you actually reply to these messgaes David, but who is “the Maori academic” you speak of in the introduction as supporting these ideas?

OCTOBER 29, 2011 AT 12:48 PM

Post a Comment