'Power-sharing' in the classroom

"Across New Zealand, schools are declaring that they will 'give effect to Te Tiriti o Waitangi.'

"Many parents assume this means teaching New Zealand history or acknowledging Māori culture. In reality, in modern policy language, it means something far more structural.

"To 'give effect' to Te Tiriti generally means embedding Treaty principles into governance, leadership, and decision-making. It often involves redefining power-sharing arrangements, treating Māori as governance partners, and redesigning institutional systems around Treaty-based frameworks.

"This is not merely education. It is a constitutional and governance shift. The idea of 'partnership' is modern — not original. New Zealand did not operate as a partnership state for most of its history. The modern concepts of 'partnership,' 'principles of the Treaty,' and co-governance emerged largely in the 1980s through court decisions and Waitangi Tribunal reports. These ideas are not written into the original 1840 texts.

"What is happening now is not preservation of an old system. It is the adoption of a modern constitutional interpretation that remains highly contested within public debate."

~ Judy Gill from her post 'What “Giving effect to Te Tiriti” means in schools – and how zoning denies parents real choice'

Seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights has made for a disastrous confusion

"Article Two of Te Tiriti promises to preserve tino rangatiratanga; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain some kind of chiefly power. But Te Tiriti itself fails to fully clarify of what that power consists. Lawyers since have taken full advantage of this imprecision ... 

"In seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights, [Te Tiriti's authors have] unfortunately conflated a legitimate recognition of an individual right to property with an analogy to feudalism and a non-existent claim to a collective right. But feudalism is a busted flush. And "the expression 'collective rights' is a contradiction in terms.”

"This then makes for a disastrous confusion. Confusion, because the intent of Article Two is to impart property rights, an individual right. But the reference to "chieftainship" makes the promise about collective tribal rights over land with the tribes' rights embodied in a chief.  Disastrous because Te Tiriti should have treated all Maori as individuals instead of as members of a tribe. But it really does nothing of the sort except by implication.

"Instead, as written, it cemented in and buttressed the tribal leadership and communal structures that already existed here —encouraging the survival of this wreck of a system until morphing, as it has today, into this mongrelised sub-group of pseudo-aristocracy: of Neotribal Cronyism. 

"This is not what was aimed at, but it is what was written. But the law cannot protect a non-existent right. As [former Chief Justice] William Martin wrote in 1860, in seeking to understand the intent of the authors,

'This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the "tino Rangatiratanga,""full Chiefship," in respect of all their lands…"'

"This is not trivial. This is why sovereignty, was ceded. This is what we must understand. Tino rangatiratanga ('a right of property') under kāwanatanga katoa (the 'complete Government') of the British Queen.

“'EVEN THE 'TINO' OF the Māori version is better understood in this context,' argues [Ewen] McQueen. 'It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.' [Emphasis mine.]

"So 'rangatiratanga' relates to ownership. 'Tino' gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right."

~ Yours Truly from my post 'Rangatiratanga means "Ownership"'

Rangatiratanga means "Ownership"

IT MIGHT SURPRISE YOU to know, since so much hangs upon it, that the Treaty's term 'tino rangatiratanga' is 'a missionary neologism'—one of many. [1] Its root word is ‘rangatira,’ which was of course an original te reo word meaning ‘chief.’ This new word coined by Williams then stresses the power, authority, and agency of the chief.

Article Two of Te Tiriti promises to preserve tino rangatiratanga; courts have interpreted this in various ways to mean that chiefs (Rangatira) retain some kind of chiefly power. But Te Tiriti itself fails to fully clarify of what that power consists. [2] Lawyers since have taken advantage of this imprecision by arguing that it means some kind of chiefly sovereignty (although not over the whole country, since each iwi only extended so far). Ned Fletcher and others have argued since that the English text agrees with this idea, saying that the sovereignty ceded by the Treaty was “compatible with ongoing tribal self-government,” suggesting then that “tino rangatiratanga” means Māori self-government. 

His view is both an expansion and a clarification of the mainstream view of what “tino rangatiratanga” might mean.

Context is important. Like most law, Te Tiriti is hierarchical. Article One focusses on sovereignty; Article Two has a focus on land and resources. There was a logical progression from one Article to another, with the first Article, logically and in law, taking precedence. Sovereignty first, then clarifying what that sovereignty is for.

So with this context then, what is chieftainship about? Answer: It is primarily about ownership — about ownership of that land and those resources. But it is ownership in a "chiefly" sense, analogising the control of a chief over a tribe's land and resources to that of a property right. In his book One Sun in the Sky, author Ewen McQueen explains why Williams's translation reverts to the collective to offer this guarantees:

It is true that in translation Henry Williams has taken an approach that better aligns with the more [collectivist] Māori world-view, rather than the more individualistic European outlook. As such the Māori version does not refer to individuals holding exclusive possession of property. Instead we find chiefs exercising “chieftainship over the lands, villages and all their treasures. [3]

In seeking to find a te reo word to describe the unfamiliar concept of property rights, Williams has unfortunately conflated a legitimate recognition of an individual right to property with a non-existent claim to a collective right. "But the expression 'collective rights' is a contradiction in terms.” [4]

This then makes for a disastrous confusion. Confusion, because the intent of Article Two is to impart property rights, an individual right. But the reference to chieftainship is about collective tribal rights over land.  Disastrous because Te Tiriti should have treated all Maori as individuals instead of as members of a tribe. But it really does nothing of the sort except by implication.

Instead, as written, it cemented in and buttressed the tribal leadership and communal structures that already existed here —encouraging the survival of this wreck of a system until morphing, as it has today, into this mongrelised sub-group of pseudo-aristocracy: of Neotribal Cronyism. 

Nonetheless, as [former Chief Justice] William Martin wrote in 1860,

"This tribal right is clearly a right of property… To themselves they retained what they understood full well, the ‘tino Rangatiratanga,’ ‘full Chiefship,’ in respect of all their lands…’” [5]

This is not trivial. This is why sovereignty, was ceded.

“EVEN THE 'TINO' OF the Māori version is better understood in this context,” argues McQueen. “It does not mean that the chiefs’ authority is unqualified in a government sense. Rather it is Henry Williams’s translation of how the chiefs would retain possession of the lands, forests and fisheries. The English version emphasised such possession would continue ‘full exclusive and undisturbed.’ Williams has rendered this concept as ‘tino’ rangatiratanga. It is about Māori retaining full agency over their land and resources. It is not a statement about unqualified political sovereignty.” [Emphasis mine.]

So “rangatiratanga” relates to ownership. “Tino” gives force to this relationship, giving it the force of a property right.

NOTES:

[1] Paul Moon, The Path to the Treaty of Waitangi, David Ling Publishing, (2002) p. 147

[2] Hugh Kawharu back-translates te tino rangatiratanga as 'the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship,' which doesn't quite clarify things, although the next phrase tries, the Queen guaranteeing "to protect the Chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures ..."
    In Ned Fletcher's reconstructed English text, the corresponding phrase is "full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties ... "

[3] Ewen McQueen, One Sun in the Sky, Galatas Press (2020), p. 42-43. 

[4] Ayn Rand, ‘Collectivized Rights,’ in The Virtue of Selfishness, New York, Signet, June 1963

[5] William Martin, The Taranaki Question, The Melanesian Press(1860), p. 9.

[This post is based on the 2024 post at my NZ History blog: 'POSTSCRIPT 2: Rangatiratanga as Ownership'

RELATED:

• It's still the "chieftainship" that is the problem — NOT PC
• Kawanatanga katoa > tino rangatiratanga — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• When was sovereignty properly established here?  — A POLITICALLY INCORRECT HISTORY OF NEW ZEALAND
• Ned's Puzzling Treaty — NEWSROOM

Legal Privilege: Politicians not Treaty

"Politicians eagerly do what the Treaty of Waitangi does not: they dispense [political] favours and [legal] privileges to Māori.
    "They want to establish 'partnerships' not because the Treaty demands them, but because they claim to be invoking 'principles' established more than 100 years after the treaty’s signing."

~ Bob Edlin from his post 'No, it’s not the Treaty which grants privileges to Māori – it’s politicians'

"I cannot see how anyone could possibly object to a bill committing our country to racial equality and to the sovereignty of Parliament"

"I myself cannot see how anyone could possibly object to a bill committing our country to racial equality and to the sovereignty of the Crown and Parliament.
    "Nor can I see any constitutional objection to our sovereign parliament — the very parliament that has made reference over the years to the ‘principles of the Treaty’ — taking the logical and necessary next step of explaining what those principles are.
    "Nor can I see any objection to leaving the final decision on the matter to a referendum of ordinary citizens ~ whom we do, after all, trust every three years to decide on our rulers for the next Parliamentary term....
    "Nevertheless, some people obviously do object to this bill. Unless they occupy a different reality, however, they must be aware that the bill is, rightly or wrongly, strongly supported by very many other New Zealanders. That is an undoubted and indisputable fact. Those New Zealanders supporting the bill may be misguided, but the fact of their support is absolutely clear. ...
    "[Some objectors argue] that since governments since 1987 ‘have abdicated responsibility’ for interpreting [sections of law containing these principles], that job has been left to the courts — which has now led, allegedly, to ‘clear understandings’ of what [such a section] means. [For example,] that ‘[t]his Act shall so be interpreted and administered as to give effect to the principles of the Treaty…’ ...
    "[Some objectors complain] that governments have ‘abdicated responsibility’ for interpreting [these 'principles' sections], but also complain that Parliament, by this bill, is attempting to interpret the section! [They] cannot have it both ways. Surely Mr Seymour’s bill is an acceptance — not before time! — of Parliament’s responsibility to say what the principles of the Treaty are."

~ David Round from his article 'The Decline of Conservation'

Perhaps if MPs did have an actual argument, they would use it?

"When did it become permissible for Members of Parliament to treat select committee submitters with condescension, disdain or thinly disguised contempt? ... for men and women with impeccable professional reputations and years of service to the New Zealand community to expect their appearance before a parliamentary select committee to serve as an excuse for MPs to hector and insult them, and to ignore completely the content of their submissions?
    "Sadly, the answer to those questions would appear to be ‘right here, right now’. ...
    "All the evidence required to construct the case is readily accessible in the official video recordings of the Justice Select Committee’s hearings on the Treaty Principles Bill, particularly in the reception given to retired District Court Judge, David Harvey, by MPs representing Labour and Te Pāti Māori. ...
    "Why submit oneself, or one’s ideas, to such dismissive treatment? ...
    "Some have written-off [a 2021] incident [involving Deborah Russell] as just one more example of covid-induced madness.
    "But, if that is the explanation, then how is the extraordinary rudeness towards David Harvey and other submitters in support of David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill to be accounted for?
    "Why would Labour’s Willie Jackson feel free to chide a former District Court judge, whose career is as distinguished as it is free of professional and/or personal blemish, as if he were some errant legal backwoodsman, unaware of the intellectual powerhouses ranged against his unsophisticated opinions?
    "Why would Te Pāti Māori’s Rawiri Waititi imply that the submissions of a judicial officer backing Seymour’s bill largely explain the ongoing legal oppression of his people?
    "Why would the Labour MP for Christchurch Central, Duncan Webb, a former law professor, show no interest in addressing the legal arguments contained in Harvey’s submission? ...
    "The kindest construction one could put upon the conduct of the three MPs in question is that they are unshakeably convinced that the “European colonialist” ideology contained in the Treaty Principles Bill poses such an existential threat to the future of Māori in Aotearoa that any serious consideration of arguments submitted in support of it cannot be countenanced. Those offering such support do not deserve to be taken seriously and should not expect to be. ...
    "To rule out even the possibility of compromise can only hasten the transformation of select committee hearings into the 21st century equivalent of Soviet-era show trials, the sole purpose of which would be to demonstrate publicly the adverse consequences of wrong-think."

~ Chris Trotter from his post ' When parliamentary hearings on controversial bills become hostile echo chambers'

"The Treaty Principles Bill ... provides a coherent and succinct statement capturing what liberal democracy is"

"Consider the two words 'liberal', 'democracy' and their connection. Both give us something that none of our ancestors living in kinship groups had. 'Democracy' gives us a system of parliamentary sovereignty, of law, of regulation. It recognises that our common humanity justifies equal rights. Those rights belong to the individual citizen, not to the group.
    "The word 'liberal' gives us the freedom to be different – as individuals and in voluntary associations based on a range of shared interests –culture, heritage, language, sport, music, religion, politics, and so on.
    "This is what makes liberal democracy remarkable. As citizens we have the same political and legal rights. As members of civil society we are free to be different. This is an enormously important point. It is the combination of rights, responsibilities and freedom within democracy's governance and laws that makes the modern world vibrant and prosperous.
    "That's why I support the Treaty Principles Bill – because it provides a coherent and succinct statement capturing what liberal democracy is – something we should all know, especially ... Members of Parliament ...
    "The Bill is the symbolic link to the hope found in both the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi and in the 1852 Constitution Act. Nineteenth century New Zealanders, especially those who had been slaves, decimated by war, of low genealogical birth status, or from impoverished backgrounds – they put their faith in a peaceful and prosperous future for their descendants. In the 21st century we can strengthen that faith for our descendants by agreeing to the principles in this Bill.
    "New Zealand's future may be that of a prosperous first-world liberal democratic nation or a third-world, retribalised state. A first world tribal nation is a contradiction in terms. It is not possible. There can be no prosperity without individual equality and freedom. There can be no social equality without prosperity. ...

    "[A]s early as the 1870s there's the commitment to a united people who belong to, and benefit from, the nation 'New Zealand.' Nearly 150 years later that commitment is under serious threat from those who would replace liberal democracy with tribal sovereignty and, by doing so, create a racialised society – apartheid." 

~ Elizabeth Rata from her Oral Presentation to the Parliamentary Justice Committee on the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

 

"... It is extraordinary that needs to be said, but equality is not racist."

"The Treaty Principles Bill has done exactly what its champion, David Seymour, intended – it has sparked a national conversation. And that conversation has been eye-opening to say the least. Never could I have ever predicted that ‘equality’ would be treated as ... a dirty word.
    "The immortal words of Dr Martin Luther King Junior’s 'I have a dream' speech, treasured for decades after his death, are now out of fashion according to certain sections of our society and Nelson Mandela would today perhaps be condemned for the ideals he said he would die for:

    '… the ideal of a democratic and free society in which all persons live together in harmony and with equal opportunities.'

"... It is extraordinary that needs to be said, but equality is not racist."

~ Don Brash from his post 'Equality is not a dirty word'

"Maori are under attack."? "They aren't."

"There is a sense now that the protest against the Treaty Principles bill, with its highly visible Maori Party branding, is turning into something else. It is an answer to the clarion call that 'Maori are under attack.'
    "They aren't. Maori are no more under attack than any other group affected by policy decisions taken to undo six years of profligate spending, reduce inflation, make housing more affordable and get the private sector producing. That’s all of us. Down-sizing the bloated public service has meant job losses across the board – men, women, young and old, Maori and non-Maori.
    "It’s true that when unemployment increases Maori are disproportionately affected. But so are Pacific people, the young and women. Other than Maori, is there a political party for any of these other distinct groups? No."

~ Lindsay Mitchell from her post 'It's the Maori Party that is driving division'

 

The Hikoi Hustlers

Tamihere goes bush after a successful recruitment drive

"The Hīkoi mō te Tiriti ('March for the Treaty') was ostensibly a protest against David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill. But things are not always as they seem. ...
    "Rather than an informed protest against the Treaty Principles Bill, the Hīkoi was in fact a Māori Party recruitment drive and promotion, orchestrated by John Tamihere. ...
    "The Māori Party recruitment drive appears to have worked, with thousands shifting from the general roll to the Māori electoral roll. The increase in the Māori electoral roll could translate into another Māori electorate. In the 2023 general election, the Māori Party won six of the seven Māori electorates.
    "On-the-ground Hīkoi leader was Eru Kapa-Kingi ... a paid Māori Party staffer and son of Mariameno Kapa-Kingi, current Māori Party Member of Parliament. ... Māori Party co-leader Rawhiri Waititi was naturally at the heart of the Hīkoi. ...
    "Funding much of this Māori Party political activism is the Waipareira Trust, with John Tamihere as Chief Executive and his wife Awerangi as Chief Operating Officer. ... The Trust currently receives about $20 million in Government funding per annum ... The Trust owns about $120 million in assets. ...
    "On top of being a Māori Party promotion and recruitment drive, Kingpin John Tamihere employed the Hīkoi, and its downstream media coverage, to deflect and distract from ongoing investigations into his [electoral, charities and privacy] skulduggery.
    "Mainstream media coverage of the Treaty of Waitangi is a shroud of lies. ... [And] our institutions and state agencies have a long way to go to re-earn our trust they can uphold the rule of law and principles of openness and honesty ..."

~ John McLean from his post 'John Tamihere's Māori Party Machinations'

"...the possibility of a constitutional crisis because of the activism of some judges of New Zealand’s senior courts."

"Bryce Edwards ... has signalled the possibility of a constitutional crisis because of the activism of some judges of New Zealand’s senior courts. ...
    "In New Zealand now, we have ... a breed of judges who are not legal activists but political activists — judges who unashamedly seek to advance political agendas. In doing so, they assume the mantle of Plato’s philosopher kings, the creed of the infallible ruling elite. ... contemptuous of the people of the country, the people they pretend they are serving. ...
    "Incredibly, a number of my King’s Counsel colleagues appear to think this is okay. As part of their calling on the Prime Minister and the National Party to breach a coalition agreement by refusing a first reading and referral to a select committee of ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill, they say that 'even if Parliament can legislate in this way (which is uncertain),' the courts may not enforce it. ...
    "They need a short lesson because Parliament’s power is not uncertain. ...
    
"All lawyers, including KCs have a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law. ... When the KCs say it is uncertain that Parliament may legislate in this way, they mean that the courts may refuse to apply the law. Using that as an argument implies acceptance of or even advocacy for defiance of Parliament and the law of the land. How is that consistent with a fundamental obligation to uphold the rule of law?
    "What the KCs should be saying is that judges, like everyone else, must obey the law and they have by virtue of their office a special obligation to apply it."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'KCs are not a special elite'

"Seymour is only doing openly what Māori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly, for the past 50 years."

"David Seymour is right. His bill might be killed at its Second Reading, but the issues he has raised will not die. ...
    "David Seymour’s great sin has been to offer an alternative to this covert effort to change the constitution of New Zealand by changing the Treaty’s historical meaning. Those who argue that the Treaty Principles Bill is a blatant attempt to re-write the Treaty are quite right. What they omit to say, however, is that Seymour is only doing openly what Māori nationalists and their Pakeha allies have been doing, quietly, in legal chambers, common-rooms, and public service offices for the past 50 years.
    "The critical difference, of course, is that Seymour was proposing to give the rest of us a vote on his version."

~ Chris Trotter from his post 'Beyond Question?'

"Parliament said in 1975 that the Treaty has two texts, when it does not, and justified recourse to 'principles' of the Treaty because of the fiction that the Treaty has two texts."

"[T]he idea that the Treaty has principles first surfaced publicly in Labour’s manifesto for the 1972 general election. It subsequently gained legislative status by its inclusion in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. ... giving the Waitangi Tribunal jurisdiction to make recommendations based on findings that actions were contrary to or inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty, rather than findings that actions which were a breach of the Treaty itself. 

    "[The reason for this, it was argued,] was that the treaty has two texts, one in Māori and the other in English. ... But as I have shown there is only one text, the one that was signed at Waitangi. There are two texts only because the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 said that there are. ....

"So, the situation is that Parliament said in 1975 that the Treaty has two texts, when it does not, and justified recourse to 'principles' of the Treaty because of the fiction that the Treaty has two texts. ...
    "The solution to the problem Parliament created must be either to undo what was done in 1975 upon the basis that what was done was based on flawed reasoning, or to accept that what has been done is done and to remedy the 1975 omission, by Parliament’s doing what it could have done in 1975 and defining the principles to be applied by the Waitangi Tribunal, the courts, and those agencies which are required in some way to observe the principles."

~ Gary Judd from his post 'Treaty of Waitangi “principles” — only one text'

"We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy, or become an ethnocentric nation riven by ethnic tensions."

 

"We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy where everyone counts, or we can become an ethnocentric nation based on identity politics and riven by ethnic tensions. Make no mistake; the current path where particular ethnicities are granted 'partnership' status can only lead to the eventual appearance of more ethnic parties fighting it out for a seat at the table."

~ Ananish Chaudari from his post 'Debate around ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill essential for a multi-ethnic nation'

 

"It has only just been revealed that the judiciary invented their own set of Treaty Principles..."

"The Treaty Debate is great. We've just found out, courtesy of our King's Counsels, what has broken the economic back of this nation. It has only just been revealed, thanks to their letter to the PM, that the judiciary invented their own set of Treaty Principles. ...
    "Most of us had heard about the 'principles' before, but until the Treaty Debate was opened recently, we had no idea that they were so embedded [by lawyers and judges] into our Constitutional arrangements.
    "Many countries have affirmative action programs. However I know of no country that has [embedded within it] a constitutional requirement of 'outcomes,' not opportunities, being equalised amongst the citizenry, other than maybe a few Communist States that failed & no longer exist. ...
    "[O]ur Judiciary seem not have the foggiest idea of the practicalities of the problem. Once you put equitable outcomes, not opportunities, in a Constitution, you're requiring governments to raise massive tax revenues to achieve equalisation. You're shifting taxation powers from elected officials to judges. Let's at least be grateful to our King's Counsels for explaining why NZ's standard of living has been falling, harming the livelihoods of all ethnicities."

~ Robert MacCulloch from his post 'Now We Know how NZ's economy became broken: The Judiciary wrote a Communist-style Constitution without Consultation; without People Knowing.'

Shock & Surprise: Lawyers oppose removal of lawyers' gravy train

 

Cartoon by Nick Kim 

I'd like to say I was astonished to read that 42 KCs (so-called "King's Counsels") signed an open letter opposing David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill.

But why should anyone be astonished that 40 folk sucking off the Treaty tit would oppose the removal of their teat.

In the film The Castle Darryl Kerrigan describes these legal vultures as "rich folks' lawyers." People who prey upon uncertainty in law, on confusion in contracts, on doubtfulness in legal decisions, turning dubiety into billing hours. Their carrion is the many, many thousands of dollars a day they charge to pore over legal documents and invoice for all that uncertainty.

For them, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi being undefined by parliament is not just a godsend, it's a meal ticket. A once-in-a-lifetime chance to make bank.

The very last thing they want is for those undefined Principles, placed by Geoffrey Palmer et al at the heart of so much law since the 1980s, to be defined. To be made clear. To leave no room for debate.

The very last thing they want is for that gravy train to be taken away.

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken, "Much of the vagueness and uncertainty in present law is due, in the main, to lawyers, and, in part at least, to good ones. They are responsible for the perversion in law of undefined principles that now clutter the statute-books, and for all the evils and cost that go with ongoing attempts to defined them. Every Waitangi Tribunal judge is a lawyer. So are most politicians. Every invasion of the plain rights of citizens has a lawyer behind it. If all lawyers were hanged tomorrow, and their bones sold to a mah jong factory, we’d be freer and safer, and our taxes would be reduced by almost half.”

"Does denying human equality and rejecting the principles of colour-blind citizenship place you among the baddies? Yes, I’m afraid it does."

"[T]he period of roughly five months between the election of Abraham Lincoln as President in November 1860, and his inauguration in March 1861 ... were the months in which, one after the other, the slaveholding states of the South voted to secede from the Union. ...
    "The most disconcerting feature ... are the many parallels between the America of then, and the New Zealand of now. ... 

"From a strictly ideological standpoint, it is the Decolonisers who match most closely the racially-obsessed identarian radicals who rampaged through the streets of the South in 1860-61, demanding secession and violently admonishing all those suspected of harbouring Northern sympathies. Likewise, it is the Indigenisers who preach a racially-bifurcated state in which the ethnic origin of the citizen is the most crucial determinant of his or her political rights and duties.
    "Certainly, in this country, the loudest clamour and the direst threats are directed at those who argue that New Zealand must remain a democratic state in which all citizens enjoy equal rights, irrespective of wealth, gender, or ethnic origin, and in which the property rights of all citizens are safeguarded by the Rule of Law.
    "These threats escalated alarmingly following the election of what soon became the National-Act-NZ First Coalition Government. ... The profoundly undemocratic nature of the fire-eaters’ opposition was illustrated by their vehement objections to the ACT Party’s policy of holding a binding referendum to entrench, or not, the 'principles' of the Treaty of Waitangi. Like the citizens of South Carolina, the first state to secede, the only votes they are willing to recognise are their own. ...

"Those New Zealanders who believe unquestioningly in the desirability of decolonisation and indigenisation argue passionately that they are part of the same great progressive tradition that inspired the American Abolitionists of 160 years ago. But are they?
    "Did the Black Abolitionist, and former slave, Frederick Douglass, embrace the racial essentialism of Moana Jackson? Or did he, rather, wage an unceasing struggle against those who insisted, to the point of unleashing a devastating civil war, that all human-beings are not created equal?
    "What is there that in any way advances the progressive cause about the casual repudiation of Dr Martin Luther King Jnr’s dream that: 'one day my four little children will be judged not by the colour of their skin, but by the content of their character'? ...

"Does denying human equality and rejecting the principles of colour-blind citizenship place you among the baddies? Yes, I’m afraid it does."

~ Chris Trotter from his post 'Are We The Baddies?'

Treaty Principles Debate: Have a Listen

I don't recommend many podcast episodes here at NOT PC, but here's one I reckon you should put aside some time for: it's the Working Group's latest podcast, featuring an hour-long debate over his Treaty Proinciples Bill between ACT's David Seymour, and Ngāti Toa's Helmut Modlik.

Hosted by commy bigmouth Martyn Bradbury and libertarian liquidator Damien Grant, it's worth a listen not least because the participants speak with candour, in good faith , and with humour — and (for the most part) are listening to each other. And how many political debates can you say that about today, especially this one!

"We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy, or become an ethnocentric nation riven by ethnic tensions."

"We have a choice. We can choose to remain a liberal democracy where everyone counts, or we can become an ethnocentric nation based on identity politics and riven by ethnic tensions. Make no mistake; the current path where particular ethnicities are granted 'partnership' status can only lead to the eventual appearance of more ethnic parties fighting it out for a seat at the table."

~ Ananish Chaudari from his post 'Debate around ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill essential for a multi-ethnic nation'

Treaty Principles: Unequal + Divisive?

"Reasons both for and against the Bill to define the Treaty's principles vary in their worth.
    "One of the worst against it is that it will cause division.
    "Those who use this as a reason to kill the Bill are either in ignorance of, or ignoring, the division that already exists over the rights and wrongs of Māori rights and the disquiet over the way the principles, which are undefined, have crept into legislation and practice in all levels of government, the public service and private organisations.
    "Stopping debate because there is division won’t stop the division, it will make it worse."

~ Ele Ludemann, from her post 'Stopping debate won’t stop division'

"The original intention of the ACT Bill was to assert three basic principles, which can be derived from the original Treaty:

• The New Zealand government has the right to govern New Zealand.
• The New Zealand government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property
• All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.

But those who profit from the Waitangi Tribunal could not have remained employed and in power for 49 years if that task was so simple ... The danger was soon evident. ... The suggested second principle [became]: 

'The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property.'

    "The first version spoke of equality; this rewritten text makes a claim for separation and superior Māori rights ...
    "That rather strange version of property rights has, since the above was written, taken another step away from universality. The second principle has [now] become (11 September 2024): 

'Rights of Hapu and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapu and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.'

"This [version] insists on special rights defined by race. The Bill has been destroyed, and the promise to the New Zealand people has been betrayed. ...
    "The country grows crazier with each new year. We have been living in [George Orwell's] Animal Farm for too long. When the pigs strut about and proclaim that 'All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others,' our only response must be – don’t be so silly."

~ John Robinson from his article 'Just Equality: The simple path from confusion to common sense.' [Emphases in Robinson's original]