It seems strange that the He Paupau report seems to have become very quiet . I considered it even more radical than the TWP Bill and written with no Pakeha consultation. It states that....."Māori procedures and customs will be functioning and applicable across New Zealand under Māori authority, and under Crown authority where applicable...................All New Zealanders will embrace and respect Māori culture as an integral part of national identity." My question is ,what is Maori authority. Is it obeying cultural edicts from the likes of Tuku Morgan?
He Puapua was buried in Hipkins's policy bonfire and then by the election, I guess. But it was a plan for 'constitutional transformation' developed in the backroom. Where it would have led is unclear now.
Was it really incinerated, Grant? I don't recall any explicit repudiation of it. My guess is that it was too close to the heart of the Labour cabinet to be abandoned. This is most certainly true of the Greens and TPM who treated it as unimpeachable canon.
On consideration of this complex issue, I’m reminded of interesting conversations with Professor Kerry Howe (History, Massey Albany) circa 2005 where the point was raised that the possibly inevitable move away from our British Crown colonial ties would offer the opportunity for New Zealand to formulate and adopt a constitution, something long advocated by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. At the time of that discussion, Māori remained largely wedded to the Crown through the historical partnership formed through the Treaty. However, I wonder how that allegiance may shift with the next generations of young Maori who will increasingly become demographically more influential, and with growing confidence in their cultural identity, language, and recognition of the validity of indigenous collective social organization. The questions just keep on rolling.
Would our current political framework allow Maori to freely participate equally in the formulation of a constitution? Would a formal constitution allow a partnership that is not forever debated back and forth with the swinging political pendulum of the election cycle? Could we as a nation be educated and informed enough to even consider the necessary principles required and their consequences? I’d like to think so, but that’s probably the optimism that sociologists are required to nurture, somewhat against the odds and the stark realities of contemporary politics. In truth, I find my optimism flagging.
If the central tenet of Seymour’s argument is equality for all under the law, that law in New Zealand remains overwhelmingly colonial in terms of its basis in individual property rights. Surely that notion of equality is in itself a false premise and reimposes the colonial imperative to subjugate and assimilate indigenous peoples.
And as a last thought, as your piece readily points out Grant, relying on legacy media - let alone social media - how does the general population usefully and reliably engage with these matters?
Long live Substack and Politics Happens - may it continue to prosper and gain traction.
Thank you for those thoughts, Wendy! I can't address all your questions just now, I'm afraid. I'd just note that TPM policy is to break the tie with the British monarch. And that processes towards a written constitution have always been blocked by fear of precisely the kind of argument we are presently seeing. I don't foresee consensus arising for the time being.
It is the wrong process for establishing or revising the understanding of Te Tiriti. The discussion needs to be, initially, directly between both parties to Te Tiriti. If nothing else this is a basic concept in contract law - something ACT claims it stands for.
It is wrong in trying to limit the scope of 'right' to individual rights. Intrinsic to Te Tiriti are also collective rights. Rights of nature/intrinsic rights are also ignored by the narrow, individualistic approach by Mr Seymour.
It is wrong in the misrepresentation of what Te Tiriti says.
It is wrong in the misrepresentation of the separation of powers underpinnng our (largely unwritten) constitution. The Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal are not acting outside their roles. If it is necessary to identify who is acting outside their constitutional power, Mr Seymour need just look in the mirror.
The Bill is right, however, in trying to further the interests in ACTs' donors and corporate supporters in removing any barriers to their continued raping and pillaging of our natural resources and to the expansion of their rent-seeking and value-extracting activities.
"The discussion needs to be, initially, directly between both parties to Te Tiriti." How likely do you think it is that any such discussion will see the Crown (the government) contest contemporary reinterpretations of Te Tiriti in a way which gives voice to the anxieties of thinking Kiwis, Māori and non-Māori alike? Through omission and political expediency, the government has already bound itself to laws and policies which condone the constantly evolving reinterpretations.
Good faith discussions between the two Tiriti parties is always possible. Misrepresentations and attempted rewriting of Te Tiriti by Seymour using a process that is just really just abusive bullying is not even remotely a good faith action.
Are you sure, Andrew, that the discussions need only involve two parties? Have I misunderstood you? Or, who is not a party to these hypothetical discussions?
There are two parties that signed Te Tiriti. Any discussion on it - what it means now - needs to start with good faith discussion between those two parties. This is, I would have thought, be accepted as pretty basic to any agreement?
That the Treaty has Principles was legislated in 1975. That was an opportunity to establish them, if they exist, but not taken. The Committee consideration now is an opportunity for principles to be promoted. Seymour represents the Crown, I suppose. Or perhaps it might be an opportunity to state that the ToW has no principles as such but has a meaning which is as stated. Getting Maori and the rest of us to agree on what the ToW means would now be a forlorn task. Who is sovereign - the Sovereign or the tribes? Luxon says it’s the Government, Hipkins says it’s the tribes. Where to now?
5 minutes before a Justice Select Committee talking about the many, many defects of a bill produced by a politician getting 8.6% of the vote who seeks to unilaterally rewrite Te Tiriti to suit his rent-seeking, value extracting corporate donors is absolutely the wrong way for a good faith discussion between the parties to Te Tiriti.
Please outline how specifically the TPB will bring equality ie how will that work in practice? What is being taken away now? You say your role is to look for reasons so please dig deeper than repeating Seymour’s talking points, I’m genuinely curious.
I’d be interested in the number of voters. Also, Parliament should have defined the Principles in 1975. Unlike nature, Courts love a vacuum. It’s high time that the idea of a partnership was put to rest. The ToW is a treaty which established, inter alia, a relationship - it did not form a partnership in any way between Maori and the Crown.
Hi Max. If you check in, say, in a couple of days, I'll give the numbers. It's only just started. These are only straw polls of readers, to give people a say, anonymously. They're not representative samples. Cheers.
It seems strange that the He Paupau report seems to have become very quiet . I considered it even more radical than the TWP Bill and written with no Pakeha consultation. It states that....."Māori procedures and customs will be functioning and applicable across New Zealand under Māori authority, and under Crown authority where applicable...................All New Zealanders will embrace and respect Māori culture as an integral part of national identity." My question is ,what is Maori authority. Is it obeying cultural edicts from the likes of Tuku Morgan?
He Puapua was buried in Hipkins's policy bonfire and then by the election, I guess. But it was a plan for 'constitutional transformation' developed in the backroom. Where it would have led is unclear now.
Was it really incinerated, Grant? I don't recall any explicit repudiation of it. My guess is that it was too close to the heart of the Labour cabinet to be abandoned. This is most certainly true of the Greens and TPM who treated it as unimpeachable canon.
Fair question, Basil. I guess we'll see how committed Labour is to it in the coming weeks.
On consideration of this complex issue, I’m reminded of interesting conversations with Professor Kerry Howe (History, Massey Albany) circa 2005 where the point was raised that the possibly inevitable move away from our British Crown colonial ties would offer the opportunity for New Zealand to formulate and adopt a constitution, something long advocated by Sir Geoffrey Palmer. At the time of that discussion, Māori remained largely wedded to the Crown through the historical partnership formed through the Treaty. However, I wonder how that allegiance may shift with the next generations of young Maori who will increasingly become demographically more influential, and with growing confidence in their cultural identity, language, and recognition of the validity of indigenous collective social organization. The questions just keep on rolling.
Would our current political framework allow Maori to freely participate equally in the formulation of a constitution? Would a formal constitution allow a partnership that is not forever debated back and forth with the swinging political pendulum of the election cycle? Could we as a nation be educated and informed enough to even consider the necessary principles required and their consequences? I’d like to think so, but that’s probably the optimism that sociologists are required to nurture, somewhat against the odds and the stark realities of contemporary politics. In truth, I find my optimism flagging.
If the central tenet of Seymour’s argument is equality for all under the law, that law in New Zealand remains overwhelmingly colonial in terms of its basis in individual property rights. Surely that notion of equality is in itself a false premise and reimposes the colonial imperative to subjugate and assimilate indigenous peoples.
And as a last thought, as your piece readily points out Grant, relying on legacy media - let alone social media - how does the general population usefully and reliably engage with these matters?
Long live Substack and Politics Happens - may it continue to prosper and gain traction.
Thank you for those thoughts, Wendy! I can't address all your questions just now, I'm afraid. I'd just note that TPM policy is to break the tie with the British monarch. And that processes towards a written constitution have always been blocked by fear of precisely the kind of argument we are presently seeing. I don't foresee consensus arising for the time being.
Conversely, the "brown table" seems to favour keeping NZ's links with Buckingham Palace.
What on earth is wrong with a bill that emphasises equality for all?
Hi Peter. I've outlined some of the reasons for opposing the bill. The parliamentary debate will give a clearer idea.
This meme puts it best...
https://www.reddit.com/r/newzealand/comments/pjddgf/found_this_on_twitter_in_regards_to_seymour/
Mr Seymour's bill is wrong on several levels.
It is the wrong process for establishing or revising the understanding of Te Tiriti. The discussion needs to be, initially, directly between both parties to Te Tiriti. If nothing else this is a basic concept in contract law - something ACT claims it stands for.
It is wrong in trying to limit the scope of 'right' to individual rights. Intrinsic to Te Tiriti are also collective rights. Rights of nature/intrinsic rights are also ignored by the narrow, individualistic approach by Mr Seymour.
It is wrong in the misrepresentation of what Te Tiriti says.
It is wrong in the misrepresentation of the separation of powers underpinnng our (largely unwritten) constitution. The Courts and the Waitangi Tribunal are not acting outside their roles. If it is necessary to identify who is acting outside their constitutional power, Mr Seymour need just look in the mirror.
The Bill is right, however, in trying to further the interests in ACTs' donors and corporate supporters in removing any barriers to their continued raping and pillaging of our natural resources and to the expansion of their rent-seeking and value-extracting activities.
Thank you for your thoughts, Andrew. Much appreciated. Cheers.
"The discussion needs to be, initially, directly between both parties to Te Tiriti." How likely do you think it is that any such discussion will see the Crown (the government) contest contemporary reinterpretations of Te Tiriti in a way which gives voice to the anxieties of thinking Kiwis, Māori and non-Māori alike? Through omission and political expediency, the government has already bound itself to laws and policies which condone the constantly evolving reinterpretations.
Good faith discussions between the two Tiriti parties is always possible. Misrepresentations and attempted rewriting of Te Tiriti by Seymour using a process that is just really just abusive bullying is not even remotely a good faith action.
Are you sure, Andrew, that the discussions need only involve two parties? Have I misunderstood you? Or, who is not a party to these hypothetical discussions?
There are two parties that signed Te Tiriti. Any discussion on it - what it means now - needs to start with good faith discussion between those two parties. This is, I would have thought, be accepted as pretty basic to any agreement?
That the Treaty has Principles was legislated in 1975. That was an opportunity to establish them, if they exist, but not taken. The Committee consideration now is an opportunity for principles to be promoted. Seymour represents the Crown, I suppose. Or perhaps it might be an opportunity to state that the ToW has no principles as such but has a meaning which is as stated. Getting Maori and the rest of us to agree on what the ToW means would now be a forlorn task. Who is sovereign - the Sovereign or the tribes? Luxon says it’s the Government, Hipkins says it’s the tribes. Where to now?
5 minutes before a Justice Select Committee talking about the many, many defects of a bill produced by a politician getting 8.6% of the vote who seeks to unilaterally rewrite Te Tiriti to suit his rent-seeking, value extracting corporate donors is absolutely the wrong way for a good faith discussion between the parties to Te Tiriti.
What on Earth are the 53% unacceptable voters wanting?
Hi Doug. I've outlined some of the reasons for opposing the bill. The parliamentary debate will give a clearer idea.
Please outline how specifically the TPB will bring equality ie how will that work in practice? What is being taken away now? You say your role is to look for reasons so please dig deeper than repeating Seymour’s talking points, I’m genuinely curious.
I’m curious too. Your answer is in Seymour’s statements. I don’t speak for him or do his homework.
I’d be interested in the number of voters. Also, Parliament should have defined the Principles in 1975. Unlike nature, Courts love a vacuum. It’s high time that the idea of a partnership was put to rest. The ToW is a treaty which established, inter alia, a relationship - it did not form a partnership in any way between Maori and the Crown.
Hi Max. If you check in, say, in a couple of days, I'll give the numbers. It's only just started. These are only straw polls of readers, to give people a say, anonymously. They're not representative samples. Cheers.