Post by Kiwi Frontline on Mar 4, 2016 5:27:35 GMT 12
The New Equation: Racial Preference = Unearned Privilege
Nowhere, directly or indirectly did the 1840 agreement envisage long-term race-based preference in either property rights or the way we are governed. In these areas, the concept of “Partnership” was nowhere to be seen. To the extent that a Court of Appeal decision many years ago canvassed this theme, the term “partnership” was used in the common law sense of requiring that the parties act reasonably and in good faith towards each other. There was, I suggest, no intention to introduce anything which would lead to Unearned Privilege. Descendants of the Maori who signed the Treaty document have seized on the word partnership and imputed to it two aspects – firstly that it has commercial characteristics, and secondly, that it involves a 50/50 approach to decision-making.
These are serious misrepresentations, which ignore three realities:
(1) A partnership need not have commercial purpose. If it does, it certainly does not automatically involve a 50/50 sharing in its economic or governance provisions. It can be 99/1.
(2) The parties to any type of partnership need definition.
(3) After 175 years, the wisdom of Solomon would not solve (2)
There are increasing political forces at work pushing a racial agenda in our economic and governance environment. The RMA proposals, including vital issues such as how we deal with freshwater come readily to mind. The Government is being lily-livered in not dealing openly with this preference issue. In the case of fresh water, it would like to devolve the responsibility for dealing with race-based water claims to Local Authorities, who are ill-equipped to deal with well-orchestrated tribal grabs for Unearned Privilege…..
Read Peter Shirtcliffe's full NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/the-new-equation-racial-preference-unearned-privilege/#more-17752
Nowhere, directly or indirectly did the 1840 agreement envisage long-term race-based preference in either property rights or the way we are governed. In these areas, the concept of “Partnership” was nowhere to be seen. To the extent that a Court of Appeal decision many years ago canvassed this theme, the term “partnership” was used in the common law sense of requiring that the parties act reasonably and in good faith towards each other. There was, I suggest, no intention to introduce anything which would lead to Unearned Privilege. Descendants of the Maori who signed the Treaty document have seized on the word partnership and imputed to it two aspects – firstly that it has commercial characteristics, and secondly, that it involves a 50/50 approach to decision-making.
These are serious misrepresentations, which ignore three realities:
(1) A partnership need not have commercial purpose. If it does, it certainly does not automatically involve a 50/50 sharing in its economic or governance provisions. It can be 99/1.
(2) The parties to any type of partnership need definition.
(3) After 175 years, the wisdom of Solomon would not solve (2)
There are increasing political forces at work pushing a racial agenda in our economic and governance environment. The RMA proposals, including vital issues such as how we deal with freshwater come readily to mind. The Government is being lily-livered in not dealing openly with this preference issue. In the case of fresh water, it would like to devolve the responsibility for dealing with race-based water claims to Local Authorities, who are ill-equipped to deal with well-orchestrated tribal grabs for Unearned Privilege…..
Read Peter Shirtcliffe's full NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/the-new-equation-racial-preference-unearned-privilege/#more-17752