Post by Kiwi Frontline on Nov 12, 2020 10:55:52 GMT 12
Northland Age 12/11/20
A SENSITIVE SPOT
I certainly hit Wally Hicks in a sensitive spot as his wildly accusatory letter of 3rd November to the “Age” shows all to clearly! Let us take his points one by one.
First, by Article third of the Treaty, all Maoris, their many slaves included, received the same rights as the people of England, accepting of course as was the case, that the chiefs ceded such sovereignty as each possessed “completely and for ever” to the Queen (Article first). The evidence of the day establishes this beyond doubt. The Waitangi Tribunal and such people as Haami Piripi (Sammy Phillips) who deny this choose to deny the plain truth.
Now all that article second did is state the property rights of all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) and since those rights were quite clearly established by Article third, Article second was unnecessary, i.e. it was redundant. That Maori land ownership practice differed from that of England does not alter this.
As for the meaning of “kawanatanga”, because there was no word in the classic Maori language for the concept of “sovereignty”, this was the translation which the Williams chose. Both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February using “sovereignty” and the actual Treaty document, using “kawanatanga” were read out on 5th February and nobody said they were different – many people of both races were bilingual. That “kawanatanga” was derived from “kawana” and “tanga” is irrelevant because translation is not the same as derivation. (Elsewhere I have published many examples of this so do not restate them in a short letter.)
On the introduction of “Maori seats”, the key point is that they were a temporary measure in a rapidly changing situation in the evolution of democracy when the concept of universal suffrage was in its infancy and in what were indeed unique circumstances. Hicks’ claim that it was “wholly appropriate that every Maori should get the vote” is no more than an academic point about 150 years too late.
I state again that by May 1840 the Treaty had fulfilled its purpose and it is only repeated false claims about its contents and intent that lead to its appropriation today as a weapon of political manoeuvring constantly wielded by various people to their own advantage.. And wrongly so. And I state again that the Waitangi Tribunal is the most corrupt body ever inflicted upon the people of New Zealand. Again, I have stated why elsewhere.
The remainder of Hicks’ rhetoric is froth and bubble. It can be dismissed.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
OUR RIGHT TO PETITION
In his Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture, presented on November 18, 2000. former Labour Prime Minister David Lange warned that if governments attempted to accommodate the increasingly audacious demands by the Maori tribal elite for independent sovereignty, they would end up threatening democracy itself.
Lange. whose Mangere electorate was predominantly Polynesian. including Maori. with whom he had empathy, stated inter alia: "Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspirations in many ways It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn't a democracy.
"We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They cant co-exist. and we can't have them both"
Further, Lange explained that the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract between the Crown and some Maori. bestowing equal status. not a Partnership. Lange said treating it as a partnership was not only "absurd". but doing so would result in the introduction of profoundly "undemocratic" rights and entitlements
Certainly there are no such things as creative fictional 'principles of the Treaty'.
They simply don't exist
The following summary by a respected political commentator should help enlighten you about the rationale for separate race-based Maori wards on councils.
".. Helen Clark's Labour government introduced petition rights for Maori wards as a democratic safeguard to protect voters from councils wanting to manipulate constitutional arrangements without a mandate from their community.
"When Maori wards were introduced into the Local Electoral Act by Helen Clark in 2001, because it involved changing the voting system to include the Maori roll. the same constitutional safeguards were applied that already existed in sections 27 to 34 of the Act to protect electors if councils decided to change the voting system between First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) without public consultation.
"As a result. the Maori ward petition rights, which are found in Sections 19ZA to 192H of the Local Electoral Act, mirror those in Sections 27 to 34, enabling electors to challenge a council's decision through a district-wide referendum - if they gain the support of 5 per cent of voters in a petition. The referendum result would then be binding on the council for the next two elections.
That means Helen Clark's 'direct democracy' veto only applies in situations where councils change the voting system without community consultation - namely, by either switching between FPP voting and STV, or by introducing the Maori roll and Maori wards.
"If councils decide to change ward boundaries, introduce, split or amalgamate wards, or remove wards entirely to have councillors elected 'at large', the voting system would not be changed so petition rights would not apply."
Under New Zealand democracy, it is unconstitutional for governing bodies to change the voting system without consulting the public That's why Helen Clark introduced the petition right safeguard - to protect Kiwis' democratic rights.
That's what the Minister of Local Government, Ms Mahuta, and Maori sovereignty activists currently want to trash and takeaway from Kiwis.
Councillors who have recently voted to install Maori wards without proper public consultation usually did not reveal this agenda in their electoral manifestos, and have no public mandate to go down this path.
Recent polls on Maori wards usually end up with 70 per cent to 85 per cent No votes from citizens. As it stands, the Local Electoral Act 2001 is already heavily weighted against citizens, as it forces them at considerable time, inconvenience and cost to organise and file the 5 per cent petitions.
In reality, the total obligation should be on errant councils to initiate and organise these polls at the same time and in conjunction with three-yearly local government election cycles, saving ratepayers considerable money. Kiwis must change the law to rationalise this process accordingly, and force councils to toe the line in the name of consultation, openness, transparency, accountability and honesty.
This is not what Ms Mahuta, sovereignty activists and the woke crews envisage - In fact quite the reverse, and this attitude should be demonised.
The ultimate absurdity is when innocent Kiwis are held responsible for things that happened before they were born while others are not responsible for the mischief they create today.
ROB PATERSON, Tauranga
Northern Advocate 12/11/20
TINKERING WITH THE TRUTH
I applaud Alan Ward’s letter (5/11/20), because race-based representation no matter how you spin it is apartheid and will divide families, groups, and communities.
In the same publication it was written that “Pakeha view Maori people as 'Maori”, if we were to be honest and not tinker with the truth, it is an element within maoridom who promote Maoris as 'Maori' and wish to be separate, defiant Maori supremacist flags, facial tattoos are all evidence of this.
A further tinkering with the truth is this Crown/Maori partnership myth.
‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it’s subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
As former PM David Lange once put it - he really did not believe that Queen Victoria had signed a treaty of equality and partnership with “500 thumbprints”
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor
A SENSITIVE SPOT
I certainly hit Wally Hicks in a sensitive spot as his wildly accusatory letter of 3rd November to the “Age” shows all to clearly! Let us take his points one by one.
First, by Article third of the Treaty, all Maoris, their many slaves included, received the same rights as the people of England, accepting of course as was the case, that the chiefs ceded such sovereignty as each possessed “completely and for ever” to the Queen (Article first). The evidence of the day establishes this beyond doubt. The Waitangi Tribunal and such people as Haami Piripi (Sammy Phillips) who deny this choose to deny the plain truth.
Now all that article second did is state the property rights of all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani) and since those rights were quite clearly established by Article third, Article second was unnecessary, i.e. it was redundant. That Maori land ownership practice differed from that of England does not alter this.
As for the meaning of “kawanatanga”, because there was no word in the classic Maori language for the concept of “sovereignty”, this was the translation which the Williams chose. Both Hobson’s final draft of 4th February using “sovereignty” and the actual Treaty document, using “kawanatanga” were read out on 5th February and nobody said they were different – many people of both races were bilingual. That “kawanatanga” was derived from “kawana” and “tanga” is irrelevant because translation is not the same as derivation. (Elsewhere I have published many examples of this so do not restate them in a short letter.)
On the introduction of “Maori seats”, the key point is that they were a temporary measure in a rapidly changing situation in the evolution of democracy when the concept of universal suffrage was in its infancy and in what were indeed unique circumstances. Hicks’ claim that it was “wholly appropriate that every Maori should get the vote” is no more than an academic point about 150 years too late.
I state again that by May 1840 the Treaty had fulfilled its purpose and it is only repeated false claims about its contents and intent that lead to its appropriation today as a weapon of political manoeuvring constantly wielded by various people to their own advantage.. And wrongly so. And I state again that the Waitangi Tribunal is the most corrupt body ever inflicted upon the people of New Zealand. Again, I have stated why elsewhere.
The remainder of Hicks’ rhetoric is froth and bubble. It can be dismissed.
BRUCE MOON, Nelson
OUR RIGHT TO PETITION
In his Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture, presented on November 18, 2000. former Labour Prime Minister David Lange warned that if governments attempted to accommodate the increasingly audacious demands by the Maori tribal elite for independent sovereignty, they would end up threatening democracy itself.
Lange. whose Mangere electorate was predominantly Polynesian. including Maori. with whom he had empathy, stated inter alia: "Democratic government can accommodate Maori political aspirations in many ways It can allocate resources in ways which reflect the particular interests of Maori people. It can delegate authority and allow the exercise of degrees of Maori autonomy. What it cannot do is acknowledge the existence of a separate sovereignty. As soon as it does that, it isn't a democracy.
"We can have a democratic form of government or we can have indigenous sovereignty. They cant co-exist. and we can't have them both"
Further, Lange explained that the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract between the Crown and some Maori. bestowing equal status. not a Partnership. Lange said treating it as a partnership was not only "absurd". but doing so would result in the introduction of profoundly "undemocratic" rights and entitlements
Certainly there are no such things as creative fictional 'principles of the Treaty'.
They simply don't exist
The following summary by a respected political commentator should help enlighten you about the rationale for separate race-based Maori wards on councils.
".. Helen Clark's Labour government introduced petition rights for Maori wards as a democratic safeguard to protect voters from councils wanting to manipulate constitutional arrangements without a mandate from their community.
"When Maori wards were introduced into the Local Electoral Act by Helen Clark in 2001, because it involved changing the voting system to include the Maori roll. the same constitutional safeguards were applied that already existed in sections 27 to 34 of the Act to protect electors if councils decided to change the voting system between First Past the Post (FPP) and Single Transferable Vote (STV) without public consultation.
"As a result. the Maori ward petition rights, which are found in Sections 19ZA to 192H of the Local Electoral Act, mirror those in Sections 27 to 34, enabling electors to challenge a council's decision through a district-wide referendum - if they gain the support of 5 per cent of voters in a petition. The referendum result would then be binding on the council for the next two elections.
That means Helen Clark's 'direct democracy' veto only applies in situations where councils change the voting system without community consultation - namely, by either switching between FPP voting and STV, or by introducing the Maori roll and Maori wards.
"If councils decide to change ward boundaries, introduce, split or amalgamate wards, or remove wards entirely to have councillors elected 'at large', the voting system would not be changed so petition rights would not apply."
Under New Zealand democracy, it is unconstitutional for governing bodies to change the voting system without consulting the public That's why Helen Clark introduced the petition right safeguard - to protect Kiwis' democratic rights.
That's what the Minister of Local Government, Ms Mahuta, and Maori sovereignty activists currently want to trash and takeaway from Kiwis.
Councillors who have recently voted to install Maori wards without proper public consultation usually did not reveal this agenda in their electoral manifestos, and have no public mandate to go down this path.
Recent polls on Maori wards usually end up with 70 per cent to 85 per cent No votes from citizens. As it stands, the Local Electoral Act 2001 is already heavily weighted against citizens, as it forces them at considerable time, inconvenience and cost to organise and file the 5 per cent petitions.
In reality, the total obligation should be on errant councils to initiate and organise these polls at the same time and in conjunction with three-yearly local government election cycles, saving ratepayers considerable money. Kiwis must change the law to rationalise this process accordingly, and force councils to toe the line in the name of consultation, openness, transparency, accountability and honesty.
This is not what Ms Mahuta, sovereignty activists and the woke crews envisage - In fact quite the reverse, and this attitude should be demonised.
The ultimate absurdity is when innocent Kiwis are held responsible for things that happened before they were born while others are not responsible for the mischief they create today.
ROB PATERSON, Tauranga
Northern Advocate 12/11/20
TINKERING WITH THE TRUTH
I applaud Alan Ward’s letter (5/11/20), because race-based representation no matter how you spin it is apartheid and will divide families, groups, and communities.
In the same publication it was written that “Pakeha view Maori people as 'Maori”, if we were to be honest and not tinker with the truth, it is an element within maoridom who promote Maoris as 'Maori' and wish to be separate, defiant Maori supremacist flags, facial tattoos are all evidence of this.
A further tinkering with the truth is this Crown/Maori partnership myth.
‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it’s subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership.
As former PM David Lange once put it - he really did not believe that Queen Victoria had signed a treaty of equality and partnership with “500 thumbprints”
GEOFF PARKER, Kamo
www.kiwifrontline.nz/media/letters-to-the-editor