Post by Kiwi Frontline on Dec 14, 2020 7:21:41 GMT 12
PARTNERSHIPS – by Anthony Willy (Retired Judge)
The Maori Party in the run up to the 2020 election had a Mana Motuhake vision for New Zealand. As reported in The Guardian (of course) and enunciated by Claire Robinson a Massey University academic, that vision is Maori people asserting their right to self- management, self-determination, and self-governance over all their domains. It calls for an end to “mainstream management of matters Maori,” “abolishing full and final Treaty of Waitangi settlements,” “buying back land (source of funds not disclosed) for Whanau Hapu and Iwi.” The Government “handing back all conservation land to Hapu and Iwi,” and “all Maori joining the Maori electoral roll within the next three years.” Presumably compulsorily with suitable penalties for those who refuse or neglect to do so.
In addition, there will be a separate Maori Parliament with 15 to 17 seats having control over 20 billion dollars of annual self-managed spending. These demands are said to result from the fact that “the country was settled by consent not conquest.” The proposed model is said to be similar to that which exists in Scotland, Ireland (an independent sovereign state) and Wales. Mr Tamihere the leader of the Party is quoted as saying that “Westminster did not work for the Scots or the Irish” and that “Wellington definitely does not work for Maori.” All of this is said to flow from “the Treaty.”
M/s Robinson elaborates on this theme by opining that: “major parties have none the less determined that if they can co-opt and absorb Maori interests into their broader platforms and attract more Maori as mainstream MPs they can neutralise Maori demands for separate forms of self-determination.” All of this is said by her to be linked to levels “of inequality and poverty still affecting Maori.” The professor expresses the view that “any notions of equality were in terms of legal notions of citizenship not in treaty commitments to Partnership.” (whatever that may mean). She deprecates the notion of “Kiwis” rubbing along as one society.
For a professor at a New Zealand university this is an extraordinary mish mash of ideas devoid of any knowledge of history, law, or constitutional structures. To cite Mr Tamihere with approval is to overlook the superficiality implicit in his views nowhere better illustrated by his approval of claims by some Scots for independence. This silly comparison overlooks a thousand years of troubled relations between the Scots and the English and the constitutional settlement arrived at which gave the English a Scottish King James the First. This settlement has endured for close to four hundred years and notwithstanding the best efforts of Nicola Sturgeon looks set to remain so as the Scottish economy is dependant on the English taxpayers for its survival. Without “Westminster” these ersatz “Parliaments” could not exist. The Maori voting public gave its verdict on Mr. Tamihere’s aspirations at the recent election in which he secured a little over 1% of the Party vote
It is difficult to know where to start in making sense of this separatist thesis, but the Treaty of Waitangi is as good a place as any. It says:......
Continue reading Anthony Willy’s enlightening NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/partnerships/#more-33749
The Maori Party in the run up to the 2020 election had a Mana Motuhake vision for New Zealand. As reported in The Guardian (of course) and enunciated by Claire Robinson a Massey University academic, that vision is Maori people asserting their right to self- management, self-determination, and self-governance over all their domains. It calls for an end to “mainstream management of matters Maori,” “abolishing full and final Treaty of Waitangi settlements,” “buying back land (source of funds not disclosed) for Whanau Hapu and Iwi.” The Government “handing back all conservation land to Hapu and Iwi,” and “all Maori joining the Maori electoral roll within the next three years.” Presumably compulsorily with suitable penalties for those who refuse or neglect to do so.
In addition, there will be a separate Maori Parliament with 15 to 17 seats having control over 20 billion dollars of annual self-managed spending. These demands are said to result from the fact that “the country was settled by consent not conquest.” The proposed model is said to be similar to that which exists in Scotland, Ireland (an independent sovereign state) and Wales. Mr Tamihere the leader of the Party is quoted as saying that “Westminster did not work for the Scots or the Irish” and that “Wellington definitely does not work for Maori.” All of this is said to flow from “the Treaty.”
M/s Robinson elaborates on this theme by opining that: “major parties have none the less determined that if they can co-opt and absorb Maori interests into their broader platforms and attract more Maori as mainstream MPs they can neutralise Maori demands for separate forms of self-determination.” All of this is said by her to be linked to levels “of inequality and poverty still affecting Maori.” The professor expresses the view that “any notions of equality were in terms of legal notions of citizenship not in treaty commitments to Partnership.” (whatever that may mean). She deprecates the notion of “Kiwis” rubbing along as one society.
For a professor at a New Zealand university this is an extraordinary mish mash of ideas devoid of any knowledge of history, law, or constitutional structures. To cite Mr Tamihere with approval is to overlook the superficiality implicit in his views nowhere better illustrated by his approval of claims by some Scots for independence. This silly comparison overlooks a thousand years of troubled relations between the Scots and the English and the constitutional settlement arrived at which gave the English a Scottish King James the First. This settlement has endured for close to four hundred years and notwithstanding the best efforts of Nicola Sturgeon looks set to remain so as the Scottish economy is dependant on the English taxpayers for its survival. Without “Westminster” these ersatz “Parliaments” could not exist. The Maori voting public gave its verdict on Mr. Tamihere’s aspirations at the recent election in which he secured a little over 1% of the Party vote
It is difficult to know where to start in making sense of this separatist thesis, but the Treaty of Waitangi is as good a place as any. It says:......
Continue reading Anthony Willy’s enlightening NZCPR guest commentary here > www.nzcpr.com/partnerships/#more-33749