Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.

Dismiss

GVT: Hon Trevor Mallard: We are all New Zealanders now

7 views

Skip to first unread message

anno...@executive.govt.nz

unread,

Jul 28, 2004, 2:18:18 AM7/28/04

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C474CE.DBCCBED0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

We are all New Zealanders now

Speech to the Stout Research Centre for NZ Studies, Victoria University, =
Wellington

---------------------------------

Speech to the Stout Research Centre for NZ Studies, Victoria University, =
Wellington

Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. I'd like to briefly =
outline my role as Co-ordinating Minister, Race Relations, and then move =
on to a wider discussion about the context of the current race relations =
debate and the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

As Co-ordinating Minister, Race Relations, one of my first tasks is to =
provide an assurance that government policy and programmes are targeted =
on the basis of need, not on the basis of race. =20

I want to make it clear that my role as Co-ordinating Minister, Race =
Relations, or for that matter as Minister of State Services, is not to =
act as a constitutional expert or defining authority on all matters =
relating to the Treaty or race relations. What I am focused on is =
getting the facts out into the public domain so that New Zealanders can =
have a reasoned and balanced debate.

Any reasoned debate about race relations requires all of us who =
participate to understand and reflect on our particular histories in the =
New Zealand context. That involves considering the place of the Treaty, =
the nature of Treaty settlements in New Zealand and the rights and needs =
of all New Zealanders as we go forward in the 21st century. =20

I want to cover some of my initial thinking on these issues and how this =
will inform my approach to my responsibilities and the outcomes I want =
to achieve.

Among the key questions we have to ask ourselves is: "what defines New =
Zealand in the 21st century?"=20

How do we build the sort of New Zealand that all reasonable people want =
to be part of? In my view extremists at both ends of the spectrum don't =
help us achieve that.=20

We have processes in place for righting the wrongs of the past. That =
means sorting things out so we can all move on. As that happens we can =
build a stronger consensus about what it means to be New Zealanders in =
what's going to be our best century yet.=20

So I see our 21st century as being about perfecting our nationhood, =
banishing the demons from our past, cheering each other on as New =
Zealand citizens, and being successful, instead of some people =
constantly feeling they are always missing out, always left behind. =20

There has to be frank and open debate on what New Zealand is about, and =
on the futures we can share together. Partisan and sectional politics on =
these issues will get us nowhere. People who sand-bag themselves into =
die-hard positions will not be part of creative and positive solutions.=20

The National Party has dug itself into a bunker and thinks there's a =
race war going on. National is the North Korea of New Zealand politics. =
They're spreading fear by threatening to go nuclear on race relations. =
Such a party cannot create a New Zealand that is unified and at peace =
with itself.

Meanwhile, other people are sitting down and working through the issues =
like sensible adults, or at least indicating that that is precisely what =
they would like to do. =20

The debate about our future is not well served by those who make =
dangerous generalisations. It is simply irresponsible to make assertions =
about Maori constantly skiving off to tangi or Maori doctors being less =
able than their non-Maori counterparts. I am appalled when people show =
contempt for the spiritual and cultural beliefs of others or =
dismissively resort to name-calling. Paranoia politics and playing on =
prejudice will not advance New Zealand one iota.

Nor will race-based politics and race-based policy-delivery. Services =
must be on the basis of need and not because of a sense of race-based =
entitlement.=20

New Zealand also has to get its British imperial past behind it. Maori =
and Pakeha are both indigenous people to New Zealand now. I regard =
myself as an indigenous New Zealander - I come from Wainuiomata.=20

We've left behind a British identity. This has meant that we no longer =
easily understand the people who tried to tear up the Treaty and went to =
war with Maori in 1863. Once were Warriors. Once were British.=20

Indigeneity is about the diversity of ways in which we belong and =
identify with our country. There are Chinese and Indian New Zealanders =
who have become deeply indigenous too, just like other kiwis whose =
forbears come from a huge range of other countries.=20

Michael King was passionate about New Zealand and about the emergence of =
a unique New Zealand identity. He rightly pointed out that for most New =
Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, home is here, Aotearoa New =
Zealand.=20

He argued that just because one group has been here longer than another =
does not make its members more New Zealand than later arrivals, nor does =
it give them the right to exclude others from full participation in =
national life.=20

Indigeneity is also about respecting the First Nation or Tangata Whenua =
in this country, Maori, who after all agreed to the introduction of the =
British law and government to New Zealand under the Treaty of Waitangi. =

Without the trust of Maori in the British government back then, New =
Zealand as we know it today would not have developed.=20

Let's get some facts straight about the Treaty. The Treaty is both =
bigger and smaller than many people think it is.=20

First, despite the Treaty having no formal legal status, it has been =
accorded a kind of constitutional status because it gave legitimacy to =
the British Crown in New Zealand.=20

As Professor Philip Joseph has stated, "The disputed status of the =
Treaty under international law is an historical curiosity that has no =
bearing upon the Treaty's symbolic importance. Its status under =
international law counts for little if the promises exchanged in 1840 =
were the basis on which the British Crown acquired New Zealand." =
(Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, p44.).

Second, the New Zealand Government would be dealing with indigenous law =
issues whether there was a Treaty of Waitangi or not. Australia is proof =
of that. There were no treaties in Australia, as there were in North =
America, South Africa and New Zealand, and yet Australians are still =
facing many of the same debates that we are. =20

Let's not blame the Treaty. It is hugely significant but it is not the =
be-all and end-all, nor the panacea for every challenge we face as a =
country. We would still have to face the challenges of genuinely =
redressing Maori grievances, of fully associating Maori with New Zealand =
nationhood, and of ensuring their fullest participation in our economy =
and society, regardless of whether we had the Treaty or not.

Third, in many ways the Treaty no longer underwrites what it used to. =
Maori, when they signed the Treaty, signed up to the British global =
order which existed at the time. Since then New Zealand has become an =
independent self-governing country. But the government's duty to look =
after all its citizens, Maori and Pakeha, equally - as promised by the =
Treaty - remains.

There are no people on earth who would of their own free will agree to =
extinguish themselves as an ethnically distinct group and totally =
surrender control over their communities and culture to others.

That cannot be what New Zealand's 21st century is about. New Zealanders =
know that our unity as a nation can only be achieved by respecting and =
admitting diversity and difference. =20

Today's backward-looking National Party, stalled in the 19th, or perhaps =
the 18th century, are the inheritors of the original assimilation =
project. It is hard to see what else they can mean. They are the =
successors of the Victorian colonialists who wreaked havoc in so many =
countries. =20

Winston Peters was more correct than he may have intended when he =
described Don Brash as a colonial tea planter.

So how do we make sense of the Treaty?=20

The two texts of the Treaty have led to different understandings. =
Because of the need to apply the Treaty to present-day circumstances and =
issues, the "principles" of the Treaty have been referred to by the =
courts and in legislation, rather than the text of the Treaty itself.=20

Treaty principles interpret the Treaty as a whole; its intention and its =
spirit. Some commentators argue that it is the spirit of the Treaty =
that matters most, overriding the differences in the texts.

Lord Woolf, in the Broadcasting Assets case in 1994 described Treaty =
principles as "the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities =
the Treaty places on the parties. They reflect the intention of the =
Treaty as a whole and include, but are not confined to, the express =
terms of the Treaty."=20

So what are these principles that we keep referring to?

In order to define the principles of the Treaty we must look primarily =
to judgments from our courts and to some of the reports of the Waitangi =
Tribunal, both of which have had to wrestle with these issues.

The Court of Appeal emphasised that there were two core principles. =
These were "partnership", in the sense that they referred to a =
relationship akin to a partnership, and "active protection". Both the =
courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have determined that the principle of =
partnership includes the obligation on both parties to act reasonably, =
honourably and in good faith. =20

The principle of active protection has been described as the duty of the =
Crown to actively protect Maori people in the use of their lands and =
waters to the fullest extent practicable. This principle arises from =
the fundamental exchange contained in the Treaty - the cession of =
sovereignty for the protection of rangatiratanga. This principle is =
sometimes described as the principle of reciprocity.

A further principle defined by the courts is the principle of redress. =
It reflects the Crown's duty to take active and positive steps to =
redress Treaty breaches. It entails a fair and reasonable recognition =
and recompense for wrongdoing.

We can also look to the 1989 "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty =
of Waitangi", which define the essential exchange of promises within the =
Treaty in the form of principles. The first three of those five =
principles are:"The Principle of Government/The Kawanatanga Principle" =
(The government has the right to govern and to make laws);"The Principle =
of Self-Management/The Rangatiratanga Principle" (The iwi have the right =
to organise as iwi, and, under the law, to control their resources as =
their own); and"The Principle of Equality" (All New Zealanders are equal =
before the law).

These principles reflect the three articles of the Treaty.

The fourth principle is "The Principle of Co-operation", which =
encompasses "good faith, consultation, and partnership". =20

It is stated that "The Treaty is regarded by the Crown as establishing a =
fair basis for two peoples in one country. Duality and unity are both =
significant. . Reasonable co-operation can only take place if there is =
consultation on major issues of common concern and if good faith, =
balance, and common sense are shown on all sides."

The final of these five principles is "The Principle of Redress", =
whereby the Crown accepts a responsibility to provide a process for the =
resolution of grievances arising from the Treaty.

There is a myth that the Treaty gave Maori extra rights over and above =
those of other New Zealanders.=20

Article III makes it clear that Maori were to have the same rights as =
other British subjects, the same rights as the settlers. Article III =
was an explicit equaliser and a promise that Maori were not to have =
race-based legislation passed against them.=20

Maori have no extra rights or privileges under the Treaty or in the =
policy of the New Zealand government.=20

So why have Maori invoked the Treaty, if they are on a par with other =
groups for access to resources and funding?=20

The British world of 1840 was a class and race-based power-system, at =
home in the United Kingdom and abroad. Segregation formally or =
informally was a fact of life throughout its colonies. South Africa as =
we know was the last bastion of that world.

What Article III guaranteed, in the context of that age, was that Maori =
would be equal to all other British subjects in the eyes of the law and =
of the state.=20

It was necessary to expressly state this back in 1840. =
Non-discrimination or equality could not be taken for granted. The Maori =
signatories themselves required this assurance, so that they would not =
descend into a sub-class.=20

The Victorians understood civil rights, but they were rough and ready =
and you had to enforce your rights if they were to be upheld, otherwise =
"tough".=20

The Crown Colony government knew perfectly well what Article III meant =
and how Maori understood it. In an Ordinance of 1850, Governor George =
Grey insisted that no laws were to apply to Maori that were not to apply =
to the settlers and to other British subjects.=20

So when Maori claim resources under Article III they are asking for what =
they see as their equitable share in relation to other citizens and in =
proportion to their needs.=20

Sometimes these claims are upheld, sometimes they are not.=20

I think at this point it's also important to dispel some of the myths =
about the supposed multi-billion dollar Treaty grievance industry. Since =
1989 the government has paid out around $680 million in Treaty =
settlements. Putting this into context, last year alone Telecom made a =
$709 million profit, the government collected around $850 million in =
tobacco excise tax, and our total taxation revenue was over $40 billion.

Treaty settlements are an important part of putting the negative aspects =
of our past behind us and getting on with a brighter future but they =
shouldn't be over-stated or unnecessarily exaggerated.

It's worthwhile considering the spirit of the Treaty then in terms of =
New Zealand in 2004.

The spirit of the Treaty is about a bond between New Zealanders that =
should transcend disputes over conflicting intentions and linguistic =
wrangles over different texts. =20

The spirit of the Treaty is no mystery, even though the lawyers can make =
it out to seem like one.=20

I've talked about how it promises equality to Maori and non-Maori under =
the law. On the Crown's side it also involves recognition of Maori =
property and customary rights guaranteed under it. On the Maori side it =
involves acceptance of the new sovereign power in 1840, and in 2004 =
acceptance of the state system that continues to guarantee their rights. =
=20

The Treaty was open-ended, not a straitjacket. It was a preliminary =
agreement to an on-going relationship under the same law and government. =
The terms of that relationship have changed over the past 164 years.=20

The Treaty left us considerable freedom to fill in its considerable gaps =
together. Overall the outcome has been good. What might have happened =
without it in the world of 1840 is interesting to think about.=20

The partition of New Zealand and of Maori amongst rival colonial powers =
is one scenario. New Zealand of the 1840s could have divided among =
British, French, Maori and any number of other countries. For example, =
New Guinea of the 1880s was divided between Britain, Germany and =
Holland. Who knows, New Zealand could have been split - like American =
Samoa and Samoa. =20

Living together as citizens in the spirit of the Treaty requires mutual =
respect. The basis for that has been there for a while now. =20
=20
Many New Zealanders enjoy and respond to films like Braveheart. There =
is as much myth as fact in Braveheart but that doesn't spoil a good =
film. What people respond to is the spirit of the film, and that spirit =
is the defence by people of their liberties and their countries against =
an invading power.=20

New Zealand has contested history too, and to most Maori it looks, =
sounds and feels like Braveheart for the 19th century period at least. =20

Maori are not alone in having ancestors who were victims at one time or =
other of the British power structures. Power was as unbalanced in the =
Lancaster mills as it was on the Waikato or the Punjab.=20

Our job in New Zealand is to not perpetuate that bad past in our own =
land but to leave it all behind, and to get on with it.=20

We have to get over this implicit attitude that "History" just happened =
to Maori, and that Pakeha history is all either offshore, about fighting =
in two World Wars, or else is "World History" in which we are only a =
minor player. =20

The Treaty was signed in 1840, and its intent must be balanced and =
understood in terms of New Zealand in 2004.

We should behave as citizens in terms of both the spirit of the Treaty =
and of the spirit of modern New Zealand.

New Zealanders are quite rightly proud of living in one of the world's =
oldest, most successful, participatory, and genuinely egalitarian =
democracies. We have a reputation for giving people a fair go. It pays =
to trust this democracy first and foremost, and to confide in New =
Zealanders and trust them to make the right decisions as I know they =
will.=20

New Zealanders know that just throwing out the Treaty is impossible and =
irresponsible, and that this sort of provocation will cost us all. =
However Pakeha New Zealanders also want to be trusted by their Maori =
fellow-New Zealanders.=20

New Zealanders do not want to be condemned and cursed as if they are the =
British imperialist white ascendancy colonialists. We see ourselves as =
egalitarian, fair-minded people who have little sympathy for elitism.=20

The Treaty and New Zealand democracy are reconcilable if we talk =
together as kiwis. They are reconcilable if Maori accept that the best =
guarantee of minority indigenous rights is the protection and good-will =
of the majority. Dumping on each other has no role in constructing a New =
Zealand for Maori and Pakeha citizens.=20

Most importantly, the Treaty and New Zealand democracy are reconcilable =
if politicians do not irresponsibly undermine the Treaty.

As the Prime Minister said earlier this year at the opening of =
parliament, "Responsible 21st century governments and societies don't =
try to reinvent the economic policies of the 1990s, the society of the =
1950s, or the attitude towards indigenous people of the 1830s. New =
Zealand has moved on".

To conclude, the philosopher John Stuart Mill said the precondition for =
the political stability of any democracy "is a strong and active =
principle of cohesion among members of the same community or state". =20

Cohesion doesn't mean assimilation of every single one of us into one =
mould of the identikit New Zealander, as National would want. =20

It means getting on with each other appreciating and enjoying our =
differences, and recognising how those differences add value to our =
country as a go-ahead, positive, future-looking nation. =20

I believe the vast majority of New Zealanders want this.=20

The Trevor Mallard mailing list operated by OneSquared Limited.

To unsubscribe, enter the following address in your browser address bar =
and press the Enter key.

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Lists/index.aspx?UID=3D2160&unsubscribe=3Dyes

You can also subscribe to this service or change and maintain your =
existing subscription list by going to:

http://www.beehive.govt.nz/lists/default.cfm

------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C474CE.DBCCBED0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<html><head></head><body>We are all =
New Zealanders now Speech to the Stout Research Centre for NZ =
Studies, Victoria University, =
Wellington --------------------------------- Speech to the =
Stout Research Centre for NZ Studies, Victoria University, =
Wellington Thank you for the invitation to speak to you today. =
I'd like to briefly outline my role as Co-ordinating Minister, Race =
Relations, and then move on to a wider discussion about the context of =
the current race relations debate and the principles of the Treaty of =
Waitangi. As Co-ordinating Minister, Race Relations, one of my =
first tasks is to provide an assurance that government policy and =
programmes are targeted on the basis of need, not on the basis of race. =
 I want to make it clear that my role as Co-ordinating Minister, =
Race Relations, or for that matter as Minister of State Services, is not =
to act as a constitutional expert or defining authority on all matters =
relating to the Treaty or race relations. What I am focused on is =
getting the facts out into the public domain so that New Zealanders can =
have a reasoned and balanced debate. Any reasoned debate about =
race relations requires all of us who participate to understand and =
reflect on our particular histories in the New Zealand context. That =
involves considering the place of the Treaty, the nature of Treaty =
settlements in New Zealand and the rights and needs of all New =
Zealanders as we go forward in the 21st century. I want to =
cover some of my initial thinking on these issues and how this will =
inform my approach to my responsibilities and the outcomes I want to =
achieve. Among the key questions we have to ask ourselves is: =
"what defines New Zealand in the 21st century?" How do we build =
the sort of New Zealand that all reasonable people want to be part of? =
In my view extremists at both ends of the spectrum don't help us achieve =
that. We have processes in place for righting the wrongs of the =
past. That means sorting things out so we can all move on. As that =
happens we can build a stronger consensus about what it means to be New =
Zealanders in what's going to be our best century yet. So I see =
our 21st century as being about perfecting our nationhood, banishing the =
demons from our past, cheering each other on as New Zealand citizens, =
and being successful, instead of some people constantly feeling they are =
always missing out, always left behind. There has to be frank =
and open debate on what New Zealand is about, and on the futures we can =
share together. Partisan and sectional politics on these issues will get =
us nowhere. People who sand-bag themselves into die-hard positions will =
not be part of creative and positive solutions. The National =
Party has dug itself into a bunker and thinks there's a race war going =
on. National is the North Korea of New Zealand politics. They're =
spreading fear by threatening to go nuclear on race relations. Such a =
party cannot create a New Zealand that is unified and at peace with =
itself. Meanwhile, other people are sitting down and working =
through the issues like sensible adults, or at least indicating that =
that is precisely what they would like to do. The debate about =
our future is not well served by those who make dangerous =
generalisations. It is simply irresponsible to make assertions about =
Maori constantly skiving off to tangi or Maori doctors being less able =
than their non-Maori counterparts. I am appalled when people show =
contempt for the spiritual and cultural beliefs of others or =
dismissively resort to name-calling. Paranoia politics and playing on =
prejudice will not advance New Zealand one iota. Nor will =
race-based politics and race-based policy-delivery. Services must be on =
the basis of need and not because of a sense of race-based entitlement. =
 New Zealand also has to get its British imperial past behind it. =
Maori and Pakeha are both indigenous people to New Zealand now. I regard =
myself as an indigenous New Zealander - I come from Wainuiomata. =
 We've left behind a British identity. This has meant that we no =
longer easily understand the people who tried to tear up the Treaty and =
went to war with Maori in 1863. Once were Warriors. Once were British. =
 Indigeneity is about the diversity of ways in which we belong =
and identify with our country. There are Chinese and Indian New =
Zealanders who have become deeply indigenous too, just like other kiwis =
whose forbears come from a huge range of other countries. =
 Michael King was passionate about New Zealand and about the =
emergence of a unique New Zealand identity. He rightly pointed out that =
for most New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity, home is here, =
Aotearoa New Zealand. He argued that just because one group has =
been here longer than another does not make its members more New Zealand =
than later arrivals, nor does it give them the right to exclude others =
from full participation in national life. Indigeneity is also =
about respecting the First Nation or Tangata Whenua in this country, =
Maori, who after all agreed to the introduction of the British law and =
government to New Zealand under the Treaty of Waitangi. Without =
the trust of Maori in the British government back then, New Zealand as =
we know it today would not have developed. Let's get some facts =
straight about the Treaty. The Treaty is both bigger and smaller than =
many people think it is. First, despite the Treaty having no =
formal legal status, it has been accorded a kind of constitutional =
status because it gave legitimacy to the British Crown in New Zealand. =
 As Professor Philip Joseph has stated, "The disputed status of =
the Treaty under international law is an historical curiosity that has =
no bearing upon the Treaty's symbolic importance. Its status under =
international law counts for little if the promises exchanged in 1840 =
were the basis on which the British Crown acquired New Zealand." =
(Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand, =
p44.). Second, the New Zealand Government would be dealing with =
indigenous law issues whether there was a Treaty of Waitangi or not. =
Australia is proof of that. There were no treaties in Australia, as =
there were in North America, South Africa and New Zealand, and yet =
Australians are still facing many of the same debates that we are. =
 Let's not blame the Treaty. It is hugely significant but it is =
not the be-all and end-all, nor the panacea for every challenge we face =
as a country. We would still have to face the challenges of genuinely =
redressing Maori grievances, of fully associating Maori with New Zealand =
nationhood, and of ensuring their fullest participation in our economy =
and society, regardless of whether we had the Treaty or =
not. Third, in many ways the Treaty no longer underwrites what it =
used to. Maori, when they signed the Treaty, signed up to the British =
global order which existed at the time. Since then New Zealand has =
become an independent self-governing country. But the government's duty =
to look after all its citizens, Maori and Pakeha, equally - as promised =
by the Treaty - remains. There are no people on earth who would =
of their own free will agree to extinguish themselves as an ethnically =
distinct group and totally surrender control over their communities and =
culture to others. That cannot be what New Zealand's 21st century =
is about. New Zealanders know that our unity as a nation can only be =
achieved by respecting and admitting diversity and difference. =
 Today's backward-looking National Party, stalled in the 19th, or =
perhaps the 18th century, are the inheritors of the original =
assimilation project. It is hard to see what else they can mean. They =
are the successors of the Victorian colonialists who wreaked havoc in so =
many countries. Winston Peters was more correct than he may =
have intended when he described Don Brash as a colonial tea =
planter. So how do we make sense of the Treaty? The two =
texts of the Treaty have led to different understandings. Because of the =
need to apply the Treaty to present-day circumstances and issues, the =
"principles" of the Treaty have been referred to by the courts and in =
legislation, rather than the text of the Treaty itself. Treaty =
principles interpret the Treaty as a whole; its intention and its =
spirit. Some commentators argue that it is the spirit of the Treaty =
that matters most, overriding the differences in the texts. Lord =
Woolf, in the Broadcasting Assets case in 1994 described Treaty =
principles as "the underlying mutual obligations and responsibilities =
the Treaty places on the parties. They reflect the intention of the =
Treaty as a whole and include, but are not confined to, the express =
terms of the Treaty." So what are these principles that we keep =
referring to? In order to define the principles of the Treaty we =
must look primarily to judgments from our courts and to some of the =
reports of the Waitangi Tribunal, both of which have had to wrestle with =
these issues. The Court of Appeal emphasised that there were two =
core principles. These were "partnership", in the sense that they =
referred to a relationship akin to a partnership, and "active =
protection". Both the courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have determined =
that the principle of partnership includes the obligation on both =
parties to act reasonably, honourably and in good faith. The =
principle of active protection has been described as the duty of the =
Crown to actively protect Maori people in the use of their lands and =
waters to the fullest extent practicable. This principle arises from =
the fundamental exchange contained in the Treaty - the cession of =
sovereignty for the protection of rangatiratanga. This principle is =
sometimes described as the principle of reciprocity. A further =
principle defined by the courts is the principle of redress. It =
reflects the Crown's duty to take active and positive steps to redress =
Treaty breaches. It entails a fair and reasonable recognition and =
recompense for wrongdoing. We can also look to the 1989 =
"Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi", which define =
the essential exchange of promises within the Treaty in the form of =
principles. The first three of those five principles are:<ul><li>"The =
Principle of Government/The Kawanatanga Principle" (The government has =
the right to govern and to make laws);<li>"The Principle of =
Self-Management/The Rangatiratanga Principle" (The iwi have the right to =
organise as iwi, and, under the law, to control their resources as their =
own); and<li>"The Principle of Equality" (All New Zealanders are equal =
before the law).</ul> These principles reflect the three articles =
of the Treaty. The fourth principle is "The Principle of =
Co-operation", which encompasses "good faith, consultation, and =
partnership". It is stated that "The Treaty is regarded by the =
Crown as establishing a fair basis for two peoples in one country. =
Duality and unity are both significant. . Reasonable co-operation can =
only take place if there is consultation on major issues of common =
concern and if good faith, balance, and common sense are shown on all =
sides." The final of these five principles is "The Principle of =
Redress", whereby the Crown accepts a responsibility to provide a =
process for the resolution of grievances arising from the =
Treaty. There is a myth that the Treaty gave Maori extra rights =
over and above those of other New Zealanders. Article III makes =
it clear that Maori were to have the same rights as other British =
subjects, the same rights as the settlers. Article III was an explicit =
equaliser and a promise that Maori were not to have race-based =
legislation passed against them. Maori have no extra rights or =
privileges under the Treaty or in the policy of the New Zealand =
government. So why have Maori invoked the Treaty, if they are on =
a par with other groups for access to resources and funding? The =
British world of 1840 was a class and race-based power-system, at home =
in the United Kingdom and abroad. Segregation formally or informally was =
a fact of life throughout its colonies. South Africa as we know was the =
last bastion of that world. What Article III guaranteed, in the =
context of that age, was that Maori would be equal to all other British =
subjects in the eyes of the law and of the state. It was =
necessary to expressly state this back in 1840. Non-discrimination or =
equality could not be taken for granted. The Maori signatories =
themselves required this assurance, so that they would not descend into =
a sub-class. The Victorians understood civil rights, but they =
were rough and ready and you had to enforce your rights if they were to =
be upheld, otherwise "tough". The Crown Colony government knew =
perfectly well what Article III meant and how Maori understood it. In an =
Ordinance of 1850, Governor George Grey insisted that no laws were to =
apply to Maori that were not to apply to the settlers and to other =
British subjects. So when Maori claim resources under Article =
III they are asking for what they see as their equitable share in =
relation to other citizens and in proportion to their needs. =
 Sometimes these claims are upheld, sometimes they are not. =
 I think at this point it's also important to dispel some of the =
myths about the supposed multi-billion dollar Treaty grievance industry. =
Since 1989 the government has paid out around $680 million in Treaty =
settlements. Putting this into context, last year alone Telecom made a =
$709 million profit, the government collected around $850 million in =
tobacco excise tax, and our total taxation revenue was over $40 =
billion. Treaty settlements are an important part of putting the =
negative aspects of our past behind us and getting on with a brighter =
future but they shouldn't be over-stated or unnecessarily =
exaggerated. It's worthwhile considering the spirit of the Treaty =
then in terms of New Zealand in 2004. The spirit of the Treaty is =
about a bond between New Zealanders that should transcend disputes over =
conflicting intentions and linguistic wrangles over different texts. =
 The spirit of the Treaty is no mystery, even though the lawyers =
can make it out to seem like one. I've talked about how it =
promises equality to Maori and non-Maori under the law. On the Crown's =
side it also involves recognition of Maori property and customary rights =
guaranteed under it. On the Maori side it involves acceptance of the new =
sovereign power in 1840, and in 2004 acceptance of the state system that =
continues to guarantee their rights. The Treaty was =
open-ended, not a straitjacket. It was a preliminary agreement to an =
on-going relationship under the same law and government. The terms of =
that relationship have changed over the past 164 years. The =
Treaty left us considerable freedom to fill in its considerable gaps =
together. Overall the outcome has been good. What might have happened =
without it in the world of 1840 is interesting to think about. =
 The partition of New Zealand and of Maori amongst rival colonial =
powers is one scenario. New Zealand of the 1840s could have divided =
among British, French, Maori and any number of other countries. For =
example, New Guinea of the 1880s was divided between Britain, Germany =
and Holland. Who knows, New Zealand could have been split - like =
American Samoa and Samoa. Living together as citizens in the =
spirit of the Treaty requires mutual respect. The basis for that has =
been there for a while now. Many New Zealanders enjoy =
and respond to films like Braveheart. There is as much myth as fact in =
Braveheart but that doesn't spoil a good film. What people respond to is =
the spirit of the film, and that spirit is the defence by people of =
their liberties and their countries against an invading power. =
 New Zealand has contested history too, and to most Maori it =
looks, sounds and feels like Braveheart for the 19th century period at =
least. Maori are not alone in having ancestors who were victims =
at one time or other of the British power structures. Power was as =
unbalanced in the Lancaster mills as it was on the Waikato or the =
Punjab. Our job in New Zealand is to not perpetuate that bad =
past in our own land but to leave it all behind, and to get on with it. =
 We have to get over this implicit attitude that "History" just =
happened to Maori, and that Pakeha history is all either offshore, about =
fighting in two World Wars, or else is "World History" in which we are =
only a minor player. The Treaty was signed in 1840, and its =
intent must be balanced and understood in terms of New Zealand in =
2004. We should behave as citizens in terms of both the spirit of =
the Treaty and of the spirit of modern New Zealand. New =
Zealanders are quite rightly proud of living in one of the world's =
oldest, most successful, participatory, and genuinely egalitarian =
democracies. We have a reputation for giving people a fair go. It pays =
to trust this democracy first and foremost, and to confide in New =
Zealanders and trust them to make the right decisions as I know they =
will. New Zealanders know that just throwing out the Treaty is =
impossible and irresponsible, and that this sort of provocation will =
cost us all. However Pakeha New Zealanders also want to be trusted by =
their Maori fellow-New Zealanders. New Zealanders do not want to =
be condemned and cursed as if they are the British imperialist white =
ascendancy colonialists. We see ourselves as egalitarian, fair-minded =
people who have little sympathy for elitism. The Treaty and New =
Zealand democracy are reconcilable if we talk together as kiwis. They =
are reconcilable if Maori accept that the best guarantee of minority =
indigenous rights is the protection and good-will of the majority. =
Dumping on each other has no role in constructing a New Zealand for =
Maori and Pakeha citizens. Most importantly, the Treaty and New =
Zealand democracy are reconcilable if politicians do not irresponsibly =
undermine the Treaty. As the Prime Minister said earlier this =
year at the opening of parliament, "Responsible 21st century governments =
and societies don't try to reinvent the economic policies of the 1990s, =
the society of the 1950s, or the attitude towards indigenous people of =
the 1830s. New Zealand has moved on". To conclude, the =
philosopher John Stuart Mill said the precondition for the political =
stability of any democracy "is a strong and active principle of cohesion =
among members of the same community or state". Cohesion =
doesn't mean assimilation of every single one of us into one mould of =
the identikit New Zealander, as National would want. It means =
getting on with each other appreciating and enjoying our differences, =
and recognising how those differences add value to our country as a =
go-ahead, positive, future-looking nation. I believe the vast =
majority of New Zealanders want this. The Trevor =
Mallard mailing list operated by OneSquared Limited. Click <a =
href=3D'http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Lists/index.aspx?UID=3D2160&unsubscrib=
e=3Dyes'>here</a> to unsubscribe. If the unsubscribe link is not =
active, enter the following address in your browser address bar and =
press the Enter =
key. http://www.beehive.govt.nz/Lists/index.aspx?UID=3D2160&unsubs=
cribe=3Dyes You can also subscribe to this service or change and =
maintain your existing subscription list by going to: <a href =
=3D =
'http://www.beehive.govt.nz/lists/default.cfm'>http://www.beehive.govt.nz=
/lists/default.cfm</a> </body></head>
------=_NextPart_000_0001_01C474CE.DBCCBED0--

0 new messages