Employment Relations Amendment Bill
Hone Harawira: Spokesman on Employment
Maori Party Member of Parliament for Te Tai Tokerau
Thursday 11 December 2008; 2pm

“Eight years ago, Professor Jane Kelsey wrote a book called Reclaiming the Future in which she talked about what happened to Maori during the last recession of the late 80’s; a book which should be required reading for all Members of Parliament, as Aotearoa stares down the barrel of another recession.

And in that book, Jane Kelsey reminds us that until 1987, per head of population, there were actually more Maori working than non-Maori. And that’s just 21 years ago.

And yet the way the media paints it Maori have been basically unemployed, lazy, dole bludgers ever since Pakeha came to these shores.

Strange how much we are influenced by the media isn’t it?

But the fact remains, that just 21 years ago, there were more Maori working than Pakeha, our families were stable, our kids were healthy and crime was down.

And then of course, the crash hit, the world came crashing in on us, and in just six years, Maori unemployment went from 1% to 15%, nearly half of all 16-19 Maori ended up on the dole, and our whole world fell apart.

And now Mr Speaker, it seems we’re heading right down that same track, but that this time we’re starting from a place far worse than 21 years ago because Maori unemployment is already more than twice that of non-Maori, there are four times more Maori beneficiaries than non-Maori, and Maori society has still not fully overcome the devastating effects of the crash of 1987.

And even after nine years of great prosperity, the gaps between the rich and the poor were never closed because Labour chose to close the programme rather than close the gap.”

This week’s seen some exciting launches, like Google Māori going live this Thursday 24 July, allowing you to search for articles in Māori. There’s also “He Pātaka Kupu”, the world’s largest monolingual dictionary which was launched by Te Taura Whiri, available on www.koreromaori.co.nz

For more info on Te Wiki o te Reo Māori see www.korero.maori.nz/news/mlw

Try out a few Maori phrases this week. For tips on how to ask someone about themselves, hit on them, tell them they’re dodgy and heaps more, see below for some basic phrases pinched from www.korero.maori.nz. That’s it from me. And by the way, tō ātaahua hoki rā!

Kua kai anō koe? - Have you had something to eat?

He aha māu? - What would you like?

He wai ārani māku. - I would like an orange juice.

He wai noa iho māku. - Just water for me.

He aha tō mahi? - What do you do for a job?

Kei hea koe e mahi ana? - Where do you work?

He kaimahi ahau nā (place of work) - I work at (place of work)

He aha ō mahi i tēnei rā? - What did you do today?

I pēhea tō rā? - How was your day?

Piro rawa atu! - It sucked!

Pai mārika taku rā! - I had a great day!

Kei te aha koe ā te pō? - What are you doing tonight?

Kāhore kau. - Nothing.

He aha ai? - Why?

E mate kai ana koe? - Are you hungry?

Ka rawe! Tino pai kē! - Too much!

Tō ātaahua hoki rā. - You look good.

Kei ēnā tikanga hoki. - Hey, you’re a bit dodgy.

Ka nui tēnā māku.- That’s enough for me, I’ve had enough.

He aha te waiata pai ki a koe? - What kind of music do you like?

Me āta inu koe. - Go easy on the drinking.

E āta inu ana au. - I’m just taking it easy (i.e. drinking).

Ka rawe te kōrero Māori. - Man, speaking Maori is good fun.

Ka rawe. - Choice, awesome.

Ehara mai! - Awesome!

He aha pea he mahi mā tāua? - Shall we do something?

Kua haere au. - Okay, I’m off.

Ka kite anō. - See you later.

Peter Williams on National Radio this morning raised concerns about upholding the rule of law, in particular that the Dominion Post’s actions are contempt of court in light of the fact that the Solicitor General’s decision means most of this evidence is inadmissable. Certainly, we must be concerned about the ramifications of allowing the “public to judge” through the media lens, despite Ron Marks apparent enthusiasm for the idea.

However, here we are, and here is the affadavit. So what does it mean for the self-interested (again according to Ron Mark) critics of the police raids and the attempted use of the Terrorism Suppression Act?

Very few of the criticisms that I have read or have made myself fall over in the light of this affadavit.

At the outset, all have stated that if there are charges to be laid, the Crimes Act and the Firearms Act are sufficient pieces of legislation within which to make a prosecution. This is proving to be the case, as in depositions the court has agreed there are charges to answer. The extension of the powers towards a security state that is being sought today cannot be argued on the basis that there are holes in the law through which evil people are escaping prosecution.

All critics have stated that the raids were heavy-handed. Again this stands, as it is increasingly clear from the evidence today that the police were not searching for mysterious figures hidden in the Urewera, but specific individuals well-known to them, no doubt with home addresses, phone numbers, favourite cafes, and all the rest. So we are left scratching our head as to why a whole town and then unrelated individuals’ houses needed to be held hostage by the police - to ensure nobody tried to escape on horseback into the wild blue yonder, perhaps? I suggest it is still a case of testosterone and budgets gone wild in the total institution that is our nation’s violent arm of the state.

All critics have said that the insinuation that political activism is terrorist activity is mud that’ll stick, and an insidious use of the media, parliament and the police. The grab-bag of activists charged still suggests this, and the affadavit goes no way towards proving some violent revolutionary plot across activist groups. Indeed, even the selective reading we have been allowed through the filter of police and then media analysis suggests there was some unease within those involved and a range of views about aims and strategies. People were clearly speaking out against violence here, not just condoning it.

So were there more than empty words in the Urewera. I’m inclined to believe so. I shook my head this morning when I read the Dominion Post, and thought, in relation to those suspects in the affadavit, “you dumb a__es”.

But this is not to be taken as an argument for greater police powers, more intelligence, broader powers to gather communications. The powers of the police are sufficient, our intelligence agencies are as incompetent and conspiracy driven as always, and we don’t need more impositions on our lives. So perhaps the empty words are those ringing out from Wellington, and continue to require us to challenge and critique.

At a time when the parliament and executive have been so loose with labelling political activism as terrorism, when NZ First has again attempted to get parliament to wipe te Tiriti o Waitangi from the record, and the violent arm of the state has brutalised Ngai Tuhoe (again), Jones’ comments are questions of maturity and insight.

Put simply, she asks if Pakeha are willing to build a relationship with Maori yet. She suggests up until now:

“Pakeha have largely refused a relationship of positive, real, engagement, being busy instead with forms of colonisation, and with “being entertained” by, and “doing good things” for, Maori.”

This question is so pertinent because, frankly, as a descendent of te Pirirakau, Ngati Rangiwewehi and Ngati Hinerangi, I am one of a lot of pissed off tangata whenua. I don’t trust the police, the executive, and most of the parliament. I don’t want a bar of the New Zealand that Pakeha are creating for themselves. And as a result of the last month’s events, I’ve rapidly become more sympathetic to those who may have advocated violent struggle. I’ve even caught myself beginning to think in the excluding language that I used as a 19 year old: “those” Pakeha supported by “their” state with “their” kupapa, pet Maori in parliament.

I’d rather have some faith restored that we are building a social contract that seeks a just relationship based in te Tiriti and honours our collective role in building Aotearoa. So the question remains to one and all: are you ready yet?

“The UN General Assembly on Thursday adopted a non-binding declaration upholding the human, land and resources rights of the world’s 370 million indigenous people, brushing off opposition from Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States.

The vote in the assembly was 143 in favor and four against. Eleven countries, including Russia and Colombia, abstained.

The declaration, capping more than 20 years of debate at the United Nations, also recognizes the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination and sets global human rights standards for them.

It states that native peoples have the right ”to the recognition, observance and enforcement of treaties“ concluded with states or their successors.” Click here for the full article

Helen Clark has said that what the UN agreement seeks is already present in our legal system - if that was the case, one would only assume there would be no harm in signing it!

New Zealand government apparently believes that the Declaration disadvantaged non-indigenous people and conflicts with the country’s laws. Well….erm…hello!…last time I looked the indigenous population were pretty damn well disadvantaged by the status quo. Seems to me that some major redressing of the balance is precisely what justice demands!

The real issue here would seem to be the apparent threat to the privilege of the majority. I’m not Maori - but I do know what it’s like to be marginalized and a minority in some ways - and I can’t help wonder how it must feel to reflect upon the time when Maori were the majority, how different it might have been….to have that freedom…that position…of what was lost…and what is sought. It makes me sick.

Seems to me this Government is hanging on by a thread, and while it thinks it needs to get the centre vote buy buying nurses and appealing to the moderate middle classes, the reality is that if it doesn’t get it’s act together and come up with some decent policies on public transport, child poverty reduction, and how it relates to Maori, to name but three that spring to mind, then it better be prepared for a spell out in the cold. It basically needs to shake off third term-itis, stop believing its own press, and wake up to reality for five minutes. It needs some imagination, and to be less enslaved by the systems it has created.

At this rate, John Key will smile his way to victory - because most voters perceive he has something to offer - and let’s face it, he does the cute thing quite well. Seems to me Key is seeking to give the Government just enough rope…

The Maori I speak with are really tired of this kind of inaction. We have a chance to make this a better and more just society…

The Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill [1] is likely to come up for its first reading in parliament on Wednesday, 25 July. Both Labour and National have indicated they will not support the Bill which means that it will not be referred to a Select Committee for consideration.

This action alert has three sections:

• some comment on Labour and National’s double standard in not supporting any discussion about this Bill when they are prepared to support discussion about proposed legislation that attacks the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori and their rights;
• a reminder of what the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination said about the Foreshore and Seabed Act; and
• what you can do about this.

Labour and National’s hypocritical double standard

Labour and National’s refusal to support the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill at its first reading is a stark contrast with those two parties support for the first reading of two Bills which are an attack on the Treaty of Waitangi, and on Maori and their rights: the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill [2], which would in practice remove all references to the Treaty in legislation and take away the jurisdiction of the Waitangi Tribunal; and the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill [3], which is designed to stop serving Maori Land Court and High Court judges sitting on the Waitangi Tribunal - a Bill which is essentially discriminatory as it does not say anything about other situations where judges sit in other courts or decision making bodies.

Although both Labour and National have indicated they are unlikely to support these two Bills at the second reading stage, they supported them going to Select Committee to “allow debate” [4] and so that “these important issues can be properly canvassed” [5].

What an outrageous double standard - why is it that discussion about proposed legislation which assaults and insults the Treaty and Maori is supported, but there will not be the opportunity for any discussion about a Bill which is intended to repeal legislation which was entirely unjust and unnecessary? Legislation, furthermore, that was found to breach the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.

The Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and the Foreshore and Seabed Act

In April 2005, the United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (which monitors government compliance with the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) released its decision on the Foreshore and Seabed Act [6]. As well as finding the legislation contained discriminatory aspects, there were two other comments made by the Committee which have particular relevance to this alert.

The Committee expressed concern about the political atmosphere that developed following the Court of Appeal’s decision on the foreshore and seabed, and stated its hope that: “all actors in New Zealand will refrain from exploiting racial tensions for their own political advantage.” Clearly advice not followed by Labour or National given their support for Select Committee consideration of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion and Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bills.

The Committee also requested the government talk with Maori in order to seek ways of mitigating the discriminatory effects of the legislation “including through legislative amendment, where necessary”. Supporting the consideration of the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill by a Select Committee would be entirely consistent with this recommendation.

This is an interesting time for the government to be refusing to support the Repeal Bill - they will be appearing before the Committee in Geneva at the end of this month to explain what they have done about the Committee’s recommendations on the foreshore and seabed legislation, and to answer questions about other areas where they have failed to meet their obligations under the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (more information about that will be circulated next week).

And a final comment on the Repeal Bill - support for consideration of the Bill and criticism of National’s position on it has come from some unlikely sources, for example, the Editorial in yesterday’s Dominion Post: “At the very least, National could back Mrs Turia’s bill to the select committee stage, arguing - rightly - that the process that saw a High Court decision to allow Maori to legally test their claims to ownership blocked by legislation promoted by a rattled prime minister, was flawed.” [7]

What you can do about this

Please as a matter of urgency contact your MP (especially if they are in Labour or National) before Wednesday and demand that they support the Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill at its first reading - point out the hypocritical double standard in their party’s support for Select Committee consideration of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill and the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill, and their lack of support for the Repeal Bill. You can contact your MP’s parliamentary office by phoning the switchboard at parliament (04) 471 9999 and asking to be put through to them. Phone and fax details for all MPs are available online here. Email addresses for MPs are in the format of firstname.lastname@parliament.govt.nz and addresses for government Ministers are in the format of firstinitial(no full stop)lastname@ministers.govt.nz, for example, mburton@ministers.govt.nz

If you would like to convey your views about this to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, their details are: Helen Clark email, tel (04) 471 9998 or fax 473 3579; Michael Cullen email tel (04) 470 6551 or fax 495 8442.

It is very helpful for our work if you can send a copy of any fax or message you send, and of any replies you receive, to: Peace Movement Aotearoa, PO Box 9314, Wellington 6141; fax (04) 382 8173; or bcc to email, thank you.

References

1. The Foreshore and Seabed Act (Repeal) Bill is a Members Bill which was introduced to parliament by Tariana Turia, on behalf of the Maori Party, on 12 October 2006. The Bill aims to repeal the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 and restore, as part of that process, provisions in the Foreshore and Seabed Endowment Revesting Act 1991. The text of the Bill is available here.

2. The Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill is a Members Bill, which was introduced by NZ First MP Doug Woolerton on 29 June 2006, had its first reading on 27 July 2006, and is currently being considered by the Justice and Electoral Select Committee. The Bill (similar to a NZ First Bill voted out in 2005) was part of the Confidence and Supply Agreement between the Labour Party and NZ First which specified that a Bill ‘to remove references to the principles of the Treaty from legislation’ would be sent for consideration by a Select Committee. The text of the Bill is available here and an action alert on it is available here.

3. The Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill is a Members Bill which was introduced by NZ First MP Pita Paraone on 12 October 2006, and had its first reading on 27 June 2007. It was referred to the Justice and Electoral Select Committee and submissions on it are due by 10 August 2007. The text of the Bill is available here.

4. See, for example, Steve Maharey (Labour) in the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill first reading debate.

5. See, for example, Christopher Finlayson (National) in the Treaty of Waitangi (Removal of Conflict of Interest) Amendment Bill first reading debate.

6. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, Sixty-sixth session, 17 February to 11 March 2005, Decision 1 (66): New Zealand CERD/C/DEC/NZL/1. The decision is available here.

7. ‘Seabed forces Key to stumble’, Dominion Post, 20 July 2007, is available here.

1814 At invitation of Ruatura, Samuel Marsden establishes a CMS Mission Station at Rangihoua – Kendall, Hall and King

1819 Further Mission Station established at Kerikeri under protection of Hongi Hika

1823 Reverend Henry Williams arrives and established another Mission Station at Paihia. Development of Te Hahi Mihingare – the Maori Missionary Church. First Maori Baptism 4 March – Maria Ringa baptised by Kendall as prelude to marriage to Phillip Tapsell on 23 June

1827 First Scriptures printed in Maori. By 1840 Colenso the CMS printer had printed 3.5 million pages of material, with a further 2 million in 1840

1835 Declaration of Independence of Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand on 28 October 1835

1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi signed by Maori chiefs, many of whom were Christian. Treaty affirmed Te Tino Rangatira of Maori and granted Kawanatanga (a limited function of government) to Crown.
Population about 125,000 Maori and 2000 Pakeha.
Apihai Te Kawau, of Ngati Whatua, gifts 3000 acres to Governor Hobson to establish City of Auckland with 200 pounds returned in koha transaction

1841 Henry Venn CMS Secretary advocates self-determining, self-supporting, self-propagating Church

1842 George August Selwyn arrives, first Bishop of New Zealand. Founded College of St John the Evangelist in Waimate North 1843, College moved to Tamaki 1844. Pakeha Settler Church developed.

1845 With increase in Pakeha colonisation comes process of dispossession of Maori land, resources, human rights, language and spirituality. Hone Heke, a baptised Christian and member of Te Hahi Mihingare, chops down the Maori Confederation flagpole as a non-violent protest at British not honouring the Treaty. Britis troops use Waimate Station as a base in the military invasion of the North. “Te Atua Wera” religion spreads in the North – began in 1833

1846 Governor Grey begins policy to discredit Henry Williams

1847 William Williams complains that the Treaty of Waitangi was being dishonoured by the Government and land grabs

1853 Rota Waitoa ordained Deacon, priested 1860, Te Matamua o Nga Minita Maori. Also in 1853, Tamihana Te Rauparaha, who was baptised in 1843 and trained at St John’s College, together with another Mihingare Christian, Matene Te Whiwhi, called for kotahitanga of Maori Tribes under a Maori King to preserve them from the effects of colonisation, such as alienation of land. They advocated co-existence of Maori and Pakeha with “God over both, and Love binding them to each other.”

1857 Bishop Selwyn convenes a Constituent Assembly 13 June at St Stephen’s Church, Judges Bay, Auckland and a Constitution drawn up on the basis of “mutual and voluntary compact”. Although Clergy, CMS and Lay were represented, there were NO MAORI PRESENT

1859 Bishop Selwyn spoke at the General Synod of future Maori representation

1860 Church opposition to Waitara ‘purchase’, particularly from Selwyn and Hadfield

1863 Selwyn supports military invasion of the Waikato (by an Anglican Governor and an Anglican General and political backers) and acts as Chaplain to British troops

1864 On 21 February Maori elders, women and children in the undefended village of Rangiaowhia, seeking sanctuary in a Church, are burnt alive by Government troops. Maori grievance at being abandoned by Anglican Church and also at improper disposal of lands that had been given for churches. Pai Marire (1862) and Ringatu (1867) religions born.

1877 Hemi Matenga of Ngati Toa writes to ‘Waka Maori’ requesting a Maori Bishop to replace Williams who resigned from Waiapu

1880 General Synod declines request for a Bishop for Maori in favour of a policy of ASSIMILATION

1883 Te Rau College established to train Maori Clergy – function taken over by St John’s College in 1920. Other Maori Anglican Colleges include St Stephen’s in Auckland, Te Aute College (1885), Hukarere Girls’ School in Napier (1875) and Queen Victoria School for Girls in Auckland (1903)

1902 CMS pulls out of New Zealand

1904 Maori Mission Board set up but abolished in 1913 through lack of financial support

1913 General Synod bypasses a motion for Maori Clerical and Lay Representation at General Synod

1925 North Island Bishops excommunicate Anglicans who follow Ratana. Commission including Apirana Ngata recommends that a separate Maori Diocese be created, to be called “The Diocese of Aotearoa”. A Special Session of General Synod approved the necessary legislation, but the North Island Bishops refused to consecrate a Maori Bishop, so the legislation fell dormant

1928 Frederick Augustus Bennett consecrated as first Maori Bishop in compromise as suffragan Bishop of Waiapu, with inadequate funding and without representation at General Synod. His Episcopal ministry among Maori people depended on the goodwill of Diocesan Bishops

1946 Bishop Simpkin of Auckland withdrew support of Maori Bishop, so 100 confirmation candidates in the Maori Batallion at Ohaeawai went to Rotorua

1951 Wiremu Netana Panapa consecrated as second Maori Bishop

1968 Manuhuia Augustus Bennet consecrated as the third Maori Bishop

1971 Paul Reeves consecrated Bishop of Waiapu, translated to Auckland in 1979, made Primate and Archbishop in 1980 and first Maori Governor General in 1985

1975 Waitangi Tribunal set up by Labour Government to examine cases arising after 1975

1978 Finally, after yet another Commission (1976), the sixth in 50 years, Te Pihopatanga o Aotearoa established with autonomous representation at General Synod and a mandate to give “full Episcopal care and supervision of Maori people”.
Puti Murray ordained as first Maori woman Priest

1980’s: Decade of Maori Renaissance – development of Minita-a-Iwi and Church involvement in the Treaty and social issues such as Bastion Point and the Springbok Tour and support for Programmes on Racism. Waitangi Tribunal amended in 1985 to be retrospective to 1840. Waitangi Tribunal publishes Motonui, Kaituna, Manukau, Te Reo, Waiheke, Orakei, Muriwhenua and Manganui reports.
Labour Government begins process of restructuring Health, Education, Social Welfare etc. using “trickle down” and “user pays” values

1981 Whakahuihui Vercoe consecrated Te Pihopa of Aotearoa as a partner of Diocesan Bishops

1984 Bicultural Commission to study the Treaty of Waitangi established by General Synod

1986 General Synod accepts report and Te Kaupapa Tikanga Rua published

1988 General Synod begins process of amending the Constitution to facilitate partnership

1989 Provincial Bicultural Education Unit established. A New Zealand Prayer Book/He Karakia Mihinare o Aotearoa published

1990 Church leaders publish a Statement 150 years after signing of Treaty of Waitangi. Pihopa Whakahuihui Vercoe tells Country and Crown at Waitangi, “We have not honoured each other’s promises”

1990’s: Decade of political developments with beginnings of Resource and Power Sharing. Some important Waitangi Tribunal Settlements following rejection of the ‘Fiscal Envelope’ in 1994. Labour loses Maori Seats after MMP Election in 1996 and Coalition Government formed.
Te Pihopatanga proposes a model for Constitutional Reform of the country to give effect to Treaty of Waitangi in Government structures.

1991 Te Rau Kahikatea inaugurated with Ahorangi at St John’s College. Diocesan Council of Auckland Diocese meet with Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board to begin resolution of disrupted covenant relationship from Church sale of land in 1926 previously given for a church and school

1992 Revised Constitution of Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia, recognising the covenant partnership relationship under the Gospel and Treaty of Waitangi, providing for each partner to worship and minister in their own language and culture. Canon XX Title B of Code of Canons outlines Tikanga relationships and responsibilities. Inter-Diocesan Conferences provide a process for Tikanga Pakeha to caucus together

Ordination and consecration of Regional Maori Bishops:
Brown William Turei as Pihopa ki te Tairawhiti
Waiohau Rui Te Haara as Pihopa ki te Taitokerau
Muru Walters as Pihopa ki te Upoko o te Ika
John Gray (1996) as Pihopa ki te Waipounamu
Te Pihopa o Aotearoa retains responsibility for Manawa o te Wheke

1995 Auckland Diocesan Bicultural Committee disbanded to unequivocally place responsibility on Diocesan Council. Ongoing need to audit actions, processes and decisions in terms of the roles and responsibilities of Kawanatanga, and the covenant partnership relationship under the Treaty and Revised Constitution

1996 The College of the Southern Cross inaugurated for Tikanga Pakeha, Tikanga Polynesia (for the time being) and the Church of the Province of Melanesia. St John’s College the umbrella for all the Tikanga Colleges

Compiled with reference to the following sources:

- Davidson, Allan. Transplanted Christianity
- Te Kaupapa Tikanga Rua
- Archives of the Auckland Diocesan Bicultural Committee

The Conference of Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand has prepared study material on constitutional reform. This will help us see the issues more clearly as possible forms of Treaty based constitutional arrangements emerge…

The Case for Constitutional Reform

Since early 1995 there have been indications that Maori protest action is reviving. So what’s at stake? An underlying theme is a call for a new structuring of political relationship between Maori and Pakeha: a call for Constitutional Reform. What is wanted is Constitutional Reform which will take as its starting point te Tino Rangatiratanga o te Iwi Maori. It is Tino Rangatiratanga which is the central fact affirmed in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and upheld in Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. Neither the Declaration nor the Treaty is in any doubt that Maori exercise absolute authority over their own land and destiny.

In this country, the establishment of Westminster-style Government in the 1850s unjustly and progressively deprived Maori of the right to control their own land. The English Parliament, sitting in London, imposed the 1852 Constitution Act, in the name of the Crown. By this means, they transferred what they saw as their right of absolute political power to settler interests in this country.

In 1990, after more than a decade of discussion, research and careful monitoring of Government action, Te Runanga Whakawhanaunga i Nga Haahi o Aotearoa (the Maori ecumenical body) called on Maori and all people of goodwill to boycott the elections. As an alternative, Te Runanga suggested that people sign a Tino Rangatiratanga Register. This call was located solidly within a 150-year understanding that the Treaty, far from ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, in fact confirmed the Tino Rangatiratanga of Maori.

Te Runanga’s call also reflected the clear awareness that the imposition of Settler Government in the 1850’s by a Pakeha minority was in direct contravention of the Treaty. Given that our political system is poisoned at its source, the Runanga’s forbearance in proposing a Constitutional Conference to the two main Parties in 1990 is even more remarkable. This proposal received scant attention in the media, who were busy dismissing the boycott call, claiming it was the result of manipulation by ‘radicals’. It was rejected out of hand by both the then Prime Minister Mike Moore, and the Leader of the Opposition Jim Bolger. Their letters of response to the proposal were completely devoid of respect for the Runanga, or of any sense that they had anything to learn from the opportunity being offered them.

By contrast, the Executive of CCANZ and the then leaders of some of its member churches were very supportive of Te Runanga’s stand. They also called on their church constituencies to give serious consideration to the boycott call, and the reasons for it. Early in 1990 ten Church leaders had issued a joint statement on the sesquicentenary celebrations, which acknowledged the need for Constitutional Reform as part of the quest for a just future, based on the Treaty and on Maori status as Tangata Whenua. This imperative to do what is right is therefore not new. Nor will it go away.

The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, reporting in 1986, noted that the present system of Government effectively deprives Maori of a political voice. It recommended a process of consultation and dialogue to seek a solution to this. Te Runanga’s 1990 proposal for just such a dialogue was, like the Commission’s recommendations, steadfastly ignored by both Government and opposition.

The Maori Congress and the Wellington Maori Legal Services have both been calling for negotiation between Maori and the Crown to work out a new Treaty-based constitutional relationship and different options have been forthcoming. The Whanganui Iwi who re-occupied Mautoa Gardens in Whanganui clearly spelt out that their argument was with the Crown and was an issue of Maori sovereignty. They have called for Constitutional Reform.

The Anglican Church in New Zealand created a Constitution in 1857 based on the English Parliamentary system. That constitution was revised in 1992. The changes expressed a commitment to a Treaty based partnership in this country and partnership with the Anglican Church in Polynesia. This action shows that constitutional change is possible and that it can be invigorating to all involved. The Anglican model is one possible way forward.

The Methodist Church has been making changes in its decision-making committees in order to reflect a partnership between Taha Maori and Tauiwi. It now has a Council of Conference with ten Maori and ten Tauiwi meeting three times a year between national conferences. The Council is a policy- making body.

As we come to this discussion, it may be helpful to remember that the Westminster system of Government which we follow in this country has no natural claim to a place here. Indeed, many former British colonies which imported the same system have since abolished it. It is salutary also to observe that ‘our’ system of representative government doesn’t even represent us satisfactorily. The launching of a petition calling for 50:50 female : male political representation is a recent example of a group beginning to recognise this inadequacy.

In 1993 the Pakeha electorate in a reaction to an inadequate First Past the Post electoral system voted for Mixed Member Proportional representation. This modification of the Westminster system of government may well have been an improvement for the Pakeha electorate but did not address the underlying need for a new constitutional relationship which guarantees Te Iwi Maori their Tino Rangatiratanga.

A discussion of Constitutional Reform offers much to Pakeha, not only with respect to Treaty partnership with Maori. The more fundamental questions of how we are governed, by whom, for whom and why, should be on our agenda. It is time they were. It is time to “do justice, and walk humbly with God”.

A Tiriti Analysis of Proportional Representation:

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the primary constitutional document of Aotearoa. The Maori version of Te Tiriti confirmed te tino rangatiratanga over all things Maori. It granted to the Crown kawanatanga, or limited power, for the exercise of control over new settlers. However, on the basis of the English text of Te Tiriti (or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty), successive governments have maintained that Maori ceded their sovereignty to the Crown. This has been the basis on which they claim their legitimacy. It is however incorrect, for Maori never relinquished their tino rangatiratanga, rather it was taken from them. Governments throughout our history have denied Maori their tino rangatiratanga.

The acid test of any constitutional reform in Aotearoa is whether it is Tiriti based, and in particular whether it recognises and confirms tino rangatiratanga. Clearly the present parliamentary system does not. Advocates of the change in the early 90’s to proportional representation argued that Maori would have more seats in parliament, but this still does not directly address the question of Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga. Under proportional representation the principle of ensuring that there is always a Tauiwi (all non-Maori people living in Aotearoa) majority in control will not be altered. For Maori, proportional representation only means more of the same.

Given the expressions of commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi made by our Churches, we are called to judge the adequacy of proportional representation in terms of Te Tiriti. When this is done proportional representation is found to be wanting, because it is not Tiriti based and does nothing towards restoring tino rangatiratanga.

Globalisation in its contemporary form heralds a new form of colonialism as the colonisation by countries during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries gives way to the colonisation by trans-national companies (TNCs) during the last half of the Twentieth Century. It is the goal of GATT and the other related agreements to make the world one single market with no barriers to the How of goods, services and capital. This is based on two ideals; that exports are good, imports are bad; and that free trade benefits all, provided every country is involved. In practice it will be the TNCs that will gain the most, as free trade will allow them to increase their profits by seeking new products and markets around the world, unhindered by regulations. Those who will lose the most are the underdeveloped countries and the indigenous peoples of the world who are already marginalised within their own countries.

The Uruguay round of the GATT talks included three new agreements covering services; General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATs) the related Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Also being proposed is a “free trade policing organisation”, called the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to enforce the agreements after they have been ratified. TRIMs require the elimination of a range of investment controls such as requirements for local content, technology transfers, exchange restrictions, restrictions on foreign ownership etc. This would have the effect that after a phase-in period, foreign firms would be treated no differently from local ones. For example it would prohibit the use of domestic subsidises or quotas to protect the local entertainment industry. This agreement protects any patent for a minimum of 20 years, copyright for fifty years, and trade marks for seven years; the last two renewable indefinitely. TRIPs promote the commodification and privatisation of knowledge that has often been stolen from indigenous peoples. This move was condemned by an international conference of indigenous peoples who signed the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples at Whakatane in June 1993. It declares, “that Indigenous Peoples of the world have the right to self determination; and in exercising that right must be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property.”

These GATT agreements have nothing to do with free trade but every thing to do with protecting the TNCs. Some of the consequences of this agreement are: that it would make it illegal for indigenous people to use traditional plants and medicines if they were patented; make it possible to patent life forms and human gene lines; and prevent governments from using compulsory drug licensing, drug importation from cheaper sources or generics to save money.

World Trade Organisation

Its responsibilities are to supervise the implementation of GATT agreements in member countries. All necessary steps must be taken to amend domestic laws so that they conform with the GATT and related agreements. The WTO can approve retaliation and other trade sanctions in respect of trade policies that are incompatible with GATT. In this context any country that seeks to impose environmental standards or controls above internationally agreed minimum standards may be guilty of restrictive trade practices and punished by sanctions. All member countries are entitled to participate in the WTO and have one vote, so in appearance there is democracy and equality between sovereign states. In practise this will be another arena of world politics that the rich countries of the North will dominate to the disadvantage of those countries without the political, economic, or military leverage.

Many of the changes required by GATT have already been implemented by the past Labour and present National governments with the consequent reduction in the health, wealth, and education of the average person, in particular the Maori. The GATT agreements will also mean that any policy return to self reliance though import controls and restrictions on foreign ownership etc may be punishable by international sanctions, in effect making the economic policies of structural adjustment irreversible. The agricultural export gains for NZ with the ratifying of GATT as promoted by the Government may not eventuate, and if they do they are unlikely to be sufficient compensation for the consequent loss of national sovereignty.

Treaty Implications

Manuka Henare says, “Maori as a nation (ie. Declaration of Independence) did not have any significant input into the GATT negotiations.” Jane Kelsey states, “Virtually every aspect of the GATT involves a serious conflict with Crown obligations and Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.” These include:

• protection of taonga and wahi tapu from exploitation;
• control of land, forests, fisheries, waterways, ngawha, or pouamu;
• access to resources through customary rights or availability for return to tangata whenua as compensation;
• control of the indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants, waiata, whakairo, whakapapa.

Maori were not consulted or included in the government’s GATT negotiations. The government clearly formed the view that Maori had no legitimate interest in the Uruguay round. The Maori Congress in February 1994 expressed its concern at the lack of any negotiating mandate from Maori; the lack of information about the implications of the agreement or the offers being made by government; the incompatibility of Maori cultural concepts and values of reciprocity with the free trade model; the attempt of the powerful countries to continue to build their wealth on the spoils of colonisation. The mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Declaration and the Treaty embody the right of Maori to define and control what is of spiritual, cultural, economic and social significance to them. GATT seeks to commodify all their taonga into a form capable of exploitation and profit, and subordinates the authority of tangata whenua to the highest bidder. The government has chosen to ignore these implications. The irony is that the Crown, in asserting its sovereignty over Maori may now have lost its own sovereignty.

Throughout the process of drafting this declaration, the New Zealand government has opposed the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. It has isolated itself among the several English speaking colonising powers, with USA, Canada and Australia all accepting the morality of this right to self-determination (although all three have now voted against the final Declaration, see more here).

The New Zealand government has sought to replace the right to self-determination with the much more limited concept of ‘self management’. It has stated, “Maori did not have a right to self-determination because we are urbanised and lack the defined territory in which self-determination vests.” However, in international law self-determination is a right inherent in peoples, not territory. The New Zealand government has also opposed he use of the term ‘peoples’, preferring the term ‘populations’. By labeling Maori as a population the government seeks to get around rights that exist in UN conventions such as those on civil and political rights, which are vested in peoples not populations.

The government has sought to ensure that the Declaration is consistent with domestic law, in an effort to protect the privilege of the majority, despite the Declaration seeking to create international norms and not domestic ones.

For more information, see the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Note:
self-de·ter·mi·na·tion
–noun
3. the determining by the people of the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation, esp. by people of a territory or former colony.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-determination)