Members of the public who have a long-standing interest in civic affairs will be astonished and somewhat bewildered to be described as being exploited by the Treaty Principles Bill.
Adding insult to this injury, Kings Counsel and Dunedin lawyer Anne Stevens also described the public — in the same breath — as having their ignorance and prejudice exploited when it comes to matters pertaining to the Treaty of Waitangi. Whatever Ms Stevens’ personal view of this Bill is , her role as a KC is surely compromised by her pre-emptive strike against the Bill and her use of a totally emotive and inaccurate descriptive term of the Bill as "evil."
There is nothing profoundly immoral and/or wicked (as evil is defined) in wishing to publicly debate an issue that besets our society and has done for many decades. To describe, as quoted in the ODT, that the prime minister is pushing "this pile of muck forward" is quite unbelievable and surely cannot remain unchallenged by the Law Society. The fact 42 KCs signed a document of concern regarding the Bill ignores the reality that the vast majority of KCs didn’t sign — possibly as many as five to one.
I venture to point out to Ms Stevens KC that there are no absolute facts surrounding the signing of the Treaty in 1840 — only interpretations of a multitude of beliefs by the self-appointed with unauthorised opinion.
Such opinion, regretfully, is too often presented as irrefutable evidence as it comes from the tiny minority of more radical members of Maoridom. In fact, their view is even less relevant than opinion of "we the people" when based on the writings of historians such as Michael King, Judith Bassett and Keith Sinclair. The actual Maori version of the Treaty had no Maori author, as there was no written Maori language at that time. The expression "lost in the translation" is a well-known idiom.
It has always been concerning that the signing was deemed to be, or constituted, as a partnership between Maori and the representatives of Queen Victoria as Justice Robin Cooke (wrongly) decided. Indeed, his decision makes no sense, given that no other similar partnership agreement exists between any other emerging nation at that time with the greatest power of the age.
It is worth remembering that approximately 102 countries were colonised by Britain —only the familiar few in New Zealand believes there was a partnership.
It would indeed be helpful if the legal 42 openly accepted that it is Parliament, through a process we call democracy, that is the highest court in the land and not a coterie of no doubt talented legal minds.
It is all the more concerning when distinguished members of the legal community — KCs — sail forth into matters that the wider public must be consulted over. The tone so far appears to be completely dismissive of this consultative principle by at least some representatives of the wider New Zealand legal community.
Another signatory to this KC grouping, Dr Royden Somerville, is reported as saying he is concerned about the impact on New Zealand’s constitution. Dr Somerville will be well aware that New Zealand does not have a constitution. We have just three clauses or covenants agreed to and that is called the Treaty of Waitangi.
Prior to 1840, Maori and Europeans lived under no laws. Maori, therefore, had no authority to demand all tribes accept the governance of one dominant Maori authority.
Indeed, the definitive work of Sir Apirana Ngata makes it clear that a single governing Maori body was anathema to the powerful Maori tribes, so why would a partnership even be contemplated? The answer is of course that it never was.
According to Ngata’s interpretation of the Treaty, any concept of a Maori authority was set aside forever by the first article of the Treaty, so why, 180 years later, would some legal representatives believe they are right and the highly respected Maori scholar was wrong.
It is simply beyond understanding that some lawyers can’t or won’t accept that the public of New Zealand are fully entitled to have a say as to what the Treaty means in this day and age.
Even the Magna Carta has changed to allow the Crown to acquire the property rights of the citizens of this country without compensation — but not if you are a Maori landowner.
That surely needs some explanation from the 40-odd senior lawyers. It may also be helpful if the same lawyers explained just what rights we non-Maori are entitled to under the same Treaty document.
Debate and rigorous inquiry are surely the hallmark of a well-functioning society. It is entirely appropriate to challenge existing mantra, just as the recent inquiry into state- and faith-based abuse released a flood of information of the appalling harm concealed by the authorities.
Divisiveness will always occur when privilege is withdrawn.
The lights need to be turned up to shine on problematic issues not dimmed by the timorous few.
— Gerrard Eckhoff is a former Otago regional councillor and Act New Zealand MP.
