If the status of the Treaty is “not so clear” to the “mainstream” is that not in part because it is used (as a vote seeking exercise) that encourages the ignorant(?) and the greedy(?) to “demand their rights” in a “we are all New Zealanders ” campaign? I’ve even met very new New Zealand migrants who hold that view.

In this way of thinking, the rights of Maori, apparently can be jetisoned because they are “a minority” (who don’t tend to vote National …)

Maybe we are heading for a shakedown, but I still have faith in the average Kiwi … and Te Tiriti o Waitangi is a matter of law and of fairness.

Having said that, the pushing the Seabed and Foreshore legislation through in haste was “not a good look” for my faith in the averfge Kiwi!

Eredwen

There are lots of good people involved in sorting this out. My point is to accent the expectations appear to be diverging on what full and final settlement is all about. It was not well articulated in the Seabed and Foreshore debate, and (conceptually) I laughed at the unrelated issue over access over private access to crown land.

We are heading for a bit of a shakedown, I suspect. The danger is genuine grievance is replaced with widespread disbelief, as the objectives are reframed in an entirely different light.

The status of children of the treaty is not so clear to many of its children. Or do you disagree?

I don’t understand what you mean by “given that any Maori Taxpayers are recipients of an instant rebate”
… unless it indicates that you don’t know “who” and “what” the Waitangi Tribunal and the Settlement process is about?

If that is the case I suggest you have a great deal of “educating yourself further” to do (and will leave you to it.)

A few starting points:
“Maori” as a collective name came into use in Pakeha times.
Pre-Pakeha Aotearoa was settled by various Iwi and their Hapu etc.
These Polynesians ended up with their own tribal areas in Aotearoa.

In 1840 Rangitira of each of the groups signed the Te Tiriti individually, and thus current Treaty claims are made separately or collectively by each Iwi or Hapu and any agreed upon redress goes to these groups … not necessarily a monetary thing.

… and as to “the taxpayers paying for it” … we are talking about long unrighted, illegally acquired land, and grevous wrongs here as well.

Maori have been incredibly patient and money alone is not enough.

I apologise for my assumption that you haven’t actually read at least two (of the three) books that would be considered necessary to understand the issues, if indeed you have read them.

If you haven’t you have company … apparently Don Brash openly admitted that he hadn’t read them either!

Happy reading …

eredwen

It is becoming apparent to me there are people who believe a separatist approach is required. Such a solution has its dangers. I find the irony is that National is being told why one law for all” is divisive, the Maori Party are at the same time explaining how maintaining a divide is central to their strategy.

I am glad you enjoy full status as people of the treaty. I am wondering who grants this status, and if the people that follow Tariana will be in a position to use laws set up to divide us, to use it as a wedge. Bad laws for good reasons are still bad laws.

T Selwyn raises the point central to all of this. If we are to solve the grievances, we need to understand this is not going to be settled by a cash payout from the coffers of the “Pakeha” tax payers (given that any Maori Tax payers are recipients of an instant rebate). This problem will not be solved by mere money (although that is an essential part of the appeasement is it not?) The problem will be solved by who has what power moving forwards from “full and final” settlement.

For all of the Kiwis that have been amenable to “full and final settlement”, they now need to realise we are nowhere near that point, given the position the Maori Party has stated. That may be of no surprise (or worry) to you, but it expands the agenda to me, as that was the way the issue was framed to a lot of people.

At this point, I have no definite opinion as to the best way forward. I wrote a post on my own blog saying I was trying to listen. There’s a lot more to listen on.

I’ll take your points on board and educate myself further.

I listened carefully to what both Gerry and Turiana said on RNZ National Programme this morning.

Unlike you, I have no “major issues” with what Turiana said.
I have to ask: How “well read” are you in our history?

To answer your points of concern (posted at 12:28 today):

Maori ARE Tangata Whenua in Aotearoa New Zealand.
They signed Te Tiriti as full partners, as the (then) majority people in this country.

The expressed intention was “joint rule” as you put it.
I assume that you are aware that the wording of Te Tiriti O Waitangi (not the English language version) is the official Treaty, and was the only copy signed by the then representative of the British Crown?

Kiwis of Maori descent already hold “more than the protected Maori Seats” in Parliament. (As has been pointed out, many people of Maori descent choose the General Roll.) I believe that Pakeha should leave the decision about the relevance of Maori Seats to Maori. They are the ones who “live in their skins” and know what that is like. Anything else smacks of “paternalism”.
If and when there are not enough enrolments on the Maori Roll to have a Maori Seat then everyone will be on the General Roll (and the suspicious among us can breathe again, provided they are not off on their next “conspiracy theory”.)

Meanwhile as a born New Zealander, I enjoy my full status in Aotearoa as a member of “Tangata Te Tiriti” (people of the Treaty), in partnership and friendship with “Tangata Whenua” (people of the Land: ie Maori) whom I trust and admire … including “Wahine Toa” like Turiana!

Eredwen

Turia makes it very clear, and so will I: This state was established by an instrument of government called the Treaty of Waitangi. It is pretty basic and the understandings of what it entailed were fairly clear. Everything continues as before except for what the Treaty says, ie. Maori autonomy continues and Pakeha and the British are welcome on those terms. Maori didn’t agree with the British to establish co-existence so they could be told what to do in their own country by immigrants - isn’t that obvious? Maori did not agree to British meddling in their minutist internal affairs - quite to the contrary. Maori ability to organise themselves and practice the tenets of self-determination and non-interference implicit in the Treaty has been undermined, without consent and often by force, unilaterally by the power Maori entrusted to do exactly the opposite. They were supposed to guarantee the peaceful existence of Maori and the new immigrants - not try to force Maori to be like the new immigrants. And then, generations later, millions of immigrants later, non-Maori feel so threatened by Maori aspirations to assert a measure of the ideals of our founding undertakings that many of them still feel it is their job to carry out the colonialist goal of assimilation, and are so ignorant and prejudiced from years of lies and indoctrination of Pakeha mythology that they are willing to believe almost anything that is anti-Maori. When Maori get a single tokenistic “right” it is heavily criticised despite Pakeha having an effective veto over Maori via Parliament and local governments. It’s all rather sad and pathetic. Don Brash (in that context) is merely a product of that history. If he could reach out in inclusive terms without resorting to deliberate denigration of Maori he could be Prime Minister. But he has burnt those bridges. If Helen Clark could have reached out she could have gone from Prime Minister to Statesman. But she too, burnt those bridges.

It does not help that many of the ideas or notions from both “sides” are usually very vague. “One law…” Who’s law?

As Zen has said we face a quandry. We have a heavily centralised unitary state with a single-chamber parliament that can change any law, including the constitution, in a matter of hours with 87% of the population being a consequence of British colonial settlement and having a historical narrative and understanding of the country based on an immigrant/pioneer mythology where the local, indigenous minority are usually understood in terms of them being the vanquished backward outsiders with aspirations beyond their assumed cultural window-dressing position. If power-sharing is to occur in this context, ie. without a form of federalism or de-centralisation, then tension will be present amid the competing groups because the game (as it were) is a winner-take-all. And that suits the interests of the major parties and the Crown system of government as a whole.

Any discussion on changing our constitutional affairs can be had at http://www.aotearoaconstitution.blogspot.com - new agenda out tomorrow. Need some more input before then.

Were we listening to the same parts of the interview? Did you not get that impression from Turia?