Tuhoe and Crown talk about te Urewera
It’s interesting to hear that Tuhoe are now entering treaty negotiations with the Crown. This will, I imagine, be a very different set of negotiations to previous large negotiations such as Ngai Tahu and Waikato. Tuhoe’s engagement with the crown is stereotypically characterised as more confrontational than for many other iwi, which will add an interesting dynamic to the negotiations:
“Tuhoe’s history has been one of resistance, so therefore it could be a defining moment. It could see us take a huge step forward, because at the end of the day, both the Crown and Tuhoe have to talk about the relationship,” Mr Te Pou said.
Meanwhile Dr Cullen said Tuhoe were a people who had suffered “significant injustice”.
“As the result of Crown action your people have at times suffered poverty, famine, and significant isolation.”
As well as that the Crown’s recent (and unrelated) ‘terrorism’ raids in Te Urewera and the upcoming trials will hang over the first phase of negotiations. The negotiations are likely to be something that the next government, whoever that is comprised of, will need to show significant good faith to complete successfully.
In this case, as others, that will require that the claimants are adequately resourced to prepare and present their case, and that the government invests time and energy into ensuring that the public understands the history behind and reason for the negotiations. People will need to see increased transparency and accountability from the government for a successful restorative deal to be brokered.
Photo Credit: Tom@North
July 31st, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Can someone please explain how a group that refuses to sign a contract can then become a party to that contract?
July 31st, 2008 at 6:05 pm
If the didn’t sign the Treaty what is their legal argument.
Their land was taken by force of arms no treaty was violated so no need to pay them any money.
July 31st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Here we go again, hundreds more claiming that they are the victims of colonisation.
I watched this rubbish on the TV tonight, this country has far bigger things to worry about that giving away millions of dollars to a tribe that did not even sign the stupid treaty.
July 31st, 2008 at 8:45 pm
turnip!!! ‘their land was taken by force of arms …so no need to pay them any money ??? wtf ???
July 31st, 2008 at 8:50 pm
big bro - your tribe did though.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:21 am
What message to criminals does it send having the Attorney-General (Hon Dr Michael Cullen) shaking hands and rubbing faces with a convicted criminal currently facing serious arms charges ? This country disgusts me.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:43 am
greenfly, i’d imagine that’s what frog meant when he said
“…and that the government invests time and energy into ensuring that the public understands the history behind and reason for the negotiations. ”
A lot of land was simply stolen, I wouldn’t imagine you need to have signed a treaty to be able to declare that unjust and demand compensation.
“Here we go again, hundreds more claiming that they are the victims of colonisation.”
I’d say it’s more claiming that they are the victims of having their ancestors shot and their land stolen, but that’s just a guess.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:45 am
“convicted criminal”
what was the crime?
August 1st, 2008 at 9:07 am
Discharging a weapon in public.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:08 am
Turnip28:
You write:
“If the didn’t sign the Treaty what is their legal argument.
Their land was taken by force of arms no treaty was violated so no need to pay them any money.”
This situation is similar to what happened to Aborigines in Australia. Now obviously the laws of Australia are different to New Zealand, but they have a common origin, and are quite similar. In Australia courts have found that Aborigines did not loose their title to large areas of land, perhaps something similar might apply in NZ????? This raises another question, were Maori better or worse off for having signed the Treaty????
August 1st, 2008 at 9:26 am
Ah yes. Well perhaps he was punished, and if he’s an Iwi rep there ain’t much you can do about that. If he was punished, no point punishing him further. I’d imagine they had their eyes on him, esp with the firearms investigation…
August 1st, 2008 at 9:49 am
StephenR: I’m rolling my eyes.
This country is f**ked: we have employed an anti-Asian racist to represent us in Asia as our foreign minister while we turn a blind eye to criminals because they are Maori. I need a cup of very strong coffee.
August 1st, 2008 at 9:59 am
I constantly roll my eyes at Peters too. The only reason i’d be pissed off that they met him is if he hasn’t been punished for the firearms offence, otherwise, so what?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:26 am
aggression was initiated by the Tuhoe when they came to the support of the Waikato, a conflict that didn’t involve them. Before the invasion of the Waikato their had been little contact with the Tuhoe and none of their land had been taken.
The crown should be allowed to confiscate their land if they are going to commit acts of aggression.
They also haboured Te Kooti an enemy of the state who was certainly no saint. Once again this action allows the state to seek compensation for their actions.
Of course we can argue that the state may of taken to much compensation and punished them too harshly but we certainly shouldn’t treat them like an innocent child and pretend they haven’t done anything wrong.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:35 am
My eye rolling wasn’t aimed at Tame Iti: he is just exploiting the stupidity of our politicians and the foolish & lazy majority of the NZ public that have elected them.
August 1st, 2008 at 10:45 am
Why do they insist on calling themselves The Tuhoe Nation but then come to the treaty negotiating table. They can’t have it both ways surely?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:46 am
I thought ‘nation’ was an informal somewhat subjective term?
August 1st, 2008 at 10:54 am
“I thought ‘nation’ was an informal somewhat subjective term?”
Ahhh no, they want the taxpayer to fund an independant Tuhoe Nation with their own government, no doubt Tame Iti will be King. F**k me drunk, when are we going knock this Treaty of Waitangi nonsense on the head.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:00 am
Now that I think back to that BA - a nation is self-defined.
“when are we going knock this Treaty of Waitangi nonsense on the head.” When they finish paying out - I’m pretty sure there is a deadline for claims, but the tribunal is by all accounts woefully under-resourced, which is why it’s taking a while…
August 1st, 2008 at 11:06 am
The question is not what right do Tuhoe have to a contract they did not sign.
The question is what can the government do to compensate people who were bullied, beaten and brutalised by that same government (and its agents, both actual and self-appointed), who didn’t give a damn what Tuhoe signed or did not sign.
Samiam
If you read the treaty you’ll see that having it both ways is exactly the point: Maori sovereignty, British law. Not exactly elegant, but not impossible either, as yesterday’s development shows.
By not signing, Tuhoe may have all the more right to compensation, because if they have been negatively impacted by the Treaty, that would be the fault of a treaty to which they were not even party. Yesterday’s agreement presumably enables exactly such a claim to be tested.
It’s reactionary pakeha who try to have it both ways, first by crying foul: “this tribe signed a treaty!” then by crying foul: “this tribe never signed a treaty!”
August 1st, 2008 at 11:15 am
Did I cry fowl er um foul? No my questions are genuine ones, I, and many others would really like to understand. It’s not that they never signed the treaty, it’s that they (and others) REFUSED to sign it that I find confusing.
August 1st, 2008 at 11:22 am
>>what can the government do to compensate people who were bullied, beaten and brutalised
Can the crown seek damages from Maori, too? Or do you believe it was *all* one way?
August 1st, 2008 at 11:23 am
So these Tuhoe have never inter-bred ? How do we define who is Tuhoe or Maori for that matter and therefore who should benefit from all this taxpayer money being thrown around ?
August 1st, 2008 at 11:24 am
Should it only be direct desecendants of those individuals who suffered the wrongs ? Or can anyone get their hands on this taxpayer bounty ?
August 1st, 2008 at 12:09 pm
It seems then, that the best way to decide what is right and what is wrong is to get the affected parties to sit down and talk over the issues
August 1st, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Thank you frog for such a well-written and thoughtfully illustrated post.
http://www.october15thsolidarity.info/
for those who need clarification on the issues or facts surrounding the court case relating to the arrests in Tuuhoe and elsewhere.
There will be a seminar with Moana Jackson, Jane Kelsey and representatives of Conscious Collaborations and Tuuhoe activists, coming up soon; supposed to have been yesterday but postponed due to a tangi.
August 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
The current negotiations are designed as much to avert the possibility of future conflict as to redress past wrongs. And the bottom line is that in any military contest with Tuhoe the crown would almost certainly be defeated. So Parliament has good reason to seek a political settlement with those among Tuhoe who are willing to negotiate. However, because the government’s motives remain fundamentally colonialist, even a “successful� negotiation can only be expected to yield peace for the short term.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:01 pm
What an interesting group of opinions!
Look on the bright side!
For those on this blog who don’t like “tax payers money� being paid to settle Claims made under the Waitangi Tribunal, there are simple solutions:
Make sure that you (or your kids) marry someone whose descent includes an Iwi whose settlement claims have resulted in ongoing benefits for their descendants. This way your mokopuna at least will be likely to share in, and benefit from, this so called “gravy train�!
“What message to criminals does it send having the Attorney-General (Hon Dr Michael Cullen) shaking hands and rubbing faces with a convicted criminal currently facing serious arms charges ?�
The message was acknowledgement and reconciliation (on both sides).
I found that a very significant and poignant gesture.
The message it sends to Kiwis is that another Treaty Settlement is underway and going well.
By the way, Tama Iti is an acknowledged artist and a man with Mana.
As to the comment: “This country disgusts me.�
Please feel free to go and live somewhere else!
August 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Eredwen:
Agreed.
Minor Correction: Tame Iti is the gentleman’s preferred spelling.
And he is a polite person, well-considering his creation of “dramatis personae” for performances past and present.
aroahanui, Keri
August 1st, 2008 at 2:12 pm
and then I spell arohanui wrong. *sigh*
August 1st, 2008 at 2:17 pm
Eredwen
So what excuse will Maori use when all settlements have been finalised?
And please….Tama Iti is a terrorist, he is NOT a man that the people respect.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/75809/index.php
There’s a good description of the actual events of the meeting between Dr Cullen and the Tuuhoe Trust here.
Some of it is untranslated into Maaori, some untranslated into English.
Just do your best, until the country has a higher ratio of bilingualism.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
You know something we don’t big bro?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
When the settlements have been finalised, the money will be administered by the Iwi corporations on behalf of the iwi members and make their investments, dividend payments etc, so don’t see why the government would have to have anything further to do with it.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
“By the way, Tama Iti is an acknowledged artist and a man with Mana.”
Interesting to note how quickly his art patron Jenny Gibbs moved to distance herself from him last year. Being an artist isn’t much of a compliment. Anyone who can lift a pen and fill out an application to Creative NZ for taxpayer largess calls themselves an artist.
August 1st, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Heh heh, disgruntled fine arts grad?
August 1st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Disgruntled taxpayer. Four years at art school left me nauseated with the pathetic way artists expect the state to pick up the tab for their hobby. If art isn’t good enough to sell commercially there is no way the taxpayer should be picking up the tab. The market rules !!!
August 1st, 2008 at 3:05 pm
…whats worse is what passes as art these days; particualy those ugly and totally unmeaningful ’sculptures’ that local cousels like mine feel so obligated to buy for outragous prices, yuck. my 12 year old sister could make far supperior ‘art’ and charge a miniscule fraction of the price. lol.
how in the world would tuhoe win a war? gurilla tactics only go so far.
One must remmeber that we fought against them and confiscated their land in a matter no different to how they fought against their neigbors and confiscated their land, will the money be going to the origional settlers instead of tuhoe? in this case they lituraly did loose a war, they should get over it. atleast other tribes have a legitimate claim (comparitivly) since the terms of the contract were violated, but even they dont have a fully legitimate claim because they are all more colonizers than colozizies and after all; force makes right.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Yeah sorry Brian, couldn’t resist!
August 1st, 2008 at 3:16 pm
big bro,
From my observation “the people” that you refer make up their own minds according to their various attitudes and preconceptions, and from the information they collect.
The way in which they do this varies.
Some will agree with you, others will agree with Katie (and I am one of those, having reached my decision after careful observation, research, and my knowledge of human behaviour.)
I think one of the differences between my approach and yours is that I always try to put myself into that other person’s “shoes.” (In this case, I think you might find yourself too uncomfortable there?)
I’d like to remind you that Nelson Mandella was labelled and convicted as “a terrorist” as were others who history later claimed as “Great”.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
No worries StephenR: give as well as recieve
August 1st, 2008 at 3:24 pm
BB: Didn’t Dean Jones get the sack as a cricket commentator for calling Muslim South African batsman Hashim Amla a “terrorist”?
If you are using terms like this, you should have the evidence to back up the use of the term.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:29 pm
That was a satirical expression, as i’m sure you know toad, but if it was a serious accusation, yes.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Eredwen
Mandela WAS a terrorist, his “greatness” comes from some of his deeds and actions after he was released.
Of course there are many things that Mandela can rightly be condemned for as well bit the fawning left wing press do not bother with those.
Toad
He sure did, however as far as I can see Amla has done nothing wrong (apart from being a shocking hypocrite) as yet whereas Tama has a list as long as your elbow of crimes and offenses.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Ok can someone please explain how Tuhoe would win a war against the crown. You do know that to fight a Guerilla war you require a third party supplying you otherwise you wont be able to sustain yourself. Something the Maori found out during the New Zealand wars.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Hey if Tama Iti is a terrorist thank goodness he’s not very good at it.
August 1st, 2008 at 3:40 pm
turnip28: All a government would have to do is set traps at the local dole office.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:18 pm
Bryan: so quaint, your belief in the market.
Why should the government - and the taxpayer - not be an active member in any given market?
The art market.
The health market.
The investment & savings market.
The transport market.
The foreign policy market.
The industrial relations market.
The education market.
The sport market.
The agriculture market.
The export market.
The manufacturing market.
The tax market.
The crime and punishment market.
Te Treaty of Waitangi market.
The environment market.
The fish market.
The media market.
The conservation market.
The housing market.
The democracy market.
You could not indicate a single one of these - or any other - policy areas which would survive by the forces of supply and demand alone.
Why? Because - surprise - these things are only *markets* in the same way that business are buildings. That is: partially, and incidentally.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:20 pm
But: replace the word *market* in the list above, with the word *environment* and suddenly you have a meaningful context in which to debate, design and act.
August 1st, 2008 at 4:38 pm
lol, james, every one of those could survive purly as driven by the forces of demand and supply, though the efficency is questionable.
August 1st, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Turnip
As a terrorist Tama Iti is right up there with the NZ cricket team, they both try very hard but are basically useless.
They might win the odd one day skirmish but over any length of time they will always be thrashed.
August 1st, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Wow, well done frog; there is some really good debate on this post.
My 2c worth is this:
1) Tuhoe didn’t sign the Treaty so any compensation should fall outside of the Waitangi mechanism. They should negotiate with anyone who has done them harm, even if it is only the crown. I never did them any harm so I don’t want to pay.
2) Moriori should also claim compensation from whoever did them harm. That wasn’t me either.
3) We should not be scared of setting up a separate Tuhoe nation. Draw the border at the “aukati line” and work out an equitable compensation that should be paid by the Crown. Make it a real border. Their world on that side, our world on this side. The trade would be interesting.
It would be like Wales; physically connected but culturally different. Much bigger than Wales in fact. I’d really love to see how it would develop. I think it would be a positive move.
4) I don’t want to pay for it.
5) Find the ba**st*rds who DID benefit from pillaging the “indigenous” peoples and make THEM pay. Good Luck.
August 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
turnip28 Says:
August 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Ok can someone please explain how Tuhoe would win a war against the crown. You do know that to fight a Guerilla war you require a third party supplying you otherwise you wont be able to sustain yourself. Something the Maori found out during the New Zealand wars.
More to the point, how could the Crown win a war against Tuhoe? Remember that the crown assaults upon Maungapohatu in 1916 and Ruatoki in 2007 encountered no resistance. If any future crown assault is resisted by Tuhoe, then there will be a different outcome.
The New Zealand military forces would not be well placed to carry on a successful campaign in the Tuhoe homeland in the twenty-first century, such as they were able to achieve in the nineteenth. The fundamental reason is a simple one: the golden age of British imperialism is on the wane. In 1916 New Zealand forces successfully participated in the first British invasion and occupation of Iraq. In 2003, the New Zealand military engineers were in place to support the second British invasion of Iraq, but within months the New Zealanders had been forced to cut and run, leaving the British under siege at Basra airport. The same story is now being played out in Afghanistan, where the combined military power of the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and New Zealand has failed to break the resistance of a few simple farmers and villagers.
So how can anyone imagine that the Crown could win a war against Tuhoe? Bear in mind that in any future conflict the Crown would not have the support of Te Arawa, as it did in the earlier war. Nor would it enjoy the undivided support of Pakeha. It could not even count upon the loyalty of its own troops. The present government has got the message, which is “Don’t even think about any further assaults against Tuhoe or their rohe�. Negotiation and an attempt at reconciliation is the only option that the Crown has.
August 4th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Geoff Fischer: are you implying that Tuhoe are considering some sort of civil war ?
August 4th, 2008 at 7:47 am
Didn’t Helen Clarke invade the Tuhoe nation last year, I didn’t see much resistance from the Tuhoe people to a few NZ police men and I don’t think the Tuhoe could put up any resistance to the crown.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:15 am
The only party behaving in a warlike manner is the New Zealand Crown. Thus far Tuhoe have chosen not to resist. But it would be unwise to assume therefore that no matter how far the Crown chose to push matters, Tuhoe would never mount any form of resistance. The New Zealand Crown, has typically behaved like a school yard bully and a gangster - whether in Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, or at home in New Zealand. It will have to change its ways or suffer the consequences.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:28 am
Geoff Fischer: all the Crown would have to do is terminate welfare payments to the Tuhoe and Tuhoe would capitulate.
August 4th, 2008 at 8:32 am
Geoff Fischer,
“It will have to change its ways or suffer the consequences.”
Care to explain what consequences, in your opinion, the crown may suffer?
And in what manner will the crown “have to change it’s way”?
If the crown is carrying out the wishes of the people (as we have voted for them), are you suggesting that there are some groups of people (Tuhoe for example) that can ignore parliament?
That would be really cool as there are a lot of groups who would rise up and be independent of the crown (all of Auckland for example or maybe all of the South Island).
What exactly are you implying in your statement? Or is it just bluff and bluster!
Because what I read in your statement is an uprising that could well spill over into not just Tuhoe against the crown but anyone against Maori, Maori against Maori, anyone against anyone, region against region.
Maybe that is why the government got rid off the strike capacity of the air force - cant repeat those final scenes from the movie “Sleeping Dogs”.
August 4th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Because their land was never claimed as a conquest. The justification at the time was that the entire North Island had been ceded to the crown- thus any North Island iwi who didn’t sign the Treaty should only need to establish the existence of their ancestors in order to have a good case.
The process for South Island claims is essentially similar as it was claimed as having been “discovered” by the crown. All anyone has to do is prove they were there earlier than the claimed date of discovery and they’ve got a good case for settlement.
I’d also like to note that if you’re going to claim that Tuhoe were conquered, it’s a bit rich to criticise them for violent resistance.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:04 am
Actually Ari their land was taken as punishment for their involvement in the Waikato Wars. Their land was also taken as punishment for their support of the Te Kooti who was also at war with the crown.
Where do I say the Tuhoe were conquered, and at the time of the Waikato Wars the crown hadn’t taken any Tuhoe land had it. The Tuhoe decide to attack the crown they then discover that this was a bad choice as they lost large amounts of land as a result.
The problem with the Tuhoe is they have a history of siding with groups engaged against the crown.
Now since the Treaty of Waitangi Tribunal is a one-sided affair I’m sure the result for Tuhoe will be loads of money countless appolgie’s and nothing else, however what I would like to hear from the Tuhoe people is for them to admit to their own peoples poor mistakes in supporting say Te Kooti instead they still hold him up as a great prophet.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:16 pm
You said “by force of arms”. Conquest is a pretty good interpretation for that phrase, I would have thought. Regardless, I’ve never seen any laws justifying the taking of land as punishment, and I would think that the treaty doesn’t provide the constitutional basis for that sort of confiscation. Sounds to me like, at the very least, there’s some apologies and investigation to be done around Tuhoe.
As for the treaty of Waitangi being a one-sided affair- has there been any systematic attempt to undermine Parliament’s chiefly ability to govern by Tuhoe? Or are individuals just stepping a little too far outside of the law in their attempts to protest their mistreatment under a constitution that they have a good claim to say has never applied to them?
The moment you can show me an equivalent flouting of the Treaty on the other side, I’ll certainly support investigation and remedy of the issue. As for cash for restitution- I’m sure there are plenty of Iwi who would settle for their land back, or some other solution that causes much more direct upset. However, as the cash contributions to try and ease the wrongs done in the past have largely been used to create employment and opportunities for Maori, I’d say they solve a lot of problems people usually have with government spending- ie. they encourage people to be industrious and to develop their community.
August 4th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
If the Tuhoe claim they never signed the treaty then the treaty provides them nothing Ari. To claim a group may have rights from a document that they never signed is absurd.
Note the Treaty doesn’t provide any constitutional basis for anything in NZ
especially since the revisionist re-interpretation of the treaty that took place in the 1980’s.
August 4th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
“aggression was initiated by the Tuhoe when they came to the support of the Waikato, a conflict that didn’t involve them. Before the invasion of the Waikato their had been little contact with the Tuhoe and none of their land had been taken.”
Supporting somebody who’s been attacked is ‘aggression’! Bloodly lefty liberals and their soft attitude to criminals…
“Moriori should also claim compensation from whoever did them harm. ”
Who are you to tell Moriori what to do? They sat down in an apology and reconciliation process with Te Atiawa a couple of years ago, but you just insist on them re-opening old wounds, for what purpose?
August 4th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
Consequences for the Crown.
Gerrit asked:
> Care to explain what consequences, in your opinion, the crown may suffer?
If you tell a group of children that they should not steal, there will always be one who asks “Why not? What will happen to me if I do?”. He wants to know the precise consequences of a wrong act. The only sensible answer to his question is “Nobody can really know, and no one needs to know. You should just do what is good, and avoid doing what is bad. If you start trying to weigh up the likely consequences of a contemplated bad act you will invariably assess those consequences wrongly. You might manage to successfully predict the immediate material consequences of your action, but consequences are like the ripples on a lake - they will extend to the limits of your world, and reach into areas beyond your vision or your understanding.”. Which means I will not attempt to explain the consequences for the crown.
> And in what manner will the crown “have to change it’s way”?
If we confine the answer to the present topic, i.e the relations between the Crown and Tuhoe, the answer is simple. It will have to stop armed assaults upon Tuhoe.
> If the crown is carrying out the wishes of the people (as we have voted for them), are you suggesting that there are some groups of people (Tuhoe for example) that can ignore parliament?
No one can ignore Parliament, but Parliament is not God. Parliament is an institution established by the Crown. Every Member of Parliament is bound in allegiance to the British monarch, Elizabeth II, her heirs and successors according to law. Tuhoe prefer not to be bound in allegiance to a British monarch. They prefer to manage their own affairs, and retain their own sovereignty, as they have for generations past. If it was the “wish of the people” to force those of us who are not British to embrace British rule, then the people would risk disappointment. But in my experience “the people” of New Zealand are quite accepting of those among us who reject the British monarch’s claims to sovereign authority over these islands.
> Because what I read in your statement is an uprising that could well spill over into not just Tuhoe against the crown but anyone against Maori, Maori against Maori, anyone against anyone, region against region.
That is to suggest that the only alternative to the British imperial system is anarchy. It is a self-evidently specious argument.
August 4th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
My point is that Moriori were excluded from the Waitangi process, because the harm done to them fell outside of the Waitangi Treaty.
This is also true of Tuhoe.
It is all too easy to fall into the trap of blaming any white man, or any (supposedly) white organisation for past wrongs.
It is time we stopped thinking that large institutions (eg Government) have unlimited pockets to offer compensation to all brownskinned people.
It is time to allow (encourage??) all people to identify EXACTLY who did them wrong, and extract compensation directly from them, rather than from some nameless, faceless, anonymous group of politicians or administrators.
I am sick of innocent people paying for the rapacious acts of others.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:01 am
Geoff Fischer,
You talk double dutch.
You say there will be consequences yet say “Nobody can really know, and no one needs to know”.
Followed by “You should just do what is good, and avoid doing what is bad”. Does that apply to Tuhoe as well with armed training? Where does your good become my bad and vice versa?
You promise conequences but say “Which means I will not attempt to explain the consequences for the crown”. Maybe the consequences for Tuhoe as a result from the unexplained consequences to the crown do not need to be explained to you.
Hint - If you are old enough to remember the acclaimed Roger Donaldson film “Sleeping Dogs” you will know what the consequences for both parties will be.
Tuhoe as a people are free to do what they like, on their land, for as long as they like. No argument from me on that score.
However if they carry out armed insurgent training that could potentially cause a “bad” to the rest of New Zealand’s people, then an armed police raid is fully justified.
Now if Tuhoe want a seperate homeland, split from the rest of New Zealand, then they should be open about it. If that is the “good” that they want, say so. Dont take the convenience of belonging to New Zealand but ignore the responsibilites.
Responsibilites such as obaying the rule of law.
So let them seek self determination, join the UN as a seperate nation and live in the real world of self sufficiency, without relying on the New Zealand tax payers to live this half life of being dependent but wanting to be independent. Tuhoe are currently codependent.
And codependent is not a good place to be.
I wish the Tuhoe people well in their challange to be either seperate from the New Zealand nation or a full member of it. You cant be both.
A large part of my Viking ancestory says they should be apart. There is something noble about a warrior race apart seeking self sufficiency.
As a people they can start by throwing off the all the shackles that tie them to the New Zealand state such as welfare payments, hospital visits, schooling, etc.
Or they could enter into a treaty with the state of New Zealand by having the state provide them with essential services, until they can put in place their own, in return for paying taxes.
Heck with Winston Peters as Foreign Minister, a small donation to the Spencer Trust they might even see Tuhoe get foreign aid.
August 5th, 2008 at 7:49 am
Well said.
August 5th, 2008 at 8:18 am
Is the Crown a “good”?
There is no inconsistency in my approach to the question of consequences. Anyone can figure out certain obvious consequences of a good act (or a bad one). But no one can reliably predict the full consequences of any action. Therefore, as a guide to action it is better to address the issue of whether an act is good or bad, than to try to predetermine all its possible consequences. Gerrit says he knows what all the consequences of certain hypothetical actions will be. I suggest that is a case of intellectual and political hubris. (For a more complete exposition on the subject read “The case against pragmatism� at http://www.republican.co.nz)
The rest of Gerrit’s argument really amounts to the tacit claim that the Crown is a moral good. On the contrary the Crown is quite clearly and definitively an amoral institution. This subject is also dealt with exhaustively at http://www.republican.co.nz
August 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am
There appears to be veiled references to civil war? Yawn. You’d think they’d have organized something before 2008, eh.
Perhaps the welfare, and all the other benefits provided by the crown, are just too….well….comfortable?
So it appears to be empty posturing, especially if you hold the view that the raids were without substance. If it is more than empty posturing, then the raids were justified. So which is it?
I suspect the reality is we’ve got is a group of people playing the role of amateur dramatics rebels, whilst in reality, too addicted to being spoon fed.
August 5th, 2008 at 9:27 am
Geoff Fischer,
Still largely double dutch. But maybe I’m a simpleton and dont understand your lofty lecture.
“Therefore, as a guide to action it is better to address the issue of whether an act is good or bad, than to try to predetermine all its possible consequences.”
See Geoff, I take the faxt of the armed training of insurgents as a “bad”. So my next step is to say the police interference on my behalf to correct this “bad” is “good”.
Now the consequences. You cant outline any though your first post said there would be. Because without knowing what even one or two potential short or long term consequences COULD be, the response to what I consider a “bad” may diiffer to your “good”.
Did I make I statement that I knew what ALL consequences would be? Dont see it anywhere.
And that is enough double dutch from me.
If the crown is not morally “good”. Being voted in by the people and all. Then the people must be “bad”. Which consequently COULD lead to ???? anything you choose.
Even republicanism.
Unless you are drawing a distinction between the “crown”‘ and our parliamentary representatives.
August 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
You are gravely mistaken.
If Tuhoe can demonstrate that they never signed the treaty, then the treaty provides the rest of New Zealand nothing from Tuhoe. The Treaty does not justify Maori assets, it justifies our current constitutional situation and colonial system of laws.
The Treaty (and the subsequent declaration of sovereignty over the North Island justified by it) does not provide rights to Maori without first taking the authority away with which to give them. It does, however, provide rights to Pakeha living in New Zealand, and establishes the Crown as the government of New Zealand. Thus, not being a signatory to the treaty would actually provide Tuhoe with a stronger bargaining position than most other North Island iwi with the Waitangi Tribunal.
You seem to be very misinformed about said process- the Waitangi Tribunal does not merely investigate breaches of the treaty. It also investigates times when the crown has assumed the treaty did apply, but it may actually not have applied. (for example, in the case of any iwi present on the South Island before the date of its “discovery”)
August 5th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
The right of pakeha to reside in NZ is based on the fact they were born here not a treaty, you can argue that their ancestors were illegal immigrants but you can’t pass that onto their children, if you beleive that then you must also beleive that a child is guilty of all the sins of the parent
The treaty isn’t a legal document since the people have never ratified it, the settlers were not even represented at the negotiating table, neither were maori since the cheifs did not have the right to sign the treaty on behalf of there people, only the people have that right.
Non Maori New Zealanders receive no rights from the treaty of Waitangi I am a non Maori New Zealander and my rights are self evident they are not derived from a man made document. My right to reside in New Zealand comes from my being born in New Zealand and nothing more it can never be denied to me and if it is I am allowed to use force to enforce my self evident rights.
August 5th, 2008 at 5:35 pm
Fortunately, the courts disagree with you and consider the treaty a constitutional document that founds the principles of New Zealand law. You can argue against that all you like, but it’s considered legal fact.
Does your right to reside in New Zealand purely come from being born here? What about the children of illegal immigrants? Do they have a right to live here? Anyway, I’m not arguing that we’d all have to be deported if one iwi didn’t sign the treaty.
What I’m implying is more than the treaty made settlement legal. It justified and gave authority the current government. Any part of the North Island that didn’t sign it never ceded authority to the current government, and could technically be said to have invaded without legal authority or declaration of war. It might not have been an issue then, but the problems that resulted from that sort of crime should be an issue now.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
everyone has the freedom to access any peice of space, the question if if they can and if they can protect that freedom; if strings can demonstrate that he/she has sufficent coercive force behind their body then they have the righ to reside there. assuming strings is a citizen or perminant resident then the state recognizes and allows them to be here, thus strings, whilst in NZ, would have the coercive force and thus the right to reside in new zealand.
August 5th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Certain people go on and on about their rights in a very selfish way, without considering that with rights come reponsibilities.
Ari, until very recently children of illegal immigrants did have a right to live here as citizens. I’m sure the likes of turnip28 will be up in arms at the injustice of children born in New Zealand not being entitled to the same rights as other New Zealanders …
August 6th, 2008 at 9:26 am
Might makes right, huh Sapient? I guess you have no problems with a police state, then?
Samiuela- Indeed
August 6th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
A few points for Gerrit, Blue Peter, and others:
1) There is no good basis for calling Tuhoe “insurgents”. It should be obvious that there was no “insurgency” under way in the Urewera at the time of the Crown’s Ruatoki raids.
2) There is a natural human tendency to be in sympathy with those who we see as protecting our personal, communal, or national interests. But there are dangers in submitting to this tendency, particularly when it detracts from one’s ability to make fair and objective judgements. So one needs to think carefully before deciding that “police interference on my behalf” is necessarily a good thing, or that (in the hypothetical case) the “armed training of insurgents” is necessarily bad. These situations must be judged on their merits and according to circumstances.
3) The question of good and bad, right and wrong is separate from the question of consequences. Children in the early stages of moral development act in ways that are informed by their perception of the consequences for themselves. Later they learn to consider consequences for others, and finally, as mature adults, they act in what they take to be the correct way without direct regard to consequences. If that sounds irrational or irresponsible, then think again.
4) Even though valid moral judgements will be based on fundamental moral principles, rather than on a weighing of material consequences, the consequences of any action still need to be considered. But if we do not agree on fundamental moral principles, any debate over the possible consequences of a particular action risks becoming confrontational and unproductive.
5) The New Zealand Crown is an amoral institution, as even its staunchest defenders will acknowledge. There are serious implications for New Zealand.
6) Parliament is not God. Neither are the people God. Both Parliament and the people have the capacity to act in morally unacceptable ways.
7) The institutional ways in which Crown, Parliament and people relate to each other are both complex and important. Popular phrases such as “our parliamentary representatives” are myth-based and do not conform to either the legal basis or the practical realities of the political system.
August 6th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Ari,
You are correct; I have no moral problems with a police state in and of itself. Though a police state, as I have previously stated, has a tendancy to slip backwards more than more cooperative forms of government in such a way that it does not justify its existance in most cases.
Though no police state can exist without the consent of the governed, though it be coerced (but so is all state), and as such is fully legitimate.
August 6th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
I think you are right to identify the Tuhoe situation as provoking a major (unsolvable?) challenge to successive governments.
I checked out the “republican” link from your previous post, and read your article about the Ruatoki raid. I think you made a vary valid series of points about the irony of trying to use the Treaty as a founding document.
Some very good points about building nationalism too (remember Mallards bribe of a waterfront rugby stadium?)
But it raises some conflicts: If as you say, Tuhoe are a separate nation with a distinct future outside of our accepted “regime” as you call it, then the police were probably correct to label them ‘terrorists’. But it is to some extent understandable for them to be so.
So where to from here? The existing schisms will probably ensure the political legitimacy you mention will never develop.
I don’t know if a republican structure would benefit us. Why would Tuhoe accept it when they may be much better off outside of it?
Why would those who believe in the legitimacy of our current regime ever consider a republic?
August 7th, 2008 at 9:11 am
In reply to greengeek:
Although my website is called “the republican” I do not propose any detailed model of republic for others to follow. The name of the website was chosen to indicate my opposition to the crown, and as a sign of respect for the late Bruce Jesson, who for many years edited (and largely wrote) a politically independent magazine of the same name which challenged the orthodoxy of the left and the right.
A republic is the obvious, and by some definitions the only, alternative to the monarchy, but I acknowledge that republics come in many forms, the worst of which can be as bad as any monarchy. As is consistent with my reasons for opposing the monarchy, I favour a moral republic (that is a republic in which every individual is held morally accountable for their own actions). Such a regime could only come into being by an organic process which will necessarily be slow, but it can come to pass and the existing schisms can be overcome. Tuhoe can play a part in that process. And I believe they will want to, because although they have always guarded their independence, at the same time they have always constructively engaged with other tribes, as they do today. I myself have cause to be grateful for the hospitality that Tuhoe have extended to me in the Urewera over the past forty years, and I believe that Tuhoe show the same generosity of spirit to any who approach them with good will.
This country has problems, and problems which may get worse in the short term, but there is a way forward.
August 7th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
In reply to: Geoff Fischer.
Finally someone who has actually been to Te Urewera Country and has seen tuhoe hospitality for themselves. Half of the people making posts on this board obviously have never entered “Nga tamariki o te kohu” land and there opinions are political views. Let me tell you this, Tuhoe people have suffered injustices over the years through many ways, murder, theft, rape and land confiscation to name just a few. Is it so wrong that they want these issues dealt with. If someone in your family was hurt in the ways tuhoe have been. Would you not ask the judge to e.g. sentence the person to life for what they done to your child / mother / father etc???
Just because these issues are old doesn’t make them go away. There are still people living today that remember the bad times of yesteryear. And maybe if both pakeha and maori could come together in their thoughts , this wouldn’t be happening. Yet we live in a new era and maori and pakeha still do not get on!!! Sure tuhoe have there share of people that have or do bad things however no ethnicity is immuned to that. Maybe if you actually visited tuhoe , you would meet the people that would so genuinely give you the coat off there backs and stop judging them based on one man, tame iti!
August 7th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Part of me hopes that Tuhoe will outlast the Waitangi process, and not get suckered into yielding to the (essentially) financial benefits that ensue from it.
When the Waitangi process is long dead and buried (perhaps the Crown along with it?) then Tuhoe can reach out for justice.
Without justice for Tuhoe, can there ever be justice for anyone, except from the (unfortunate/foolish) barrel of a gun?