Act's proposal should go to David Seymour's own iwi first. You do not get good outcomes when one party, the Crown, tells another party how it’s going to be.
Opinion: As a lobbyist I spend a lot of time thinking about what I do and how I do it – especially in the face of vitriol from my own. But there is one doctrine I learned during my law degree that I lean into more than all others: it’s the doctrine of clean hands.
The doctrine simply says “those seeking equity must do equity”.
A cursory glance at the actions of the Crown since the signing of Te Tiriti suggests that, on many occasions, they have not upheld this doctrine and therefore the actions of those working on behalf of – or at the behest of – the Crown must always be interrogated.
As someone with whakapapa Māori with centre-right views, my ‘authenticity’ gets called into question often. However, my loyalty is to the doctrine – when there is someone with whakapapa Māori receiving (or seeking) an advantage based on the disadvantage or exploitation of another (especially their own!) I will not fall blindly into line. This is probably what some find controversial because I do not see blind loyalty as a virtue, I see it as a vice.
The doctrine of clean hands also means when I’m giving advice it starts on the premise that the less reliant on the state we are (anyone, but especially Māori) the better our lives will be.
Quite simply put, my business is not at risk with the change in government because it is not wholly reliant on state funding: that is a great place to start if you’re looking to create change, because realistically long-lasting change is not born inside the halls of power – it comes from the outside, in.
Which turns me to the question of a referendum on Te Tiriti.
Though Prime Minister-elect Christopher Luxon has categorically said such a referendum was “not something [National] support”, the world of politics is a place I know all too well, where mental gymnastics can make way for mirimiri (massage) of words, and a policy pivot.
The reason we are talking about the potential for a referendum on Te Tiriti is because it is one of Act's election policies, one of the two parties National is in negotiations with.
Act's policy proposes to “Clearly define the ‘principles of the Treaty of Waitangi’ a term increasingly creatively interpreted to justify co-governance, by passing a Treaty Principles Act through Parliament and putting it to referendum for confirmation by the people.”
My suggestion to Luxon is to simply turn the decision for a referendum over to Seymour, telling him to get his whanaunga to agree to it first: and what better place than the paepae at Waitangi 2024?
This has come about because, in Act's words, “Ethnicity is used to prioritise and even restrict access to healthcare services.” I mean yeah, you only have to look at recent New Zealand history to understand that ethnicity – notably whakapapa Māori – has indeed been used to restrict rights to a multitude of things during the modern establishment of this country.
I oppose a referendum because the proposal purports that one party (the Crown) of a two-party treaty (the Crown and Māori) can unilaterally interpret what the treaty means – through legislation. Then legislation, which seeks to redefine the relationship between Crown and Māori, is handed to everyone to vote on. Yet Te Tiriti is not an agreement between New Zealanders and Māori (remember, Māori are also New Zealanders), it is an agreement between the Crown and Māori. This is why Tangata Tiriti is not a term I use or repeat, because Te Tiriti is between the Crown and Māori, not the Crown, Māori and every subsequent immigrant who settled here.
There have been decades of work by successive governments where the Crown and Māori have tried to work together to best interpret Te Tiriti. There are tensions but tension is the way you get good outcomes together. You do not get good outcomes when one party (Crown) tells another party (Māori) how it’s going to be. That is a typical ‘we know best’ approach by the Crown, and is why I advise people to be as less reliant on the state as possible.
Helpfully, as we’re talking about ethnicity, we have a definitive group we’re talking about, which represents 17 percent of the population. Shouldn’t the first question be whether the majority of those with whakapapa Māori want this?
Based on the clean hands doctrine, if you are seeking equity you must do equity. What does doing equity look like in this instance? It looks like taking the proposal to those with whakapapa Māori, and in the case of Act leader David Seymour, who has whakapapa Māori, it means taking it to his people first: Ngāpuhi.
On Waitangi Day 2024, it will be the first time Rt Hon Christopher Luxon and Hon David Seymour will be at Waitangi together on behalf of the Crown. My suggestion to Luxon is to simply turn the decision for a referendum over to Seymour, telling him to get his whanaunga to agree to it first: and what better place than the paepae at Waitangi 2024?
Much of Act’s rhetoric is that whakapapa gives you privilege. It doesn’t; it gives you obligation.
The obligation here is for the person who is advocating for it to take the proposal to his own people first: ngā uri o Ngāpuhi. I have no doubt Ngāpuhi will respectfully and carefully listen to the case being made and will then respond in a way that provides better insight than any bureaucrat, commentator, donor or lobbyist ever could.
Honouring whakapapa means making the case to your own people first.
