The Treaty Negotiations Con Job
"This blog post is my opinion and does not relate to any policy or position of the Pipiriki Incorporation Board of Management"
For a long time I have thought about writing about this What I call the Treaty Negotiations Con Job, my beef is not with the Tribunal but with the government negotiating process that proceeds after that.
On page six volume one of He Whiritaunoka The Whanganui Land Report 1:4:1 A treaty exchange it says:
"They (the claimants) said they did not cede tino rangatiratanga through the Treaty, though the crown continued to act as if they had done so. It assumed power to act on their behalf, and exclude them from the political institutions of the colony. This usurpation of Maori authority expanded in the twentieth century, as the crown delegated to local authorities power to manage and control land rivers and the environment." To this I would also add people and how they create their future.
So what is the process of negotiating with the crown:
The Information below is taken from the website of the Office of Treaty Settlements " https://www.govt.nz/browse/history-culture-and-heritage/treaty-of-waitangi-claims/settling-historical-treaty-of-waitangi-claims/"
Who’s involved in a settlement
The Crown settles with Large Natural Groups (LNGs) — communities with a common ancestry. LNGs are known as claimant groups, and can be made up of:
- a single iwi
- a group of iwi
- a collection of hapū from the same geographical area.
There are 4 stages in a Treaty settlement.
- Pre-negotiation — the claimant group chooses people to represent them in negotiations. The Crown and the representatives signs Terms of Negotiation.
- Negotiation — the representatives and the Crown negotiate a final Deed of Settlement. The claimant group must agree to the proposed settlement before moving to the next stage of the process.
- Legislation — the settlement becomes law.
- Implementation — the Crown and the claimant group work together to make sure everything agreed in the Deed of Settlement happens.
As you can see from the above two clauses the government already presets the conditions for Pre Negotiations (so much for rangatiratanga and mana motuhake) if you donot agree because it does not represent historical fact your out of luck.
This above fact seems to go against the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People
"http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf"
specifically Article 18 and 19 as set out below
Article 18
Indigenous peoples have the right to participate in decision-making in matters which would affect their rights, through representatives chosen by themselves in accordance with their own procedures, as well as to maintain and develop their own indigenous decision-making institutions.
Article 19
States shall consult and cooperate in good faith with the indigenous peoples concerned through their own representative institutions in order to obtain their free, prior and informed consent before adopt- ing and implementing legislative or administrative measures that may affect them.
On the 20th April 2010 the minister of Justice made this statement to parliament
"Hon SIMON POWER (Minister of Justice) : I wish to make a ministerial statement under Standing Order 347 relating to New Zealand’s endorsement of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples"
(Hansard Volume:622;Page10229)
So i can sum my problem up in one paragraph
"How is it that the representatives of the instigators of theft, rape, murder and genocide (I would suggest it is still) be able to set the conditions to negotiate settlement based on those crimes some which still occur today. An example of that being this process which purpose is to save money and not take into account the diversity within Maoridom. Imagine if a thief stood up in court and said to the victim "yes I robbed you but i will only give you reparations if you do it this way"
Why are we being led like lemmings to a situation that mirrors what happened over a hundred years ago and these "negotiations" are supposed to be recompense for yet what they are doing is putting us into a place that puts us as Tangata Whenua and our Tino rangatiratanga and Mana Motuhake in jeopardy
Why did I use the term genocide? the mere mention of it in past debates bought anger down upon those who argue that in occurred here. the UN Declaration on genocide in Article II states
Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such :
(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
I will leave you the readers to ponder and debate that argument
Lets look at Pipiriki as an example:
The first question you have to ask is where and what is Pipiriki?
Does it fit into the crowns forced criteria?
If it doesn't what should we then do?
Try and forge our own true path, or give up our Tino Rangatiratanga and go with one of the existing LNG's
This blog was written to canvas the issue, so we need debate and comment, this is to forge the future on our terms not the governments