Submission by K R Bolton
Treaty Principles Bill
18 December 2024
I support the Treaty Principles Bill insofar as it aims to generate debate. The objection that the Treaty of Waitangi should not be open to debate renders it as Holy Writ, the questioning of which is akin to heresy, or its modern equivalent, “racism”.
Outmoded and Baseless Theory: the Liberal Social Contract
Both the antagonists and protagonists of the Bill proceed from the same premise, that of 18th and 19th century social contract theory (Locke, Rousseau). That was the epoch in which the Treaty was signed. It was based on the Salon assumptions of bourgeoisie ideologues.
A byproduct is the “noble savage” theory, albeit now under different terms, in which the “native”, innocent and uncorrupted by civilization, can teach the degenerated European. Like the “social contract” theory, it is a poetic fantasy:
“I am as free as nature first made man,
“Ere the base laws of servitude began,
“When wild in woods the noble savage ran”
John Dryden, “The Conquest of Granada by the Spaniards” (1672).
The European ethnos however has its own traditions from which to learn, in accord with its own collective psyche.
The Act Party et al err in assuming that “race” is nonexistent. The denial of race is essential to the libertarianism (English Whiggery) which sees nothing other than individuals held together by the mythic social contract, for the purpose of peaceful commerce. The character of humans is reduced to being (literally) “consumers and taxpayers.” For the Hon. Mr. Seymour to claim that no nation has ever succeeded when it has a racial criterion is without historical foundation. While Singapore is upheld as a successful multicultural nation, there remains a strongly focused racial foundation to state legislation.
Present studies indicate the adverse impact of multiculturalism on modern societies, where differing cultures are imposed on each. (P. Dinesen, M. Schaeffer, K. Sonderskov, Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review, September 2019; https://www.researchgate.net/publication/335924797_Ethnic_Diversity_and_Social_Trust_A_Narrative_and_Meta-Analytical_Review).
At least the Māori Party et al accept the concept of “race” as the basis of identity, without which there is alienation. All ethnicities are encouraged to realise this, other than the New Zealand European. Despite still being a classification for census purposes the identification is reduced to meaninglessness. Any manifestation of a European identity is condemned to pariah status and promptly liquidated.
“One People” Baseless
It is on the basis of “social contract” theory that the much-acclaimed proclamation of Hobson that “we are one people” is trotted out. The phrase is without substance. The notion was that the Māori would become Brown-skinned English.
Now the demand is for generalised Maorification. For example, te reo is amalgamated with English, and when one adds txt-speak, the result in a generation will perhaps be akin to pidgin. Another recent example was to recommend the amalgamation of Māori legends with the Western empirical method into the school curricula. Those few scientists who objected were vilified and threatened with expulsion from the Royal Society.
Treaty Voided by Lack of Mutual Understanding
That there was dispute as to the meaning of the Treaty from the start is evident by Governor Browne having convened the Kohimarama conference in 1860. Here the chiefs overwhelmingly asserted that they had conceded their “chiefly mana” to the Crown.
It was widely stated by the chiefs that they sought to become “pakeha” or “British”.
The aim was lamentable then as it is now. It indicates the character of an ideology derived from a particular era of British policy, and one that cannot provide the basis of nationhood. Unfortunately, it is assumed (by antagonists and protagonists alike) that this specific epoch remains representative of the entirety of British and wider European outlook, rather than as a transient cyclic epoch in a wider historical context. However, that is the time-period in which New Zealand is stuck.
The Treaty is specific to that epoch. Inventing the concept of “treaty principles,” or calling the Treaty a “living document” is the means by which an outmoded concept is kept alive.
In 1922 the meaning of the Treaty was again considered by Apirana Ngata in “The Treaty of Waitangi: An Explanation”. He concluded that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and that land confiscations had been justified.
Regardless, that there have been long-term disagreements as to the meaning of the Treaty shows that it is flawed, and that the various parties (it is now claimed) had differing interpretations. Therefore, under legal conventions the Treaty should be voided.
Recommendations
Since there is still no agreement as to meaning, the Treaty should be declared void, as per contract law.
Each of the ethnicities have their own heritage, collective psyche, cultural manifestations specific to them, and these should all be upheld, not some portrayed as laudable while others are damned to extinction.
The separate identities of ethnicities need to be recognized, including that of the European New Zealander. The basic concept already exists in the form of the Māori Council for example, but such “separatism” is vigorously denounced and repudiated by the “libertarian,” “we are one people” ideologues.
The problem is not that such “separatism” exists but that it is not developed as a coherent doctrine and more broadly encouraged.
Above all, John A. Lee got to the root of the problem which all parties now seem incapable of comprehending, when he stated in Parliament: “The Māori members think the Pakeha won the land wars but he only won the debt.” New Zealand was founded on speculation by financial coteries (e.g., the influence of the BNZ during the colonial era; the swindle by which the NZ Company had its debts reimbursed by the Crown with the liabilities assumed by the settlers). However, the root causes of many current problems are obscured by politicians who do not have the slightest comprehension of the economic and financial flaws on which New Zealand was established, and the solutions propounded will therefore remain ineffectual.
“Continuing his examination of the public debt, Mr Lee declared that most living New Zealanders had never borrowed to buy goods, but only to meet interest. In 40 years there had been an increase in the debt of £133,000,000, and in the same period £145,000,000 had been paid in interest. ‘Included in the £17,000,000 loan which we are supposed to have settled,’ he continued, ‘but which Montagu Norman [Governor of the Bank of England] settled in a way he hoped would settle the Labour Government, is a sum borrowed for the Maori War. A Labour member: Who won the Maori war? Mr Lee; The debt finance system. Our Maori members might think the pakeha won the war, but he only won the debt’”.(“London ‘Shylocks’, Evening Star, 10 August 1939).
The European New Zealander 