As discussed in yesterday’s post we hear all the time now about how calls for Co-governance are being made and justified by the claim of partnership requirements under the Treaty of Waitangi.

 

These claims for Co-Governance are wrong in fact and wrong in law. There is no mention anywhere in the Treaty documents of a partnership requirement under the Treaty so where do they get this mythical claim of partnership from?

 

The first mention of a partnership came in the decision of Justice Cook in a Lands case back in 1987 in which he stated that the parties should work together in good faith as would be required in a partnership. This has since been grabbed by the Treaty settlements industry and claimed as his interpretation of the Treaty giving them a claim to a partnership under the Treaty.

 

This interpretation is just that, an interpretation, and not one made by Justice Cook but one made by a number of self-serving persons involved in the Treaty settlements industry.

 

In actual fact many revered Maori elder statesmen have over the years prior to this stated the opposite to be the case.

 

The acclaimed Maori Leader Sir Apirana Ngata- M.A. LLB. LIT.D explains; the intent in the pages of his book, the “Treaty of Waitangi”. He concludes with the words:

 

“The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful”.

 

The claim that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori is not supported by any of the documentation of the Treaty although this latter-day reinterpretation of the Treaty is simply stated as a fact, without any acknowledgement that the assertion is hotly contested, and is flatly contradicted by many of the speeches recorded by Colenso in writing at the time (on 5 February 1840) and flatly contradicted also by speeches made by numerous chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.

 

This Government is passing legislation through Parliament with the assumption that all people are not free and equal; that some are more equal than others not based on any particular expertise they may have, but based on ethnic background.

 

As part of this so-called partnership requirement Maori are calling for the DOC estate to be given to them to manage in a co-governance role and this is being considered by the government currently with support from many within DOC.

 

The Te Urewera National park is being held up as an example of co-governance in action with Te Urewera governed by a Tūhoe settlement entity, Te Uru Taumatua (TUT), which has a board consisting of six iwi members and three non-Tūhoe representatives. A governance model put in place by the Key government in 2014, and a working example of why co-governance is not new or particularly controversial.

 

It is also being used as an example of effective Crown-iwi partnership when the Three Waters co-governance model is criticised, and it forms the governance model which is currently being rolled out in the Milford Sounds and elsewhere across the country.

 

The first point to note however is that Te Urewera is not actually an example of co-governance. It is not an example of the Crown and iwi working together as equal partners. It is something quite different.

This is Tūhoe-governance.

 

TUT is in the process of dismantling and removing 48 huts from Te Urewera with only the vaguest of time frames as to when they might be replaced. The huts currently being removed are owned by the Department of Conservation who pays Tūhoe $2 million per annum for hut maintenance. Ludicrously, however, department workers cannot gain access to the huts in order to inspect, maintain or repair them.

 

The Department of Conservation publicly supports TUT and the removal of the huts but internally within the department there is a lot of angst and unhappiness about the situation which is viewed as a ploy by Tūhoe to restrict public access to paid guided tours.

 

The chairman of TUT, Tamati Kruger described the Tūhoe vision in the following way: “At the moment you yourself can bring all of your friends and go and walk around all of Te Urewera without meeting one single Tūhoe person – that is not a cultural experience – that’s a walk.”

 

“So the cultural experience would be that in the future Tūhoe people will be hosting the visitors – can host visitors who wish to have contact and friendship and relationship with Tūhoe people, and get to know their daily life – where they go, what they do, what they eat, what they’re observing, and how they commune with Te Urewera – and so that to me is more authentic.”

 

The failure in governance and co-operation is not simply between the Crown and iwi. TUT has also managed to upset hapū within Tūhoe. Last week Tūhoe elders led protests in Tāneatua, 13 kilometres south of Whakatāne, which denounced the “desecration” of the back-country huts.

Paki Nikora, of Ngāti Rongo, told RNZ that part of the community was hurt because they were not consulted on the details.

 

“It wasn’t just us as Tūhoe who were hurt; it was really the wider New Zealand public if you can see all the faces that are in there. It’s not just going to stop here. How do you actually turn out and ratify something without getting proof that it has been supported by the wider membership,” Nikora said.

 

“It’s not only significant to our people, but it’s also significant to all the trampers and hunters that frequented in the Urewera through all those many many years … Many of those people that weren’t actually Tūhoe but were totally devastated with this action.”

 

The removal of the huts is only the tip of the iceberg. There are other significant restrictions currently in place in Te Urewera. For instance, the special purpose road at Mokau is closed to one lane, Te Wairoa Bridge is closed until further notice, the Great Walk track is partially closed, the Ngamoko Track is closed due to subsidence and the Rosie Bay campsite is temporarily closed.

 

Make no mistake – this is not co-governance. It is Tūhoe-governance. And it only benefits the tribal elite who are political insiders. It is also the Mahuta-model which the minister is determined to roll out across the country. Don’t be fooled when she describes it as co-governance.

 

When more New Zealanders come to understand clearly that the real purpose of the Co-Governance model is to effectively transfer control from our elected officials to Iwi disguised as a 50:50 power sharing arrangement, all political hell will break loose.

 

What stands between the public and such an explosive realisation is a mainstream media; which has been bought off by $55 million of government funds on condition they support a widely contested view of the Treaty as a 50:50 power-sharing arrangement between the Crown and iwi.

An example of how bad it can get is seen in the Three Waters proposals where the principal mechanism for comprehensive control are the Te Mana o Te Wai statements, buried deep within the Water Services Entities Bill.

 

And it is clear these statements — edicts that can be only be issued by iwi and hapū and are effectively binding on the water services entity in their region — have no limits or restrictions on what may be included in them.

 

The bill simply states: “Mana whenua whose rohe or takiwā [territory] includes a freshwater body in the service area of a water services entity may provide the entity with a Te Mana o te Wai statement for water services.” Anything that an iwi or hapū decides is consistent with their view of matauranga Māori (Māori knowledge) or tikanga (customs) may be used as a basis for making a binding order.

 

The statements have been described as handing “unbridled power” to iwi.

When the general public grasps clearly that Māori will have the right to direct how water is managed at a local level but that same right will be denied to everyone else, Ardern’s government will face a huge backlash from those who have little patience for race-based policy.

 

Actively excluding around 85 per cent of New Zealand’s people from engaging in a process which affects everyone/every square inch of the land and the salt water many miles out to sea is wrong.

 

If Te Mana o Te Wai is such an important principle then surely everyone should be able to be involved and to have so many parts of society actively excluded from participating is unacceptable and unjustifiable.

 

Co-Governance is itself is unacceptable and unjustifiable. It is in my opinion no more than an attempt by those with their snouts in the public trough to try to get control of the trough as well as feeding from it.

 

It is time the silent majority of the voters within New Zealand stood up and made their views against the implementation of Apartheid into our country known to all. We must have one person one vote with equal weighting for all votes.