Julian Batchelor, Stop Co-Governance.
Clearing out Anna’s letterbox, while she’s away, I came
across a little booklet. It is basically a lot of propaganda in an effort to
discredit the concept of co-governance. Along the way it also attempts to trash
the Waitangi Tribunal.
It’s also an extremely misleading document. That is being
generous. It’s a combination of twisted history and conspiracy theory.
It begins like this, in outlining “The Problem”. “When asked
about co-governance, many Kiwis think it’s harmless. They say things like “Oh,
co-governance is not big deal. It’s just Maori and government governing the
country together. I am OK with it. It’s simply power sharing…Nothing could
be farther from the truth…Rather, it’s about private tribal companies and
tribal representatives taking control of the country.” (4)
If indeed “many Kiwis” think that co-governance is about
“Maori and government governing the country together” then they are seriously
misinformed about what co-governance is. I suspect that this is just the first
instance of the “spin” that Batchelor puts on the issue. He frequently refers,
throughout his booklet, to “private tribal companies and tribal
representatives” who are working to take over the country: to carry out a
“coup”. Never once, does Batchelor say who he means by “private tribal
companies”, or “tribal representatives”.
Batchelor states that co-governance arises out of a twisting
of the Treaty of Waitangi. Though Batchelor acknowledges “Te Tiriti” as the
document that Māori signed in
1840, he claims that it was based on an English draft called the “Littlewood
draft”, which was the “final English draft” and represents in English what the
te reo Māori version says.
There is no
clear evidence that this is the English draft, from which the Māori version was
made. As I understand it, the Māori version was translated by the missionary
Henry Williams and his son Edward, from some notes made by William Hobson and a
secretary, and a draft drawn up by James Busby. Claudia Orange, in The Story
of A Treaty (2013), states that “Busby had added an important promise: that
Britian would guarantee Māori possession of their lands, their forests, their
fisheries and other prized possessions. Without that promise he was sure no one
would sign.” (21).
This is
important, because Batchelor wants to promote the “Littlewood draft” as the
English original from which the Māori was drafted because the important second
article which guaranteed these things does not specifically mention forests,
fisheries etc. It reads: “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the
chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of
their lands, dwellings and all their property.” (Stop Co-Governance, 7).
I had not
heard of the “Littlewood Draft”.
Batchelor says this about it: “It has this name because this draft was
given to a lawyer by the name of Henry
Littlewood soon after the Treaty was signed at Waitangi. It went missing and
was found in Auckland in 1989. Forensic analysis confirmed it was the final
English draft. However, under pressure from activists, aided by politicians
afraid of losing Maori votes, it was quickly taken out of sight by government
officials and hidden away, to this day. [New paragraph]. When one compares the
Treaty in Maori with the Littlewood draft, we could say that they are
identical. This is how historians can tell that it was the Littlewood final
draft which was used to draw up the Treaty in Maori in 1840.” (Stop
Co-Governance, 6–7).
This is a
very tendentious argument. It is unlikely that the Littlewood Draft existed
before the drawing up of the Treaty. It is likely a document drawn up later
(perhaps an attempt at getting at the gist of the Māori version?). If you want
a “forensic analysis” of the Littlewood Draft, a good place to start would be
to read a piece by Donald Loveridge, “The ‘Littlewood Treaty’: An Appraisal of
Texts and Interpretation” (Google it). Appendix 1 will give you the text of the
Littlewood draft; and Appendix 2 is the “English text of the Treaty of Waitangi
sent to Sydney by Captain Hobson...etc” (which, given its source and dating,
should be taken as the official English version, and is the one printed in most
books about the Treaty). It should perhaps be noted in passing that is it
probably impossible to get an exact (or truly equivalent) English translation
of the Māori version, and exegeting the Māori (which is the version that should
take precedence) is probably difficult and is what leads to the debates.
Batchelor
also evokes the mythical (my word) “Tax Payer”. This generally means, it seems
to me, the crowd that the writer wants to identify as the “Tax Payer”, and
refers to the writer and his (or her) ilk. For instance, one suspects from the
way that Batchelor writes, that Māori are not to be considered tax payers with
a legitimate claim on how their taxes are used.
For example, he writes: “...New Zealand tax payers are funding private
tribal companies/tribal representatives to take over their country.” (22) Later
he claims that “Tribal Rule means that private tribal companies/tribal
representatives will be completely running/controlling the country by
2040...99.5% of Kiwis will be disenfranchised.” (24). One might point out that
somewhere between 12 to 15 percent of Kiwis identify as Māori.
Batchelor
considers that “things started to really go wrong” with passing of the 1975
Treaty of Waitangi Act and the setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal. This exists
to hear Māori claims to injustices, breaches to the Treaty and confiscations of
Māori land carried out since the signing of the Treaty. “The Tribunal became a
scam, a place where any Maori anywhere could bring a grievance, and then a
claim, and the claim (i.e. cash and assets) would highly likely be honoured by
the Tribunal.” (11) This misrepresents
the work of the Tribunal, where most cases are brought by tribes, or tribal
entities and there is often a long process before any settlement is made. And
while it is true that any Māori may make a claim, it is certainly not true, as
Batchelor goes on to claim, that “only Maori could attend hearings” (11).
Batchelor cites a number of “historians”, and quotes some of their views. My impression is (from a Google search) that these persons would best be described as “amateur historians”, as their main training has been in some other field, e.g. engineering, or mathematics, and so forth. Somewhat surprisingly, he cites Sir Apirana Ngata in support of land confiscations. While he quotes Ngata correctly, he does so selectively. The quotation highlighted: “The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.” (Stop Co-Governance, 10), is followed immediately in the next paragraph by this statement: “The objections should be made in the light of the suffering of some of the tribes by reason of the confiscation of their lands.”
https://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html (p. 16)
The booklet
Stop Co-Governance has been deemed an election advertisement by the
Electoral Commission (and carries a statement to that effect in the back,
although the author disputes the designation). The issue of co-governance is a
large and contentious one in New Zealand at present. I will not go into it now,
except to say that it takes various forms, and in some instances refers to a
partnership at a local level (say over a given waterway) between Māori and
non-Māori. It often entails the establishment of a board or committee of
oversight that has representation of Māori on it, alongside local non-Māori
members. A quick way in to it is to visit these links:
https://www.newsroom.co.nz/co-governance-its-nothing-like-you-think
https://oag.parliament.nz/2016/co-governance/part1.htm
And on the
Waitangi Tribunal
https://www.waitangitribunal.govt.nz/about/
And from
the above page, see link to Te Manutukutuku, Issue 69, January 2016,
celebrating the 40th anniversary of the Tribunal’s establishment.
No comments:
Post a Comment