A referendum on Te Tiriti o Waitangi would be corrosive and unfair, writes Dame Anne Salmond, but there is room for a new government to initiate a mana-enhancing inquiry into recent interpretations of the treaty
Whatever course of action we take, I hope the relevant authorities will take into account the events that created this backlash.
The foreshore and seabed act nearly doubled National’s support, and co-governance did the same for Act and NZ first. Every time there is an attempt to give more control to Iwi, based on tenuous cultural grounds, there is a backlash from the voting public.
There are some things that an uninformed public should not get to vote on. Look at the outcome of the Australian case, the Aboriginal and Tories Straits Islanders; were not given the small increase in right that they asked for. I would assume that a similar thing would happen here, it doesn’t seem to matter what is asked for.
The issues around the treaty are complex and involved, trying to distill the complexity too much and you lose the information you are trying to make a decision on.
Einstein:
Everything should be as simple as possible, but no simpler!
I personally think that this issue is too complex, it needs the people making the decision to take the time to really understand. The fact that the English language and Maori language versions of the treaty are not equivalent and that only the Maori version is the one that got signed, yet mostly the English language one is quoted, means that the public have been given false information for decades.
This is not an easy thing to overcome, there is also the fact that for older people, what they were taught in school has biased their thinking for their whole life, shifting those biases is near on impossible.
There is also the framing of the question, for example when talking about rates rises:
Do you frame the question as - “Keep your rates low” or “Underinvest now and have a much bigger bill in the future”? (the current issue with our water infrastructure)
If you’ve ever worked in any public facing role you’ll have understand how dumb the average person is. Or to put it differently the average person doesn’t know what is required of a specialist in any field to do their job properly. It’s just magic to them until they are informed of the complexity of the subject. Most people can’t grasp or won’t put in the effort to even understand basic things they are throwing thousands of dollars at, or making decisions that will have life long effects. I think the average person discussing and voting on the meaning of a foreign (to them) language written 150 years ago in a context that is completely different to modern day life is laughable.
It doesn’t have to be about the public being dumb, just that the public doesn’t have the time/inclination to engage fully with complex political issues that don’t really affect their life. People might also be happy to vote for something to reduce minor inconvenience or cost to themselves, that has massively detrimental affects on others.
As a thought experiment: should we allow a referendum on whether a majority ethnic group should be allowed to enslave a minority ethnic group? If most people voted purely on their own interests, that referendum could be won by the majority, even though it would infringe on human rights. Obviously, that’s an extreme example, but the point is not everything should go to referendum.
Not everything, but when you propose giving a huge amount of control and influence to an unelected group of people, based on some very tenuous reasoning, I think the public deserves a say.
The most common reasons given for co-governance are, first, that water is Taonga and as a result Maori should have some control over it. This holds true for our natural waterways, a number of which do have a co governance aspect to their governance, but applying this logic to man made infrastructure is simply nonsense
The second is that a lot of land was stolen from Maori. While a decent amount of it was, the vast majority of land in NZ was legitimately acquired. Despite this fact, some people seem to think this means we should have a co governance arrangement over our water infrastructure, which just makes absolutely no sense to me.
A large chunk of NZ aren’t happy about this, and would like to express their feelings in a democratic way, and I think they deserve to.
Whatever course of action we take, I hope the relevant authorities will take into account the events that created this backlash.
The foreshore and seabed act nearly doubled National’s support, and co-governance did the same for Act and NZ first. Every time there is an attempt to give more control to Iwi, based on tenuous cultural grounds, there is a backlash from the voting public.
There are some things that an uninformed public should not get to vote on. Look at the outcome of the Australian case, the Aboriginal and Tories Straits Islanders; were not given the small increase in right that they asked for. I would assume that a similar thing would happen here, it doesn’t seem to matter what is asked for.
That’s an interesting way of looking at the situation.
The issues around the treaty are complex and involved, trying to distill the complexity too much and you lose the information you are trying to make a decision on.
I personally think that this issue is too complex, it needs the people making the decision to take the time to really understand. The fact that the English language and Maori language versions of the treaty are not equivalent and that only the Maori version is the one that got signed, yet mostly the English language one is quoted, means that the public have been given false information for decades.
This is not an easy thing to overcome, there is also the fact that for older people, what they were taught in school has biased their thinking for their whole life, shifting those biases is near on impossible.
There is also the framing of the question, for example when talking about rates rises: Do you frame the question as - “Keep your rates low” or “Underinvest now and have a much bigger bill in the future”? (the current issue with our water infrastructure)
You’re basically saying the voting public is too stupid to be able to have an opinion on the matter, which isn’t exactly a vote winning strategy.
Not at all, in sure given time and motivation almost anyone could understand the complexities of the situation. Thus allowing an informed decision.
Unfortunately most people don’t have that time/inclination.
If you’ve ever worked in any public facing role you’ll have understand how dumb the average person is. Or to put it differently the average person doesn’t know what is required of a specialist in any field to do their job properly. It’s just magic to them until they are informed of the complexity of the subject. Most people can’t grasp or won’t put in the effort to even understand basic things they are throwing thousands of dollars at, or making decisions that will have life long effects. I think the average person discussing and voting on the meaning of a foreign (to them) language written 150 years ago in a context that is completely different to modern day life is laughable.
Some things are better left to the experts.
It doesn’t have to be about the public being dumb, just that the public doesn’t have the time/inclination to engage fully with complex political issues that don’t really affect their life. People might also be happy to vote for something to reduce minor inconvenience or cost to themselves, that has massively detrimental affects on others.
As a thought experiment: should we allow a referendum on whether a majority ethnic group should be allowed to enslave a minority ethnic group? If most people voted purely on their own interests, that referendum could be won by the majority, even though it would infringe on human rights. Obviously, that’s an extreme example, but the point is not everything should go to referendum.
Not everything, but when you propose giving a huge amount of control and influence to an unelected group of people, based on some very tenuous reasoning, I think the public deserves a say.
The most common reasons given for co-governance are, first, that water is Taonga and as a result Maori should have some control over it. This holds true for our natural waterways, a number of which do have a co governance aspect to their governance, but applying this logic to man made infrastructure is simply nonsense
The second is that a lot of land was stolen from Maori. While a decent amount of it was, the vast majority of land in NZ was legitimately acquired. Despite this fact, some people seem to think this means we should have a co governance arrangement over our water infrastructure, which just makes absolutely no sense to me.
A large chunk of NZ aren’t happy about this, and would like to express their feelings in a democratic way, and I think they deserve to.