In 1908 the Tuhoe chief Rua Kenana came down from his mountain stronghold to discuss matters of state with Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward. To Rua’s question on the issue of sovereignty, Ward replied – there can only be one sun in the sky. As we review the place of the Treaty in our constitution, we would do well to remember his words.
For more, see the New Zealand Herald this week Ewen McQueen: “There can only be one sun in the sky” and that’s the Crown
Ewen McQueen
January 2013
Hon Christopher Finlayson
The last election saw National offering a “brighter future”. The Hon Chris Finlayson, Minister of Treaty Negotiations, is certainly playing his part. Since he came to the job four years ago the Treaty settlement process has made major advances.
Last year alone the Minister oversaw the enactment of 11 pieces of settlement legislation, the signing of 8 deeds of settlement, worked out an agreement in principle for the Whanganui River settlement and completed negotiations with Tuhoe including the agreement of a social services plan. The legislation finalised deals for some major iwi including Ngati Whatua and Ngati Porou. The deeds were major steps along the way for other significant iwi including those impacted by the land conflict in Taranaki
This represents substantial progress on the settlement journey. It involves redress, apologies and resolution of long-standing grievances in areas all over New Zealand. Hundreds of millions of dollars will also now start the process of economic transformation for these iwi – just as it has already done for Ngai Tahu and Tainui who settled in the early 1990s. There will be improved financial security, greater educational opportunities, jobs and business prospects. There will indeed be new hope for a brighter future.
Minister Finlayson deserves huge credit for the energy, integrity and honour that he has brought to the settlement process. It is a task of prime importance in our nation.
In 1860 as conflict in Taranaki was brewing, New Zealand’s first Chief Justice Sir William Martin wrote of the need for Maori land rights to be protected and the Treaty to be honoured. He stated “To this undertaking the faith of the nation is pledged… It is the clear duty of every officer of the Crown, and of every loyal citizen, to do his utmost, by deed and word, to fulfil this national undertaking.”
One hundred and fifty years later, the Hon Chris Finlayson is fulfilling his duty with distinction.
Ewen McQueen
January 2013
The Government’s White Paper for Vulnerable Children was published late last year and once again studiously avoided addressing the key driver of child abuse and neglect in New Zealand – the casualisation of our relationship culture.
As I noted in my submission on the earlier Green Paper – of 23 child deaths over the previous five years, 21 involved children in households where the adults were not in a stable married relationship. In most of those cases the person convicted, charged or a suspect was not even the biological parent of the child.
In June last year another two year old died at the hands of mum’s latest boyfriend. I wrote at the time – “…the Government is now preparing a White Paper with specific policy proposals on protecting vulnerable children. Rebuilding a culture which affirms marriage and commitment is an obvious and urgent policy target. Will they take aim?”
Sadly they have not. The White Paper initiatives take the usual approach of focusing on social agency response to abuse rather than dealing with the underlying drivers. So there is more talk of cross agency care strategies, integration of existing programmes and multi-disciplinary child teams “delivering joined-up intervention plans”. And of course another social policy research unit as part of the Families Commission.
We don’t need more research. The evidence is staring us in the face. And whilst it is important that we have the best public services we can to deal with the reality of child abuse today – it is even more important that we address the underlying drivers of child abuse so that tomorrow’s reality will be different.
I have heard the Hon Paula Bennett speak on this issue a number of times. There is no doubt that the Minister is absolutely sincere in her desire to protect the children of New Zealand. The huge amount of work that Bennett has invested in the Green and White Paper process is testament to that.
However to be effective, more is required than sincere effort. Honesty and courage are needed. Honesty to face the truth on what is driving child abuse in New Zealand. And courage to push back against the casualised relationship culture which now pervades our country.
Ewen McQueen
January 2013
Sent in my submission today on the Marriage (Definition of Marriage) Amendment Bill.
The short submission is here Marriage Definition Bill – Submission Ewen McQueen .
In summary – the submission opposes the Bill on the grounds that:
1) The Bill is based on the false premise that defining marriage as between a man and a woman is discriminatory. It isn’t. It is simply defining a particular type of relationship.
2) The Bill argues that “as a social institution marriage is a fundamental human right”. This is simply wrong. Just because a particular type of relationship is a social institution, this does not give rise to a “fundamental human right” for other types of relationship to be defined as the same thing.
3) The Bill is not necessary to achieve the social inclusion of those in same-sex relationships. Cultural normalisation of same-sex relationships and the social inclusion of those in them has already been well and truly established. Legal recognition has also been provided for in the civil unions legislation.
4) The Bill is profoundly contradictory with the Judeo-Christian values and principles upon which many of our social institutions and culture are founded. In the Judeo-Christian world-view marriage has always been understood as a relationship between a husband and wife.
Ewen McQueen
October 2012
The Broadcasting Act 1989 contains a set of standards including that:
“When discussing controversial issues… broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.”
Parliament’s intent in setting the standards is clear to any reasonable person. Unfortunately the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) has trouble attaining such clarity. Perhaps it is the years of being subject to obfuscatory argument by broadcasters. Or perhaps its their attempt to create some sort of pseudo-legal “case-law” in their own irrational decisions over the years that has confused them. Either way they can no longer see the wood for the trees. Indeed even the trees seem to be a challenge.
A Campbell Live item on euthanasia back in April was a clear example to any reasonable person of why our Parliament enacted the standards legislation and established the BSA to oversee it. The item gave a very sympathetic hearing to two strong advocates of euthanasia, with only a cursory acknowledgement that other viewpoints exist. No reasonable opportunity was given to present those viewpoints, either within the item or in any other coverage by the broadcaster at the time.
In taking a complaint through the BSA process the clear intent of Parliament as outlined in the Act enabled a clear, well reasoned rejection of every illogical, and irrelevant argument mounted by Mediaworks in defence of their item (refer BSA – Campbell Live Euthanasia Story and BSA – Campbell Live Euthanasia Story – Final Comment).
In spite of that, the BSA managed in its decision published this month to not only agree with the broadcaster, but also to find some other completely irrelevant grounds for influencing their decision on the Campbell Live item. Apparently the Bill of Rights Act protection of freedom of expression meant they had to be cautious about “interfering with the item’s broadcast”. Not even Mediaworks had thought to argue this line.
No-one was suggesting that the item should not be broadcast, only that it should meet the standards of the Broadcasting Act. Freedom of expression is simply not relevant to the case. Or if it is, it is relevant only in the sense that other significant views were not allowed the freedom of expression required by the Broadcasting Act.
The Broadcasting Standards Authority has lost the plot. One is reminded of another statutory body set up to oversee legislation – the Abortion Supervisory Committee. Both have subverted the clear intent of the legislation under which Parliament established them.
Ewen McQueen
October 2012
Labour leader David Shearer last week announced a new education policy initiative - feeding children in low decile schools across New Zealand. Labour has costed it at $19million per annum. Hone Harawira was promoting the same initiative as Mana Party policy during last year’s election. KidsCan announced today that by working jointly with the private sector and government agencies they could do it for a mere $4million per annum.
Even at $19million it is a drop in the bucket of public expenditure – however it is a drop that would have a positive ripple effect across the entire education budget. Why spend billions trying to teach hungry children who can’t even concentrate? This is a simple, straightforward policy that would have a strong impact, leveraging the existing investment in the sector. And it could be done without the need for any extra policy analysts at the ministry, or any more frameworks….etc etc
Yes we need to address the underlying drivers of child poverty – in particular the breakdown of family life. However that is a long term generational task. In the meantime let’s feed the children – it’s a bargain.
Ewen McQueen
September 2012
Another major Treaty settlements milestone passed today with Tuhoe deal announced. Among other things it includes $170million in redress and co-management of Te Urewera National Park. However it was a milestone with an important difference – Tuhoe have never actually signed the Treaty of Waitangi. And it raises the obvious question – will they now sign it ?
Historically the Crown has dealt with all Iwi as as if they had signed the Treaty, even if they had not. This was a specific policy decision taken early in New Zealand’s adminstrative history. Whilst it was taken as a good faith decision on the part of the Crown, where the Treaty was itself dishonoured by the Crown then non-signing Iwi were often the victms of injustice just as those who signed it were. Tuhoe was among them.
However times have changed and today the good faith of the Crown has worked on behalf of Tuhoe even though they are not Treaty signatories. Perhaps its time Tuhoe formally acknowledged that they too are citizens of New Zealand, and agree to “give absolutely to the Queen of England forever the complete government over their land”. (Professor Sir Hugh Kawharau’s translation of the Maori version of Article 1 of the Treaty).
In 1908 the Tuhoe chief Rua Kenana came down from his mountain stronghold to discuss matters of state with then Prime Minister Sir Joseph Ward. In response to Rua’s questions about the issue of sovereignty, Ward replied – there can only be one sun in the sky.
That was why the Treaty was signed in 1840. It remains true today.
Ewen McQueen
September 2012
