Promoting Are we there yet? The future of the Treaty of Waitangi, Morgan has got the New Zealand Herald to agree to run a four-part series to promote his book, with the first installment published today.
His conclusion that the treaty process is a success because the “treaty is now taken to mean whatever Maori leaders and the Crown, as the public’s representatives, agree it means” ignores the elephant in the room by way of a racial faultline that came into existence with the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975.
Along this faultine has widened a gap of haves and have-nots, both among citizens with some Maori ancestry and between those of Maori ancestry and those without, with the progress of successive “full and final settlements”.
The total settlement bill to March last year was $2.3-billion. The newly rich tribal corporations pay little or no tax and two entities, Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu, are entitled to repeated top-ups as a percent of the increasing grand total.
Morgan’s assertion that making it up as they (Crown and claimants) go along was necessary because "the original documents aren’t very useful” shows that he has not looked closely at the texts of either Te Tiriti or the official English and has ruled out the Busby February 4 draft, also known as the Littlewood treaty.
Morgan has either forgotten or has not thought about the fact that the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, which means the meaning and intent is clear in the source document, the original English.
That source document is quite likely the Busby February 4 draft that has only four words that differ from Te Tiriti, one of which is the date. But any mention of that document brings a torrent of spat tacks from grievers on the gravy train.
Because Morgan is woefully ignorant of the contents of the treaty he can make an idiotic statement like “how do we help Maoridom realise the all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga (used in Article 2, te reo version) in modern day Aotearoa New Zealand?”
If he had looked at the English source draft to see what the word “rangatiratanga” translated in Article 2, he would have seen that it translated the English word “possession”, as in “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.”
Morgan is also wrong to buy into land-loss rhetoric when he writes “justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property”.
No mention by Morgan of the fact that land-owner Maori sold New Zealand to the wicked white colonizer in hundreds of transactions painstakingly recorded in Turton’s deeds posted for all to see on the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre of the Victoria University of Wellington’s website.
New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. A total 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars (much of which was returned at the time). There are approximately 1.47 million hectares of Maori land (including customary land). Therefore, Maori land owners sold 24.13-million hectares.
The staggeringly foolish policy by the fourth Labour government to look into grievances back to 1840 invited claimants to get cash-for-grievance top-ups on 19th century sale and purchase agreements.
Once "rangatiratanga" is understood to translate "possession", Morgan's pompous assertion about the "all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga" is reduced to the nonsensical concept of aspirations to asserting possession over property already sold.
And if "rangatiratanga" is taken to mean "self-determination", the "rangatiratanga" aspiration appears to describe either the state of self-reliance that every citizen who works for a living already has or Maori separatism. If the latter is the case, is Morgan talking up Maori separatism?
I challenge Morgan to present a coherent argument to support his contention that "because the chiefs’ signatures were on the te reo version, it’s certainly possible they didn’t cede sovereignty then".
If he had read the treaty he would know that article 1 clearly states “the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country”.
Anyone who refers to the "unique bicultural character of Aotearoa New Zealand" in a sentence, as Morgan does, has outed him or herself as a card-carrying treatyist who is looking for a seat on the gravy train.
Even though Morgan criticises the conduct of the Waitangi Tribunal I don't hold much hope for his proposal for a different course.
Source
Treaty justice triumph of common sense, NZ Herald, January 6, 2015. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11382188
21 comments:
The real danger here is that poorly researched and poorly thought-through articles like Morgan's will help further the confusion and deepen the dumb ignorance of those who read them without any effort to check other more reliable sources. And there are a great number of such people, who are VERY easily misled by once-over-lightly opinion pieces such as Morgan's.
Morgans wrong about most things.
I've always thought Gareth Morgan would have been well suited to playing a part in Monty Python, he's got the look and he's ably demonstrated at least 3 times - by my reckoning -the ineptitude of the slapstick circus fool; first with his book on "human induced global warming theory", then "microchip implants for cats" & now his latest idiotic contribution with his racist one sided, dense misunderstanding about the Treaty.Everyone please understand that the Herald only allows him to be circulated in their rag because it is already brimful of radical Maori sympathisers.Let them prove otherwise by printing a full rebuttal to the Morgan diatribe by anyone onboard here.
I sent this article to the NZ Herald. Let's see what they do.
My understanding (and I am happy to be corrected - so long as the correction is referenced) is that with Treaties written in two languages - the language of the indigenous takes precedence. In the case of Tiriti o Waitangi - the Maori version would take precedence in issues of disagreement - therefore sovereignty was NOT ceded
Thanks for all your good articles, last year, in 2014 Mike:
I see you are right on top of the case for 2015.
Those of us who are for equal rights among people, we anti racism people will always need a strong voiced intellect. We can not expect that of the more tabloid bloggers, but we do get it from you.
Sincerely paul scott
Thanks Paul, thanks for your comments, thanks for your blogs as well.
Yes, I too red the Gareth Morgan articles with growing irritation. It is telling that the Herald prefers to have opinions of people who have not done that much research, and choose not to create a balance by publishing articles from better informed people like yourself.
I haven't seen your letter published yet.
I am not holding my breath either....
Thanks for all the well written articles in the past.
Thank God Mike you keep up this unrelenting exposure of the truth in relation to the falsehoods and propaganda propagated by the Treatyists and racial separatists in our society.
Dr Gareth Morgan is entitled to express his opinions as he has done in his Treaty articles, but one would have expected him to at least know his history and to get his facts right. He is obviously a product and believer of the biculturalist nonsense we have been subjected to since the 1960s.
He should stick to his belling of cats, global warming and other flights of fancy as these articles are in my opinion rubbish
Tom Johnson
‘Anonymous’ of 8 Jan needs answering as s/he has got it wrong.
Where there are two or more language versions of a treaty, they are equally authentic. However, should an ambiguity arise in one of the languages, the less ambiguous version may be given preference by a court. This has happened a number of times in international courts and tribunals e.g. there is no doctrine of equity in French law as there is in English law and so courts have given preference to the English version where a provision has invoked equity. In this instance, there is absolutely no ambiguity about what the English version means with respect to ceding sovereignty (and it took 150 years for someone to notice that there is supposedly such am ambiguity in the Maori version…………)
An interesting additional thought is that Maori was not a written language and so an argument could be made to the effect that the Maori version was not authentic.
It’s a moot point anyway as the law of treaties does not apply to treaties between imperial powers and tribal peoples according to the International Court of Justice in 2002.
Mike, clearly you are not a student of international law or treaty/ contract law. One of the key principles is that where one party drafts a treaty (or contract) then any ambiguity in the drafting will be read against the drafting party. When you add two languages and lack of common understanding of many legal principles, this reinforces why Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the authorative version of the Treaty. It is legally incorrect to reverse this as you have done here with your preference for the English version of Article 2
I see that Bryce Edwards has referenced your article in his article in the NZ Herald (Jan 16th,2015). Interestingly enough the Herald now don't put comments sections below such articles as they appear to have been swamped by what they would probably term 'negative' comments. The thing missing of course from Edward's article is any mention of the democratic process. New Zealand might be renamed we are told-nothing to say who would do this and if the voters would be given any choice. In fact the whole article avoids the fact that where separate Maori representation has been able to be voted on it has been defeated usually by a margin of at least 4-1. But these people care nothing for democracy and so Edwards gives much credence to people like Morgan Godfrey. Willie Jackson and Ranginui Walker which tells you more about the writer than anything else.
The fact that the two main parties have had Maori policies that differ so little as to deny any choice doesn't seem to occur to Edwards-which I suspect is the case for most university people-with a few notable exceptions.
Treaty of Waitangi V Royal Charter/Letters Patent
Te Tiriti o Waitangi dated the 6th February 1840 was signed by “tangata Maori”.
“The traditions are quite clear on one point, whenever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14-century merged with these tangata whenua tribes”, Dr Ranganui Walker, 1986 New Zealand Year Book.
The Tiriti o Waitangi was “Done at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840” and was an agreement between Queen Victoria and the tangata Maori chiefs that gave Great Britain sovereignty over all the Islands of New Zealand under the dependency of New South Wales. Tangata Maori were given, “The same rights as the people of England”. Tiriti o Waitangi, Article 3.
"The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document". Lt. Governor Hobson instructions to those gathering further signatures. No English version was signed on the 6 February 1840 and Hobson never authorised an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to be signed by the tangata Maori chiefs.
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent Dated the 16th November 1840
Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 superseded the Tiriti o Waitangi and separated New Zealand from New South Wales. New Zealand became an independent British Colony with its own Governor, Constitution and Government to make laws with Courts and Judges to enforce the Law all under the watchful eye of Great Britain. The Royal Charter/Letters Patent came into force in New Zealand on the 3 May 1841. Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is completely ignored by the Government. Te Papa and the Ministry of Justice do not even have a copy of the Royal Charter/Letters Patent, New Zealand’s True Founding Document and First Constitution.
The Waitangi Tribunal
The alleged Treaty of Waitangi claims have nothing to do with the Treaty of Waitangi, they were alleged breaches of New Zealand Laws and therefore should have been heard in a Court of Law as most where in the 1930’s & 40’s, which were “fully and finally settled or rejected”. Since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which created the Waitangi Tribunal the hearing of these claims have breached the Magna Carta, the Treaty of Waitangi, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent and the Human Rights Act. Any alleged claim should have been heard in a Court of Law and under Court procedure where the claimants could be cross-examined, which would have sorted out fact from fiction and would never have allowed the false claims such as the Te Roroa Treaty of Waitangi claim and many others to proceed based on distorted, manufactured and false evidence.
For further information; Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent, Our true Founding Document and First Constitution, can be purchased from the, ONZF, P.O. Box 7113, Pioneer Hwy, Palmerston North. $12-00 incl. p & p.
Let’s all celebrate our Independence Day on the 3rd May each year.
Anonymous states that Maori are "Indigenous'. Maori are not indigenous to NZ (probably Taiwan) as they too are immigrants like the rest of us that sailed & rowed to NZ. Indigenous means 'native to' or 'originating from and Maori are neither.
Neil
I've listened into barely literate amateurs doing "research" at the law library of a well-known law school and their comments and conclusions are proof positive they haven't a clue what they're talking about. I shudder to think what weight these conclusion are given.
Ok, so I am not a fan of Gareth Morgan (dont like the self-professed expert on everything attitude) but one shouldn't leave out vital facts just to make a case: Land confiscations did not only occur in the Maori Land Wars, they were happening even as recent the 1950's.
Dr Morgan woulkd be well advised to stay on the topic of his so called profession, and that is economics. He would be well advised to comment on the wool being pulled over our eyes by fiat currency and Keynesian economics that are about to lead the world into economic oblivion. I wonder has he seen the research that proved beyond all doubt that trees actually grew on what we now call the Antarctic continent, before the time of the internal combustion motor. I could rabbit on some more, but then I would be in the same camp as Dr Morgan.
Anonymous said land compensations were happening even as recent as the 1950's. They were still happening in 1995 when the Crown took Allan Titford's freehold titled farm under duress and without legal advice for Te Roroa's "alleged" Treaty of Waitangi claim.
Gareth Morgan is so naive and just totally taken in by all the treaty bs. Its unbelievable that this man can now advocate renaming NZ Aotearoa (which he has a great deal of difficultly pronouncing) compulsory teaching of Maori in our schools and a new constitution enshrining the treaty in the document. The disturbing thing is that equally naive and brainwashed NZers actually buy into this rubbish. Rachel Smalley in her NTZB show this morning was pretty much in support of everything Gareth said. Radical Maori must be sitting down to lunch at Ratana chuckling to themselves at the stupidity of the white man, digging an ever deeper hole for themselves, where we will eventually become poor tenants with practically no rights based on race.
Are we few who voice our opinions the only sane people left in this country?
Gareth Morgan should stick economics as there only three types of people in this world, him an us
Patricia Grace has just won a case where the Crown tried to confiscate/ steal her Maaori land SO they are still doing it at this time!!!!
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.