As there are no principles stated in the Treaty, such principles must be derived from the text.
This proves to be simple, and easy.
The Treaty is clear that sovereignty goes to Great Britain, and that all New Zealanders are British subjects – all equal, not divided in any way into different classes of citizen. Here is the principle of equality.
This was emphasized at Waitangi by Captain Hobson when he proclaimed one level of citizenship, succinctly, allowing no room for doubt.
This is the conclusion reached by Ruth Ross in 1972 in a scholarly examination of the Treaty. “If Waitangi 1840 held any real promise for the future, it was perhaps in Hobson’s few words of halting Maori to each man as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou, ‘We are one people’.”
There is only one principle set down in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi, one that we can all embrace and follow in 2023 – we are all equal, not divided by race.
If only the Waitangi Tribunal had recognised this fact, New Zealand would be a far happier, united, nation today, not split by racial division into two unequal peoples.
It is this principle that we now fight for today – equality.
Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori. His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books. His latest contribution to the debate Your Choice for the Future - Equality or Tribal Rule can be read HERE.
4 comments:
If only the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act which created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal had never been enacted, New Zealand would be a far happier, united, nation today, not split by racial division into two unequal peoples.
Hi Anonymous. It never ceases to amaze me what gets through parliament. I suspect in the past maori and legislation they sought was regarded as innocuous. Nobody troubled to apply really searching legal minded examination of the extremes being made possible. I suspect few understand all or many Bills but assume those that can and do have fully considered, and that all have the greater public in mind. The observer reports of the current Waitangi Tribunal when chance to be published reveal a travesty.
If only those researching the Treaty had been honest.
Copy of an article published in the New Zealand Herald, Wednesday 17 November 1999.
A14 N Z Herald Wednesday, November 17, 1999.
Judge queries ethics of treaty demands
Researchers ‘pressured to change findings’
WELLINGTON - Some Treaty of Waitangi claimants have asked researchers to change findings that would be unhelpful to their cases says the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal.
Justice Durie said also that some tribes had even tried to make the payments of researchers conditional on findings being altered. He said the issue – and several others – had raised questions about the need for a code of ethics for researchers claims lodged under the Treaty.
The comments were in a paper, Ethics and Values, released on the Indigenous People and Law website.
Justice Durie said some groups had required commissioned researchers to remove material unhelpful to the claimant’s cases or amend their conclusions. Sometimes this was a condition of the researchers being paid. Some also presented biased claims, omitting evidence against their argument that should be presented. “There are also complaints from researchers of instructions not to consult with certain persons, or only those approved by the claimant groups,” said Justice Durie.
While codes of Ethics had caused problems with indigenous claims overseas, he believed they were a good idea.
Tribunal Director, Morrie Love believed the problem raised had occurred with contracted researchers.
The Tribunal had had problems with some claimant’s reports but this was now rare.
It now had a wide historical overview of issues covered by the claims around the country and was able to pick up any of the discrepancies quickly. Claimants could obviously say what the wanted. “At the end of the day, a claimants claim is a claimants claim”.
But claims were heavily scrutinized. Once submitted, the Crown case was also put followed by an independent tribunal report.
A code of ethics was probably a good idea, but ultimately it was up to researchers to fulfil their ethical responsibilities.
Justice Durie said other issues which, could be covered by a code were:
• A view by some claimants that kaumatua opinions and recollections should not be challenged or cross-examined.
• Whether all evidence presented to the tribunal should be publicly available.
“The Tribunal is able to restrict the publication and availability of material, but blanket restrictions give the appearance of secrecy and undermine public confidence in the process”.
Final statements as a result of the claim process so far (1999) total more than $530 million
NZPA
The partnership and co-governance 'principles' appear to have been the Tribunal's attempt to explain and resolve the contradiction in Te Tiriti between Maori chiefs ceding kawanatanga (governorship) to the British Queen and retaining rangatiratanga (chieftainship). The Tribunal's invented principles, while providing a possible bridge between these contradictory provisions, certainly won't bring about resolution.
A more realistic explanation for this contradiction is supported by documents and laws passed during the few decades after Te Tiriti was signed. That is that the Crown representatives at the time envisaged English rule as applying primarily, at least in the foreseeable future, to manage European settlers and to protect them and their settlements from Maori who would otherwise carry on as normal in their own areas. This had been the pattern in other colonies such as Australia and Canada (though their existing races were not granted the rights of British subjects). NZ immigration then proceeded more rapidly than had been envisaged, as did Maori movement into European settlements for paid work, education and access to desirable items.
Te Tiriti should have been replaced at that stage when events rendered it no longer realistic for iwi to operate under their own varied laws and it became necessary to clarify that the Crown and laws it authorized had to override chieftainship if NZ was to be a peaceful state able to benefit from trade and cooperation with England and other nations.
Post a Comment