He also wrote a booklet in 1922 on the Treaty of Waitangi, which NZPCR has usefully published online. Well worth a read to compare to what some today claim the Treaty means.
Some extracts:
There was without doubt Maori chieftainship, but it was limited in its scope to its sub-tribe, and even to only a family group. The Maori did not have authority or a government which could make laws to govern the whole of the Maori Race.
So he says there was no Government in New Zealand prior to the Treaty.
The main purport was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws for their respective tribes and sub tribes under the Treaty of Waitangi to the Queen of England for ever.
He says Article 1 clearly transfers law making authority from the chiefs to the Crown.
What is this authority, this sovereignty that is referred to in the second article? It is quite clear, the right of a Maori to his land, to his property, to his individual right to such possessions whereby he could declare, “This is my land, there are the boundaries, descended from my ancestor so and so, or conquered by him, or as the first occupier, or so and so gave it to him, or it had been occupied by his descendents down to me. These properties are mine, this canoe, that taiaha (combination spear and club), that greenstone patu (club), that kumera (sweet potato) pit, that cultivation. These things are mine and do not belong to anyone else”.
He says the second article is about property rights.
This article states that the Maori and Pakeha are equal before the Law, that is, they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.
And the third article is about equality.
David Farrar runs Curia Market Research, a specialist opinion polling and research agency, and the popular Kiwiblog where this article was sourced. He previously worked in the Parliament for eight years, serving two National Party Prime Ministers and three Opposition Leaders.
5 comments:
That is absolutely correct that chieftainship only applied to the subtree or family group, depending on the mana of the Chief. Beyond that it was free for all. Tikanga meant murder, rape, cannibalism, slavery and taking other people's land and property. And the more you did that the greater the Chief you were. It was precisely that which the chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi wanted the Crown's protection from. Not a few imaginary unruly settlers.
Yes, a rather ‘elegant’ document considering how quickly it was penned - dealing in logical order with: (1) the ruler; (2) the groups; and (3) the individual. But, no! The activists amongst us want that all muddled up, with the groups being potentially a governing law unto themselves. And, of course, that’s how arguably one of the most powerful people on the planet at the time, Queen Victoria, would have wanted it, as she was well-known and apt to enter such ‘arrangements’ where her authority was shared or could be pre-empted by not just one but, in this case, by more than 500 others she’d never met. But still, it seems more than a few New Zealanders believe this – even, it appears, our immediate past Prime Minister? I’m now inclined to believe they might also 'think' (yes, a remote concept) if they pulled the other one, it would have bells on.
That is the correct interpretation of the Maori language treaty, the ONLY treaty.
Ngata, as a politician was more than likely very familiar (as all politicians should be) with Queen Victoria’s 1839 Royal Charter/ Letters Patent for New Zealand and New South Wales where sovereignty was claimed by the British Empire when it extended the boundaries of New South Wales to include all the Islands of New Zealand.
All politicians since 1970 that have ignored our 1839 and 1840 Royal Charters/Letters Patents, the Maori language treaty, the official 1869 back translation of the Maori language treaty and Sir Apirana Ngata’s interpretation of the Maori language treaty have committed treason against ALL New Zealanders.
Post a Comment