Mike Butler: Meet our secret sovereigns

ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill shone a light on “rangatiratanga” this week, especially on the fact that in 1998 the Bolger National government gave Ngai Tahu sovereignty over 90 percent of the South Island. That little gem that was aired last Sunday when presenter Jack Tame interviewed David Seymour on Q&A.

The interview prompted Dr Carwyn Jones, a senior lecturer in the Faculty of Law at Victoria University of Wellington, to say:

"They're comfortable to recognise tino rangatiratanga in that agreement, why not comfortable to recognise tino rangatiratanga as guaranteed in Te Tiriti to all the other iwi and hapu?"

 

On the show, Tame read out what he said was Section 6 of the Ngai Tahu Claims Settlement Act 1998 which said:

In fulfilment of its treaty obligations, the Crown recognises that Ngai Tahu as the tangata whenua of and is holding tino rangatiratanga within the takiwa (catchment) of Ngai Tahu whanui”

He asked:

So do you accept that under your principle that Ngai Tahu has sovereignty over 90 percent of the South Island

Without agreeing or disagreeing Seymour said:

That would be a plain reading of what it says . . . that’s what a previous government signed up to in a treaty settlement.

It looks like by including acknowledgement of treaty settlements as the second of his three treaty principles, Seymour has shone a light, perhaps inadvertently, on what preceding governments have quietly signed us all up to.

Many readers would recall a time before “rangatiratanga” was a thing.

That was when the treaty was an historical document in which chiefs ceded sovereignty, in which the Crown confirmed that everyone owned what they owned and chiefs could sell to the Crown land if they wished, and in which the Maori people were protected and given rights as British subjects.

Unfortunately, in a new translation of the Maori text commissioned by the Fourth Labour Government in the 1980s and done by a Waitangi Tribunal member, “rangatiratanga” was redefined as “chiefly authority”.

This created a nonsensical treaty in which chiefs ceded some sovereignty in Article 1 but retained sovereignty in Article 2.

Soon the Waitangi Tribunal was promoting a revised treaty in which Article 1 ceded the right for a governor to govern British settlers while the chiefs could carry on being chiefs.

To be clear, the word “rangatiratanga” only appeared in Te Tiriti, which is the Maori text that chiefs signed.

To spell it out. That Maori word does not appear in the English text.

The word “ownership” in Article 2 of the final treaty draft in English was translated into “rangatiratanga” in the Maori text.

As the Waitangi Tribunal worked through land claims right back to 1840 as legislated by the 1980s Labour Government, “rangatiratanga denied” became a treaty breach, required an apology, and that led to compensation.

This is shown in the actual wording of section 6 (7) of the Ngai Tahu Settlement Act which says:

The Crown apologises to Ngai Tahu for its past failures to acknowledge Ngai Tahu rangatiratanga and mana over the South Island lands within its boundaries, and, in fulfilment of its Treaty obligations, the Crown recognises Ngai Tahu as the tangata whenua of, and as holding rangatiratanga within, the Takiwa of Ngai Tahu Whanui.

It looks like this apology by the Crown for allegedly failing to acknowledge "Ngai Tahu rangatiratanga and mana" cleared the way for Ngai Tahu to make more claims and enter deals with the government to realise actual control over forestry, farming, fishing, local government, and so on, in the South Island.

There is mischief in the language. The widespread habit of mixing of untranslated Maori words in the English language communication, known as Manglish, aside from being annoying, hinders understanding.

The words “rangatiratanga”, “mana”, “tangata whenua” and “Takiwa” are not translated in the above quote. Neither are they translated in the Section 8 Interpretation of Terms part of that Act.

What does “rangatiratanga” actually mean and does it mean that "Ngai Tahu has sovereignty over 90 percent of the South Island" as Jack Tame says?

More pretzel logic appeared when Tame questioned Seymour. Tame read out Article 2 of the treaty as phrased in the English text appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, which says:

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish.

Then Tame says:

that’s tino rangatiratanga for Maori, a specific carve-out for Maori, not for all people.

No Jack, that’s not what the English text says. It’s what you are telling us to believe that is what it means.

Such footnotes telling us what to believe about what the treaty have existed since 1986, when Sir Hugh Kawharu delivered his “what the chiefs might have understood” re-translation of the Maori text of the treaty.

That comes with 11 footnotes that redefine key terms, such as “tino rangatiratanga”.

Tame uses the word “tino rangatiratanga” to mean “sovereignty” even though the word used in Te Tiriti for “sovereignty” was “kawanatanga”.

Such verbal deception probably sails over the heads of most viewers.

Bear in mind, dramatic changes can have the most innocuous beginnings

I recall listening to former Key National Government Environment Minister Nick Smith introduce a vague feel-good sounding concept known as “Te Mana o te Wai” at a presentation titled “Next steps for fresh water” in Napier in March of 2016.

Just six year later, that vague “Te Mana o te Wai” concept had become pivotal mechanism in the Water Services Entities Bill to transfer to iwi and hapu total control over water services.

We should be very wary of innocuous untranslated Maori words that are slipped into communications.

In the Q&A interview, Seymour pointed out that the Treaty Principles Bill has already succeeded in that it opened to everyone debate about treaty partnership and separate rights based on race.

A week ago, Seymour revealed that it appears that the Bolger Government gave away sovereignty over 90 percent of the South Island to a relatively small group of people with a common ancestry.

Such phrasing in subsequent treaty settlements suggest that sovereignty over vast swathes of the rest of New Zealand have also been given away.

Do any of us realise who their sovereign lords actually are?

There is the saying that “to find out who rules over you simply find out who you are not allowed to criticise”.

Try criticising treaty orthodoxy. Look at what is happening to Seymour.