For expositional clarity, in my submission I use the term “te Tiriti” rather than “the Treaty.” This acknowledges that about 540 rangatira signed te Tiriti versus about 39 who signed the English language document.
Context is important.
Te Tiriti was an international treaty which had no effect until a domestic government was in place. The NZ Constitution Act 1852 established a government that managed New Zealand as a British colony. New Zealand became a Dominion in 1907 and adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947. In that year the UK Parliament gave the NZ General Assembly full power to alter or repeal the NZ Constitution Act 1852.
The NZ Constitution Act 1986 marks the point where power was vested in the democratically-elected Parliament, and the Crown’s role was reduced to the procedural and symbolic.
From around 1986 efforts were made to reinterpret te Tiriti to support aims that were not envisaged in 1840. The NZ Maori Council sought judicial review of Crown actions in the 1986 State Owned Enterprises Act. Under this statute, when transferring its landholdings to SOEs the Crown was not permitted to act “in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. While legislation referred to them, there were in fact no principles stated in te Tiriti itself.
Justice Cooke and other Court of Appeal judges defined te Tiriti as “akin to a partnership” between the Crown and Maori people. However, Maori could not be both subjects of the Crown and partners with it. Nor does te Tiriti divide New Zealanders into neat racial categories.
Understanding of te Tiriti must be based on the signatories’ intent and the meanings of words as at 1840. For example, in 1840 ‘taonga’ meant real tangible property such as a waka, not intangible ‘property’ such as language. It did not include things that were yet to be invented or discovered, such as broadcasting spectrum.
However, the Waitangi Tribunal has over the years extended its brief and made more and more “findings” that are unhinged from both the elected Parliament and te Tiriti itself.
My comments on the proposed principles are:
Civil government—the Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
I agree with this principle.
Rights of hapū and iwi Māori—the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.
This principle cites hapū and iwi rights and ignores individuals and their property rights. This conflicts with the intent and wording of te Tiriti.
In Māori society a small number of ariki were iwi leaders while a much larger number were rangatira who were heads of households or extended families. Tino rangatiratanga is similar to the Magna Carta protection accorded to heads of wealthy households in Britain.
British officials working on a treaty with Māori saw the need to protect individual rights as well as the rights of chiefs. In 1840 the Highland clearances in Scotland were still a live memory. Clan chiefs and landlords had enclosed smallholdings into large commercial farming operations and driven crofters off their land and into penury. British officials were concerned to avoid a similar outcome in New Zealand. For this and other reasons it is a monumental error to limit Principle Two in the Bill to hapu and iwi and exclude individuals.
Right to equality—everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.
I agree with this principle.
In recent times power has been shifting away from elected representatives in Parliament and local government and towards non-elected activists in the judiciary, academia, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission and the media. This led in the previous government’s term to the He Puapua report. This report and related work programmes amounted to, without hyperbole, an attempted constitutional coup against our democracy.
Rather than being a document to support elitist interests, the 1840 te Tiriti covers all parties with an interest. These include Wikitoria, Te Kuini o Ingarani (Victoria, the Queen of England), nga tangata o tona Iwi (the individual members of her people); te Kawana (the Governor); nga rangatira (the chiefs); nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani (ordinary New Zealanders); and nga tangata o Ingarani (the English people).
Te Tiriti covers not just the key iwi and hapu leaders but the people themselves; the ngā tāngata of Nu Tirani (New Zealanders). They are ultimately the people who must draw together in the common interest to defend the equality principle.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. Peter blogs at Peter Winsley - where this article was sourced.
The NZ Constitution Act 1986 marks the point where power was vested in the democratically-elected Parliament, and the Crown’s role was reduced to the procedural and symbolic.
From around 1986 efforts were made to reinterpret te Tiriti to support aims that were not envisaged in 1840. The NZ Maori Council sought judicial review of Crown actions in the 1986 State Owned Enterprises Act. Under this statute, when transferring its landholdings to SOEs the Crown was not permitted to act “in a manner inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. While legislation referred to them, there were in fact no principles stated in te Tiriti itself.
Justice Cooke and other Court of Appeal judges defined te Tiriti as “akin to a partnership” between the Crown and Maori people. However, Maori could not be both subjects of the Crown and partners with it. Nor does te Tiriti divide New Zealanders into neat racial categories.
Understanding of te Tiriti must be based on the signatories’ intent and the meanings of words as at 1840. For example, in 1840 ‘taonga’ meant real tangible property such as a waka, not intangible ‘property’ such as language. It did not include things that were yet to be invented or discovered, such as broadcasting spectrum.
However, the Waitangi Tribunal has over the years extended its brief and made more and more “findings” that are unhinged from both the elected Parliament and te Tiriti itself.
My comments on the proposed principles are:
Civil government—the Government of New Zealand has full power to govern, and Parliament has full power to make laws. They do so in the best interests of everyone, and in accordance with the rule of law and the maintenance of a free and democratic society.
I agree with this principle.
Rights of hapū and iwi Māori—the Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty/te Tiriti. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in Treaty settlements.
This principle cites hapū and iwi rights and ignores individuals and their property rights. This conflicts with the intent and wording of te Tiriti.
In Māori society a small number of ariki were iwi leaders while a much larger number were rangatira who were heads of households or extended families. Tino rangatiratanga is similar to the Magna Carta protection accorded to heads of wealthy households in Britain.
British officials working on a treaty with Māori saw the need to protect individual rights as well as the rights of chiefs. In 1840 the Highland clearances in Scotland were still a live memory. Clan chiefs and landlords had enclosed smallholdings into large commercial farming operations and driven crofters off their land and into penury. British officials were concerned to avoid a similar outcome in New Zealand. For this and other reasons it is a monumental error to limit Principle Two in the Bill to hapu and iwi and exclude individuals.
Right to equality—everyone is equal before the law and is entitled to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination. Everyone is entitled to the equal enjoyment of the same fundamental human rights without discrimination.
I agree with this principle.
In recent times power has been shifting away from elected representatives in Parliament and local government and towards non-elected activists in the judiciary, academia, the Waitangi Tribunal, the Human Rights Commission and the media. This led in the previous government’s term to the He Puapua report. This report and related work programmes amounted to, without hyperbole, an attempted constitutional coup against our democracy.
Rather than being a document to support elitist interests, the 1840 te Tiriti covers all parties with an interest. These include Wikitoria, Te Kuini o Ingarani (Victoria, the Queen of England), nga tangata o tona Iwi (the individual members of her people); te Kawana (the Governor); nga rangatira (the chiefs); nga tangata maori o Nu Tirani (ordinary New Zealanders); and nga tangata o Ingarani (the English people).
Te Tiriti covers not just the key iwi and hapu leaders but the people themselves; the ngā tāngata of Nu Tirani (New Zealanders). They are ultimately the people who must draw together in the common interest to defend the equality principle.
Dr Peter Winsley has worked in policy and economics-related fields in New Zealand for many years. With qualifications and publications in economics, management and literature. Peter blogs at Peter Winsley - where this article was sourced.
3 comments:
Well put Peter. If only the MSM published articles like this too.
Governor Hobson in a letter to Major Bunbury made it clear that there was only one Treaty of Waitangi when he wrote, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th 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”.
Hobson never made or authorized an “English Version” of the treaty to be signed by the chiefs.
Reverend Maunsell/Waikato Heads/April 11th 1840.
Freeman had taken it upon himself to forward over to Maunsell a ruined copy of one of his "Formal Royal Style" versions in English. Earmarked for overseas dispatch only, it had been ruined when Hobson had attempted a "left-handed" signature at the height of his stroke (between the 1st and 4th of March).
Despite deliberate attempts by the grievance-industry to give the wrong impression, all treaty meetings in the Manukau - Port Waikato areas were conducted correctly in the Maori language and the chiefs signed according to what they heard and understood in their own tongue.
Freeman’s Formal Royal Style, English version, placed on the table that day, was used only to catch overflow signatures that would not fit on the printed-Maori sheet. Nothing more. It was merely a surplus piece of paper with plenty of room on it to receive the overflow signatures.
Later, the printed Maori sheet, with the Formal Royal style version sitting behind it, were glued together with wax to become one document and Hobson added a waxen seal to render Maunsell's "make-do", Maori language treaty "official".
So, who “tampered” with Maunsells official “make do” Maori Language treaty to “create” an English language version?
Maunsell Make-do 1 Maunsell Make-do 2
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyDocuments9.html
A note on 'Akin to a partnership':
There are two sorts of sovereignty in the Treaty, the kawanatanga of Queen Victoria who was sovereign over a quarter of the earth's population and a quarter of the earth's surface; and the rangatiratanga of the 500 Chiefs who each held sway over something like a thousand Maoris maximum.
The analogy of the Magna Carta of King John and his Barons is appropriate; there is no 'partnership' in the Treaty.
Post a Comment