The Treaty of Waitangi is an agreement between the British crown and the Maori people, tangata whenua of Aotearoa. It was signed on 06 February 1840. It is the treaty that gives non-Maori the right to be here on their whenua. So why is A.C.T. Party and in particular its leader David Seymour so bent on dividing the country? In this part I look at the Treaty itself.
SECTION 1 (Maori interpretation): Maori cede the kawanatanga katoa/governance of their lands and taonga to the Crown
SECTION 1 (Crown version): rangatira gave the Queen all rights and powers of sovereignty
Maori did not cede sovereignty, namely because they never had such a concept to cede in the first place.
How can someone cede something that they had no concept of in the first place? The legal grounds for cession of sovereignty – for lack of better wording – is simply not there.
SECTION 2 (Maori interpretation): confirmed and guaranteed te tino rangatiratanga – the right of chieftainship – over their lands, villages, taonga. Maori gave the Crown the right to deal with them over land transactions.
SECTION 2 (Crown interpretation): confirmed and guaranteed to the rangatira, the chieftainship over their villages, lands, taonga. The Crown in turn sought the right to deal with Maori over land transactions.
As demonstrated clearly in the first part of both interpretations of SECTION 2, there is confirmation that Maori would retain rangatiratanga over their villages, lands and taonga.
SECTION 3 (Maori interpretation): Maori were assured of the Queen’s protection and that all rights afforded to her subjects would be afforded to Maori.
SECTION 3 (Crown interpretation): Same/similar.
However, the mandate developed by the Treaty of Waitangi was not universal, and this meant that there was the possibility of it being challenged in the future. It also meant that only some iwi/hapu had reached some kind of accommodation with the Crown in return for benefits brought by jobs, income and new concepts.
There are a number of reasons for not all signing. Several tribes had inter-tribal conflicts ongoing and were not in a position to meet with the Crown. Some like Ngati Tuwharetoa and Ngati Arawa in the central North Island had been less impacted by outsider influence Others had internal disagreements on whether they should put at risk what they possessed. Still more had problems with being able to sign, namely because no meetings were held in their region, but also because of impatience waiting for negotiators to return.
Since 1975, when the Waitangi Tribunal was established to address grievances, over 51 separate claims ranging from small hapu through to large iwi such as Ngati Tuwharetoa (central North Island) and Ngai Tahu (most of the South Island) have been settled. A N.Z.$1 billion settlement fund was established to fund this. So far, allowing for inflation about N.Z.$2.25 billion has been paid out. This might seem like a lot of money, but noting that were those injustices to happen today the cost would be in the tens of billions of dollars, it is comparatively minor.
In implementing New Zealand law, ministries and organizations acting on their behalf are required to have regard for the Treaty of Waitangi principles. This is to say that in the course of their activities they will treat Maori as equal partners and consult as appropriate for the situation. Certain key Acts of Parliament explicitly state a regard for the principles of the Treaty in their structure, e.g. Section 8 of the Resource Management Act, 1991.
The rationale behind all of this is not – contrary to the arguments that I will explore in Part 2 – to give Maori things that “non-Maori do not have”. It is to ensure that they have equity in access to Government services, to be treated as an equal in a state system that historically has treated them extremely poorly.
Leftist Kiwi Writes 