The articles of the Treaty of Waitangi

Journalists caught out some politicians yesterday on their lack of specific knowledge of the Treaty of Waitangi.

1 News: Jacinda Ardern fumbles over what Treaty of Waitangi articles say – ‘Article One? On the spot?’

Newshub:  PM Jacinda Ardern stumbles when asked to recite Treaty of Waitangi articles

James Shaw also admitted not knowing the details. I don’t think this is a big deal, but it does show that even some our leaders are not as familiar with New Zealand’s most important document as we might expect.

Following this there have been calls for far better teaching of New Zealand history in schools.

RNZ: History teachers decry ‘shameful’ ignorance of colonial, Māori history

In the lead-up to Waitangi Day, history teachers are calling for compulsory teaching of New Zealand’s Māori and colonial history in schools, but government representatives are rejecting the idea.

The chairperson of the History Teachers’ Association, Graeme Ball, said the number of people who learned about New Zealand’s history was shameful and the association had launched a petition to change that.

The petition called on Parliament to pass a law to “make compulsory the coherent teaching of our own past across appropriate year levels in our schools”.

“Too few New Zealanders have a sound understanding of what brought the Crown and Māori together in the 1840 Treaty, or of how the relationship played out over the following decades.

“We believe it is a basic right of all to learn this at school (primary and/or secondary) and that students should be exposed to multiple perspectives and be enabled to draw their own conclusions from the evidence presented in line with good historical practice,” the petition said.

But (RNZ): Ministers reject compulsory curriculum idea

At Waitangi, the Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern, told reporters that children should learn about the Treaty of Waitangi.

“I would certainly have an expectation and a hope that it is learnt across our schools,” she said.

“This is our country, it is part of our history, it is our founding document as a nation, our students should be learning about it.”

But the associate minister of education and minister of Crown Māori relations, Kelvin Davis, was quick to quash any impression the government might make the topic compulsory.

“In terms of the teaching of Te Tiriti in schools, remember that schools are self-governing, self-managing. It’s inappropriate for governments to come along and dictate specifics of what’s taught in schools,” he said.

New Zealand First MP Shane Jones said it was up to schools to decide what they taught but he expected most, if not all, would teach students about the Treaty of Waitangi.

What’s wrong with compulsory New Zealand history? All here should read…

The three articles of the Treaty of Waitangi

…and in case you also didn’t learn Māori at school (from Teara) here is the official English version:

Article the first
The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

Article the second
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 and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Article the third
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

…for some reason there’s a recent translation…

The First
The chiefs of the Confederation and all the chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

The Second
The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the chiefs of the Confederation and all the chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

The Third
For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.

…and demonstrate your knowledge of our Tiriti in comments.

65 Comments

  1. unitedtribes2

     /  February 5, 2019

    But we United Tribes as well as all other New Zealanders were shafted. After the promises made in article 1 and 2 we should have been able to rely on article 3 bestowing on us equal rights of the Citizens of England. Instead England pissed off and joined Europe leaving us with sweet F all. Call that a treaty.

    • Duker

       /  February 5, 2019

      “in article 3 bestowing on us equal rights of the Citizens of England.”

      This is the sort of nonsense why people avoid discussing the treaty – blowhards come in with nonsense.
      NZ stopped being a colony of Britain starting about 1900 to the 1930s. EU had nothing to do with it.

      • Missy

         /  February 6, 2019

        I think it was the 1940’s that New Zealanders stopped being British citizens and became NZ citizens, however, unless NZ and the UK formally renounced that article in legislation surely we still should legally have the rights of British Citizens. Which means the UK has violated the treaty since the 1940’s.

        I think I need to look into this more and see if I can get my rightful British citizenship.

  2. PartisanZ

     /  February 5, 2019

    No shame on Jacinda. According to the poll on the AM show I am gruesomely watching right now, 55% weren’t taught Te Tiriti or Aotearoa NZ history in school. I certainly wasn’t …

    Imagine Americans having to actively go out and discover about their Declaration of Independence!?

    Of course they probably don’t learn about the Wampanoag’s 1621 Treaty with the Pilgrims or the Delaware’s first Treaty with the new Federal government in 1787 …

    • PartisanZ

       /  February 5, 2019

      I believe the ‘recent translation’ is translated back from the Te Reo Maori version which rangatira signed, in which there is no word for ‘Sovereignty’ and the nearest is “government” …

      Grey and the Missionaries would have had to use the word “mana” to approximate “sovereignty” and that would have been the end of the agreement …

      • Duker

         /  February 5, 2019

        I thought the original english version was a back translation of the Maori version- which was still written by englishmen.

        • Duker

           /  February 5, 2019

          I dont know whether this is correct.
          “Around 6 February, Henry Williams translated a copy of the Māori text back into English. This became the official text of the treaty in English. It was presumed that the Māori text and the retranslation into English had the same meaning, but Williams added a cautionary note on the copy of the official text that Hobson sent to Governor Gipps: ‘I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the language will allow.’
          https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/making-the-treaty/signing-the-treaty

          • PartisanZ

             /  February 5, 2019

            I believe it goes thus – hence your quote’s use of the words “back into English” –

            – Drafted in English and translated into Maori, carefully avoiding use of the word “mana” for ‘sovereignty’ by using “kawanatanga” which Maori would have understood as “governance” or government.

            – Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the te reo version, is therefore the only version rangatira signed. Hence the idea of ceding sovereignty is at best a mistaken translation, at worst a straight-out deception.

            – Translated back into English, carefully using the word “sovereignty” to translate the word “kawanatanga”.

            – Pakeha political history thereafter refers solely to The Treaty of Waitangi, not Te Tiriti o Waitangi, extending and embedding the deception …

            The Crown wanted ‘sovereignty’ … and believed they’d got it …

            • Griff.

               /  February 5, 2019

              carefully avoiding use of the word “mana” for ‘sovereignty’ by using “kawanatanga” which Maori would have understood as “governance” or government.
              Sovereignty
              The authority of a state to govern itself or another state.
              kawanatanga = sovereignty even according to your translation.

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              The authority to govern is covered by Three Articles Griff, not just One …

              It is this: The authority of the Crown to govern, [but only] given that Maori retain tino rangatiratanga [or ‘Chieftainship’] over their lands, forests, fisheries and taonga, which only the Crown can negotiate the sale of, and furthermore Maori are given all the Rights of British subjects.

              If that doesn’t imply a power-sharing relationship I’m fucked if I know what does!

            • phantom snowflake

               /  February 5, 2019

              Griff: Who knows what “Maori would have understood” about the word “kawanatanga”?? It was a new addition to Te Reo Maori; a transliteration of “governor” into “kawana”. Your claim that it was well understood by Maori to mean “sovereignty” is totally spurious.

            • Kitty Catkin

               /  February 5, 2019

              We learned these things at school, but I couldn’t tell you which article had which bit in it now.

              But the PM should know !!!

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              Well … The PM didn’t know … Big Deal!

              Which raises the issue of public knowledge of Te Tiriti o Waitangi … and that is a Big Deal!

            • Gezza

               /  February 5, 2019

              @PZ

              In what way? I think by far the majority of people know of The Treaty of Waitangi. I suspect few posters here, in fact I imagine none, if put on the spot, in public, would be able to recite the full English – or Maori – text.

            • PDB

               /  February 5, 2019

              PZ: “Well … The PM didn’t know … Big Deal!”

              No surprises there, she doesn’t know what ‘GDP’ is either.

              You also left out the bit where Maori had the whole thing explained to them in detail before each signing around the country, to the point where some Maori did not sign as they understood they would lose their sovereignty.

              PZ: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the te reo version, is therefore the only version rangatira signed.

              You don’t know what you are talking about – 39 rangatira signed the English version. Therefore there is no ‘different’ English & Maori versions – the English version is the master copy that was translated as best as the Maori language allowed into Maori. That’s why it didn’t matter if the English or Maori version of the treaty was the one signed by Maori – they were the same.

  3. Alan Wilkinson

     /  February 5, 2019

    All prostrate themselves before the sacred Treaty.

    • Blazer

       /  February 5, 2019

      but you regard contracts as …sacrosanct!

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  February 5, 2019

        Only after I sign them.

      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  February 5, 2019

        Do you think the Treaty would have been given a microsecond of credibility if it hadn’t been reinterpreted in the most favourable possible way to Maori?

        • Duker

           /  February 5, 2019

          How many treatys around the world with native peoples have ever been interpreted other than as favouring the european side or mostly ignored or taken from maori in ‘perpetual leases’ for Europeans
          In Nelson area , as in others, land was sold for large scale settlement on the proviso that 1/10th after survey was reserved for the maori owners.
          Guess how that contract was interpreted.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 5, 2019

            Give us a current example.

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              Does this qualify?

              1980 – United States v. Sioux Nation of Indians – U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Sioux Indians were entitled to an award of $17.5 million, plus 5% interest per year since 1877, totaling about $106 million in compensation for the unjust taking of the Black Hills and in direct contravention of the Treaty of Fort Laramie. The Sioux have refused to take the money and sits in a trust fund in Washington, collecting interest.

              https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-timeline/6/

            • Duker

               /  February 5, 2019

              So you were spouting nonsense…and hoping saying something like current example…would get you out of the hole you dug over interpretations

            • Duker

               /  February 5, 2019

              Sioux nations ?
              “The money remains in a Bureau of Indian Affairs account accruing compound interest. As of 24 August 2011 the Sioux interest on their money has compounded to over 1 billion dollars”
              maybe $1.5 bill by now . Taking the money would mean legally that they have renounced their claim to the land that Comprises the Black Hills

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              @PZ, so the most current example was in 1877?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              @Duker, of course I was referencing present day PC re-interpretations. That’s what the sacred Treaty is.

          • Duker

             /  February 5, 2019

            Seems strange the US doesnt return the land, as most of it is the Black Hills national Forest and other federal land.
            It was also the location of the Homestake gold mine, which is one of the US largest- now closed – which produced 40 mill troy oz , or 1200 tonnes of Gold in its lifetime
            Waihi’s Martha mine when it close in 1952 had only 5 mill troy ounces of gold, with more since as an open pit mine

        • PartisanZ

           /  February 5, 2019

          The Treaty of Waitangi, which is NOT Te Tiriti o Waitangi, could never expect to get a microsecond of credibility it did not deserve Alan … That’s the short of it.

          Te Tiriti, the only bona fide Treaty at stake here, didn’t and doesn’t and never will need to be “reinterpreted in the most favourable possible way to Maori” because it was written that way to begin with.

          Pakeha then had to set about dishonouring it to get what they really wanted … Maori land.

          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  February 5, 2019

            No it wasn’t written that way to begin with. It was written in English by Hobson who then trusted Williams to translate it into Maori and the Treaty industry has entertained itself reverse translating it to suit its agendas for the past several decades.

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              All the signatures are appended to te reo versions of Te Tiriti o Waitangi Alan …

              And Henry Williams, a former Navy Lieutenant turned Missionary, who favoured British annexation and had dubious landholdings himself, knew better than to translate “sovereignty” into “mana” …

              https://nzhistory.govt.nz/people/henry-williams

            • Norm Grey

               /  February 5, 2019

              One of the problems with the translation of the Treaty was the difficulty in finding a way to portray the ideas, concepts and expectations in maori that they wished to portray.
              Maori was a stone age language and had few words to portray and explain the valuable intentions of the Treaty [which were ahead and unique for their times even in English.]
              Now the continuing misrepresentation by Waitangi Tribunal reduces the intended meaning further, of a document which could have been the basis of a harmonious society – if fully understood and followed honestly. It now produces continuous misinterpretation and disharmony due to attempts to get more from it, than its original intention.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              Couldn’t agree more.

            • Gezza

               /  February 5, 2019

              As the Treaty was being wilfully ignored & breached wholesale by Pakeha governments within a decade of its signing the exact differences of interpretation became less important than the fact it wasn’t being honoured at all.

              During the second half of the 19th century, Māori generally lost control of the land they had owned, some through legitimate sale, but often due to unfair land deals or outright seizure in the aftermath of the New Zealand War. In the period following the New Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the Treaty and a court case judgement in 1877 declared it to be “a simple nullity”.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Waitangi

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              The missionaries well knew the concept of and word for “mana” and deliberately chose not to use it …

              “Mana”, this ‘Stone Age’ conception that more-or-less matches the stratification of our own ‘Iron Age’ society by social class at the time.

              Their own ‘Church’ was similarly stratified.

              As Danny Butt so eloquently puts it, “We know what the problem is. The problem is White people and their feeling of superiority” …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              The 1877 court was quite correct. By then Maori were British subjects and their chiefs no longer had power over them or authority to Treat on their behalf without specific and individual approval. The parties to the Treaty no longer existed and all were governed by the common law.

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              The common … English … law …

              The law that suited many Maori about as well as ‘private property’ or ‘property in the soil’ suited them …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              Maori are fine with private property when they are allowed it.

  4. Gezza

     /  February 5, 2019

    I don’t know the articles of the Treaty off by heart altho I’ve looked at them dozens of times by now.

    I do think the history of the Treaty should be a compulsory subject at schools at, say, whatever first form level now is.

    I find it odd that some pollies including Davis & Ardern all express the hope or expectation that it’s being taught but don’t have the gonads to go the next step & make it a compulsory part of the national curriculum. It would not require a great deal of time to teach, there is plenty online even in Wikipedia on NZ early history if students want to go deeper into that.

    I also think New Zealan history should be offered as a subject at secondary level. The problems I foresee with this, however, is getting agreement with different Maori iwi on what version of history is acceptable or accurate as it will differ from iwi to iwi & place to place.

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 5, 2019

      I would hope schools are allowed to teach perspectives and differing points of view where facts cannot be established.
      Learning doesn’t need to be rote “this is what happened”. Unless it’s my version.

      • Griff.

         /  February 5, 2019

        You think so duck
        I can tell you now what they teach and the history are not the same.
        https://nzhistory.govt.nz/politics/treaty/treaty-faqs#WhywastheTreatyenteredinto
        Why was the Treaty entered into?

        New Zealand was changing quickly in the late 1830s. British subjects and other Europeans were acquiring land from Māori and had set up valuable commercial operations. Large groups of settlers had set out for New Zealand in 1839. Crime, violence and general lawlessness was rife, and the British Resident from 1833, James Busby, could do little to control it. Foreign powers, notably the French, were also taking an interest in New Zealand. The British government appointed Captain William Hobson as consul and provided him with instructions to negotiate for the sovereignty of New Zealand and for the setting up of a British colony.

        Funny no mention at all is made of the slaughter of at the lest 20,000 maori in the musket wars over the proceeding decades.

        Here is the official treaty timeline .
        https://nzhistory.govt.nz/files/documents/Timeline.pdf
        Same message.
        Lawless evil settlers praying on poor innocent Maori .
        Again No mention at all of the genocidal tribal wars in the proceeding four decades.

        You can not take the treaty out of the proceeding history and make sense of it
        What kids are taught is a distorted view of history biased towards maori and against the settlers.

        • PartisanZ

           /  February 5, 2019

          The Musket Wars should get a mention, no doubt … as should the much less fatal pre-contact battles in a ‘warrior civilization’ … They were, after all, wars involving European made and supplied muskets …

          But you wouldn’t want to give the impression that inter-tribal warfare was the ONLY reason Te Tiriti o Waitangi came about, surely?

          And to truly put colonization into perspective for students you’d also need to mention the genocide of 100 million Native North, Central & South Americans by Spanish, British, Portugese, and United States colonizers, among others …

          https://www.legendsofamerica.com/na-timeline/

    • Jay3

       /  February 5, 2019

      I think this is particularly problematic with oral histories as these tend to change over time to suit the circumstances of the day. That is likely why their are often irreconcilable differences beween iwi histories describing the same event.

      • PartisanZ

         /  February 5, 2019

        And written English histories don’t change, Right? They remain intransigently the same and, what’s more, they never vary between different historians records and interpretations of the same event?

        Have a read of different historical reports and perspectives on say The Wairau Massacre … or Handley’s Woolshed … or the invasion of Parihaka …

        Anyhow, you’ve just successfully negated the whole ‘Right Brigade’ argument that hinges inexorably on paranoiac assertions about PC ‘revisionist history’ …

        Well done! Claudia Orange would be proud of you …

    • High Flying Duck

       /  February 6, 2019

      Sorted!

  5. David in aus

     /  February 5, 2019

    People should be informed of the original texts of the Waitangi Treaty. Which was about Maori being subsumed into the British realm but also keeping their property and having equal rights.

    The treaty is reasonable. It’s the creative interpretations that are the issue: the Principles, Partnership, Special rights etc.
    If people read the original text they will have a better idea of the games that groups play.

    • PartisanZ

       /  February 5, 2019

      Te Tiriti o Waitangi is unreasonable unless it is an ongoing relationship constantly being creatively and responsibly interpreted …

      The original text that Rangatira and The Crown signed is in te reo Maori.

      • David in aus

         /  February 5, 2019

        “Responsibly interpreted”, that could mean so many things. To the point of making the TOW meaningless.
        Article 3 is clear that Maori have the sames rights as other subjects.
        Done and dusted, no ambiguity.
        That is a clear basis for moving forward.
        Are Maori seats in breach of Article 3? In my interpretation, yes; because separate but ‘equal’ is not equality. The American Supreme got concept that right eventually.

        • PartisanZ

           /  February 5, 2019

          I know you can’t see this, but your assertion that “the treaty is reasonable” is in itself a ‘creative interpretation’ …

          What do you mean by “The Treaty”? What do you mean by “original text”?

          Do you mean the English version you understand and are convinced applies to everyone?

          Or do you mean the Te Reo Maori version that 500+ Rangatira actually agreed to and signed?

  6. Mythbuster

     /  February 5, 2019

    Your maori language treaty translation is incorrect – you are quoting the Busby discard that Freeman plucked from the bin and tweaked – it is not the true translation, but the one that follows is.

    Busby February 4, 1840, draft

    Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

    Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the CHIEFS OF THE CONFEDERATION OF UNITED TRIBES OF NEW ZEALAND and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

    Article first
    THE CHIEFS OF THE CONFEDERATION OF THE UNITED TRIBES and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, CEDE TO THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND FOR EVER THE ENTIRE SOVREIGNTY [SIC] OF THEIR COUNTRY.

    Ko te tuatahi
    Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

    Article second
    The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, the POSSESSION of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

    Ko te tuarua
    Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

    Article third
    In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

    Ko te tuatoru
    Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

     
    Signed, William Hobson
    Consul and Lieut. Governor.
     
    NOW WE THE CHIEFS OF THE CONFEDERATION OF UNITED TRIBES OF NEW ZEALAND ASSEMBLED AT WAITANGI, AND WE THE OTHER TRIBES OF NEW ZEALAND, HAVING UNDERSTOOD THE MEANING OF THESE ARTICLES, ACCEPT THEM AND AGREE TO THEM ALL. IN WITNESS WHEREOF OUR NAMES OR MARKS ARE AFFIXED. DONE AT WAITANGI ON THE 4TH OF FEBRUARY, 1840.[1]

    • Duker

       /  February 5, 2019

      What was the version that has the signatures on it?

      I hardly think ‘treaty4Dummies’ website is even worth considering

  7. Mythbuster

     /  February 5, 2019

    Here is the Treaty and it’s timeline colourcoded for easy following

      • PartisanZ

         /  February 5, 2019

        Let’s have a wee look now …. “Other sites of interest” … should be interesting …

        https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/other-sites-of-interest

        Well, well, well … Surprise! Surprise! Who do we find here?

        Treaty of Waitangi For Dummies facebook page

        Mole News

        One NZ Foundation

        Independent Constitutional Review

        Treatygate

        Declaration Of Equality

        1Law4all

        Peoples ‘Five Principles Movement’ (5PM)

        NZCPR (New Zealand Centre for Political Research)

        False Racism Blogspot

        Democracy Action

        Fucking Cowards!!! You didn’t provide a link to KiwiFrontLine!

        Mythbuster, Yours isn’t ‘treaty for dummies’ … Yours is ‘Treaty for Thwarted Infantile White Supremacists’ …

        LIke this: After making a cunning bargain with him I never intended to keep, I took all my [then] Big Brother’s hundreds of toys away from him, called them my own, and made him [now] my Little Brother [if that?] …

        But because he kicked up a fuss I have to give him back five or ten of the toys!!!! WAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!

  8. Gezza

     /  February 5, 2019

    Same old same old arguments. What we have is what we’ve got. Now we have to work backwards and forwards, together, to make it work as a single nation respecting our differences.

    • Gezza

       /  February 5, 2019

      And our shared interests.

      • PartisanZ

         /  February 5, 2019

        Precisely what Reuben Taipari is doing by offering to listen to Don Brash at Te Tii today …

        I fear protesters about Brash speaking, though they have good historical justification, will play straight into the Righties hands …

        What Tohu said at Parihaka comes to mind – “The Maori was to show his superiority here and now over the Pakeha by his conduct and his high morality: the rot at the heart of much of the European way of life was rejected—the economic competitiveness and the greed, the moral laxity and the spiritual hardness of heart.”

        • Gezza

           /  February 5, 2019

          Yup – he got the now-standard refusal of a hearing.

          “Former National leader Don Brash cut short his speech at Waitangi today just as his speaking area was taken over by protesters carrying a banner opposing racism. The banner blocked out the stage, obscuring Brash from a crowd which had heckled him from the moment he opened his mouth.”

          https://yournz.org/2019/02/05/open-forum-tuesday-220/#comment-346180

          Do they shut down Maori who are speakers at Te Tii, like this? I mean, maybe they do, I just don’t recall hearing of any. Either the tikanga around this seems pretty slack, or possibly manuhiri acknowledgement of it is.

          • PartisanZ

             /  February 5, 2019

            Sad really … It was a brave attempt on Reuben Taipari’s part. Now all the Righties can claim their freedom of speech has been denied and they’ve been intimidated …

            Brash has sidelined himself to a great degree, but if there’s going to be an extensive and expansive Constitutional conversation in this country leading up to our 2040 Bicentennial, there has to be a place for everyone to speak their truth … and I thought the marae was such a place …

            It may just be too soon? Another round of consultation by Messrs Palmer & Butler and another separate round by Matike Mai Aotearoa in 2021 and then perhaps Dr Carwyn Jones’ “two streams” can come together and begin a constructive dialogue?

            The change will come. Ma te wa. As it must …

            I hope I live to see it happen …

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              Apparently DB got to finish his speech after the protesters were “calmed” …

          • PartisanZ

             /  February 5, 2019

            One needs to remember that similar but different tactics are standard fare for the ‘Right Brigade’ …

            Both Constitutional Advisory Panel and Constitution Aotearoa were separately inundated with “cloned submissions” massively disproportionate in number to the actual percentage of the population who believe in “race-based privilege” (other than institutional White privilege) or “cultural apartheid” or whatever the fuck it is they believe …

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  February 5, 2019

              Te Tii lives down to its reputation as a pack of loony wankers.

            • Griff.

               /  February 5, 2019

              They dont take all cloned submissions as separate they combine them as one.
              In reality as the constitutional review discovered.
              There is no support for a racist interpretation of the treaty at the center of our Constitution .
              Not now and probably not ever .
              Witness what happens when they allow a Democratic vote on maori representation on councils. If you put the maori seats to a vote they would be abolished. Under half of maori vote on the maori roll now so the maori roll is not a true measure of representative democracy.
              The time is well past to remove the distortion to our democracy that is race based seats. The last look into our voting sytem found that under MMP Maori seats have no purpose. If enough maori vote for a maori party it could be elected under the normal roll without the need for a race based electoral process distorting our democracy. .

            • PartisanZ

               /  February 5, 2019

              Maori would still be much more prone to tyranny of the majority without the Maori seats … as they are at Local Government level …

  9. Wayne

     /  February 5, 2019

    When interpreting treaties that are expressed in two languages, the international law rule is to find the common meaning, not favour one text over the other.

    The British certainly thought that governance gave them the right to make the general law, and to exercise all external powers, including the right two wage war. Maori would no longer be able to conduct local warfare. These things are the essence of sovereignty.

    As for the Maori, they certainly thought they would continue in control over their lands and the internal governance of their people. It is pretty clear from the contemporary record they knew they were giving up more than the right of the British to govern British subjects, they knew they would also be coming under the overall protection of the British.

    Within a very short time (less than a year) British criminal law was being applied to Maori in the North, and to a significant extent this was accepted.

    What does this mean for the present? It is pretty clear we are not going to have two parliaments and two independent systems of general law. But the Whanganui and Tuhoe settlements do show an expanded sense of local governance in the rohe.

    Ngapuhi took a claim to the Waiting tribune on the meaning of the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and its relation to the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal gave it some credence and stated Ngapuhi didn’t surrender sovereignty. But in practical terms what does that mean today? I can’t see the government going beyond the Tuhoe settlement in giving local governance powers.

    The government should recognise Ngati Hine as a seperate entity if they want to settle the collective Ngapuhi claim. Some might say Ngati Hine is a hapu, but it is a hapu of 20,000 people, one third of Ngapuhi. Not sure why the government is being so obstinate about this.

  1. Ngāpuhi split over treaty negotiations | Your NZ