Treaty Of Waitangi

Treaty of Waitangi Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Treaty to establish a British Governor of New Zealand, consider Māori ownership of their lands and other properties, and gave Māori the rights of British subjects.
One of the few extant copies of the Treaty of Waitangi
Drafted	4–5 February 1840 by William Hobson with the help of his secretary, James Freeman, and British Resident James Busby
Signed Location	6 February 1840 Waitangi, Bay of Islands, New Zealand, and various other locations. Currently held at Archives New Zealand, Wellington.
Signatories	Representatives of the British Crown, various Māori chiefs from the northern North Island, and later a further 500 signatories.
Languages	English, Māori
Treaty of Waitangi at Wikisource

The Treaty of Waitangi (Māori: Te Tiriti o Waitangi) is a treaty first signed on 6 February 1840 by representatives of the British Crown and various Māori chiefs from the North Island of New Zealand.

The Treaty established a British governor in New Zealand, recognised Māori ownership of their lands and other properties, and gave the Māori the rights of British subjects. The English and Māori language versions of the Treaty differed significantly, so there is no consensus as to exactly what was agreed to. From the British point of view, the Treaty gave Britain sovereignty over New Zealand, and gave the Governor the right to run the country. The Māori seem to have had a range of understandings, many of which conflicted with the British understanding. After the initial signing at Waitangi, copies of the Treaty were taken around New Zealand and over the following months many other chiefs signed. In total there are nine copies of the Treaty of Waitangi including the original signed on 6 February 1840.[1] Around 500 chiefs, including 13 or more women signed the Treaty of Waitangi.[2]

Until the 1970s, the Treaty was generally ignored by both the courts and parliament, although it was usually depicted in New Zealand history as a generous and loving act on the part of the Crown. From at least the 1860s, the Māori have looked to the Treaty for rights and remedies for land loss and unequal treatment by the state, with little success. From the late 1960s the Māori began drawing attention to breaches of the Treaty. Subsequent histories have emphasised problems with its translation. In 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was established as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with researching breaches of the Treaty by the Crown or its agents, and suggesting means of redress.

Today it is generally considered the founding document of New Zealand as a nation. Despite this, the Treaty is often the subject of heated debate. Many Māori feel that the Crown did not keep its side of the bargain and have presented evidence of this before sittings of the Tribunal. Some in the non-Māori population believe the Māori pay too much attention to the Treaty and use it to claim 'special privileges'. The Crown is in most cases not obliged to give effect to the recommendations of the Tribunal, but nonetheless in many instances has accepted that it breached the Treaty and its principles. Settlements to date have consisted of hundreds of millions of dollars in money and assets, as well as apologies.

The date of the signing has been celebrated as a national holiday, now called Waitangi Day, since 1974.

Background

James Busby, British Resident in New Zealand.

Early in the 19th century, Māori were perturbed by the behaviour and intentions of traders, whalers and sealers who had come to the country, especially in the Bay of Islands. The introduction of muskets devastated the Māori population in a series of Musket Wars in the early 19th century.[3] In 1831, thirteen chiefly rangatira from the far north of the country met at Kerikeri to compose a letter to King William IV asking for help to guard their lands. Specifically it sought protection from the French, "the tribe of Marion", and it is the first known written plea from Māori.[4] In response, the British Government sent James Busby in 1832 to be the British Resident in New Zealand. In 1834 Busby drafted a document known as the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand which he and 35 northern Māori chiefs signed at Waitangi on 28 October 1835. The chiefs signed this declaration of independence and in the process established themselves as representing a proto-state under the title of the "United Tribes of New Zealand". This document not well received by the Colonial Office, and it was decided that a new policy for New Zealand was needed as a corrective.[5]

From May to July 1836 Royal Navy officer Captain William Hobson, under instruction from Sir Richard Bourke, visited New Zealand to investigate claims of lawlessness in its settlements. Hobson recommended in his report that British sovereignty be established over New Zealand, in small pockets similar to the Hudson Bay Company in Canada.[6] Hobson's report was forwarded to the Colonial Office. From April to May 1837, the House of Lords held a select committee into the "State of the Islands of New Zealand". The New Zealand Association (later the New Zealand Company), missionaries and Royal Navy all made submissions to the committee. The committee recommended a treaty be concluded with Māori.[6]

Historian Claudia Orange claims that the Colonial Office had initially planned a "Māori New Zealand" in which European settlers would be accommodated, but by 1839 had shifted to "a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be kept for Māori" due to pressure from the New Zealand Company[3] which hurriedly dispatched the Tory to New Zealand on 12 May 1839[7] (arriving in Port Nicholson (Wellington) on 20 September 1839 to purchase land) and plans by French Captain Jean François L'Anglois for a French colony in Akaroa.[8]

On 15 June 1839 a new Letters Patent were issued to expand the territory of New South Wales to include the entire territory of New Zealand, from latitude 34º South to 47º 10' South, and from longitude 166º 5' East to 179º East.[9] Governor of New South Wales George Gipps was appointed Governor over New Zealand. This was the first clear expression of British intent to annex New Zealand.

Captain William Hobson

Captain William Hobson was called to the Colonial Office on the evening of 14 August 1839 and given instructions to take the constitutional steps needed to establish a British colony. Historian Paul Moon believes the instructions were written by Sir James Stephen, then head of the Colonial Office.[10] Hobson was appointed Consul to New Zealand. He was instructed to negotiate a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from Māori to the British Crown as the House of Lords select committee had recommended in 1837.[11] Hobson left London on 15 August 1839 and was sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor in Sydney on January 14, finally arriving in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840. Meanwhile a second ship, the Cuba, had arrived in Port Nicholson on 3 January with a survey party to prepare for settlement.[12] The first ship carrying immigrants arrived on 22 January - the Aurora.[13]

On 30 January 1840 Hobson attended the Christ Church at Kororareka (Russell) where he publicly read a number of proclamations. The first was the Letters Patent 1839, in relation to the extension of the boundaries of New South Wales to include the islands of New Zealand. The second was in relation to Hobson's own appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand. The third was in relation to land transactions (notably on the issue of pre-emption).[14]

Without a draft document prepared by lawyers or Colonial Office officials, Hobson was forced to write his own treaty with the help of his secretary, James Freeman, and British Resident James Busby, neither of whom was a lawyer. Historian Paul Moon believes certain articles of the Treaty resemble the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), the British Sherbo Agreement (1825) and the Treaty between Britain and Soombia Soosoos (1826).[15] The entire treaty was prepared in four days.[3] Realising that a treaty in English could be neither understood, debated or agreed to by Māori, Hobson instructed missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate the document into Māori and this was done overnight on 4 February.

Debate

On 5 February copies of the treaty in both languages were put before a gathering of northern chiefs inside a large marquee on the lawn in front of Busby's house at Waitangi. Hobson read the treaty aloud in English and Williams read his Māori version. Māori chiefs (rangatira) then debated the treaty for five hours, much of which was recorded and translated by the Paihia missionary station printer, William Colenso.[16] Rewa said "The Māori people don't want a governor! We aren't European. It's true that we've sold some of our lands. But this country is still ours! We chiefs govern this land of our ancestors", Moka 'Kainga-mataa' argued that all land unjustly purchased by Europeans should be returned.[17] Whai asked: "Yesterday I was cursed by a white man. Is that the way things are going to be?". Chiefs such as Hone Heke, Pumuka, Te Wharerahi, Tamati Waka Nene and his brother Eruera Maihi Patuone were accepting of the Governor.[17] Hone Heke said "Governor, you should stay with us and be like a father. If you go away then the French or the rum sellers will take us Māori people over. How can we know what the future will bring? If you stay we can be "all as one" with you and the missionaries." Tamati Waka Nene addressed the assembled chiefs "I'm going to speak first to you. Some of you tell Hobson to go. But that's not going to solve our difficulties. We have already sold so much land here in the north. We have no way of controlling the Europeans who have settled on it. I'm amazed to hear you telling him to go! Why didn't you tell the traders and grog-sellers to go years ago? There are too many Europeans here now and there are children that will united our races".[17]

Afterward, the chiefs then moved to a river flat below Busby's house and lawn and continued deliberations late into the night.

Signing

An artist's rendition of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Although Hobson had planned for the signing to occur on February 7, on the morning of 6 February 45 chiefs were ready to sign. Hobson hastily arranged for this to occur.[16]

Hobson headed the British signatories. Of the 40 or so Māori chiefs, Hone Heke was the first to sign the treaty. As each chief signed, Hobson said "He iwi tahi tatou", meaning (in English) "We are now one people".[17]

To enhance the authority of the treaty, eight further copies were made and sent around the country to gather additional signatures:

• the Manukau-Kawhia copy,
• the Waikato-Manukau copy,
• the Tauranga copy,
• the Bay of Plenty copy,
• the Herald-Bunbury copy,
• the Henry Williams copy,
• the East Coast copy and
• the Printed copy.

About 50 meetings were held from February to September 1840 to discuss and sign the copies, and a further 500 signatures were added to the treaty. A number of chiefs and some tribal groups refused to sign, including Tuhoe, Te Arawa and Ngāti Tuwharetoa and possibly Moka 'Kainga-mataa'. Some were not given the opportunity to sign.[17] Nonetheless, on 21 May 1840, Lieutenant-Governor Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the whole country, (the North Island by Treaty and the South Island by discovery) and New Zealand was constituted as a colony separate from New South Wales on 16 November 1840.

The anniversary of the signing of the Treaty is now a New Zealand public holiday, Waitangi Day, on 6 February. The first Waitangi Day was not until 1947 (although there were some commemorations before that) and the day was not made a public holiday until 1974. The commemoration has often been the focus of protest by Māori and frequently attracts controversy. The anniversary is officially commemorated at the Treaty house at Waitangi, where the Treaty was first signed.

Treaty copies

One of the signatories, Hone Heke, with his wife Hariata

In November 1840 a Royal Charter was signed by Queen Victoria, establishing New Zealand as a separate colony from May 1841.

In 1841, the Treaty narrowly escaped destruction when the government offices in Auckland were destroyed by fire. When the capital was relocated from Auckland to Wellington in 1865, the Treaty documents were fastened together and deposited in a safe in the Colonial Secretary's office. The documents were untouched until they were moved to Wellington in 1865, when a list of signatories was produced.

In 1877, the English language rough draft of the Treaty was published along with photolithographic facsimiles of the Treaty, and the originals were returned to storage. In 1908, Dr Hocken found the Treaty in poor condition, partly eaten by rodents. The document was restored by the Dominion Museum in 1913.

In February 1940, the Treaty was taken to Waitangi for display in the Treaty house during the Centenary celebrations - this was possibly the first time the Treaty had been on public display since it was signed.

After the outbreak of war with Japan, the Treaty was placed with other state documents in an outsize luggage trunk and deposited for secure custody with the Public Trustee at Palmerston North by the local MP, who did not tell staff what was in the case. But, as the case was too large to fit in the safe, the Treaty spent the war at the side of a back corridor in the Public Trust office.

In 1956, the Department of Internal Affairs placed the Treaty into the care of the Alexander Turnbull Library and it was eventually displayed in 1961. Further preservation steps were taken in 1966, with improvements to the display conditions. From 1977 to 1980, the Library extensively restored the documents before the Treaty was deposited in the Reserve Bank.

In anticipation of a decision to exhibit the treaty in 1990 (the sesquicentennial of the signing), full documentation and reproduction photography was carried out. Several years of planning culminated with the opening of the Constitution Room at the then National Archives by Mike Moore, Prime Minister of New Zealand, in November 1990. The documents are currently on permanent display in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand's headquarters in Wellington.

Meaning and interpretation

The Treaty itself is short, consisting of only three articles. The first article of the English version grants the "Queen of England" (actually the United Kingdom) sovereignty over New Zealand. The second article guarantees to the chiefs full "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties." IIt also specifies that Māori will sell land only to the Crown. The third article guarantees to all Māori the same rights as all other British subjects.

The English and Māori versions differ. This has made it difficult to interpret the Treaty and continues to undermine its effect. The most critical difference revolves around the interpretation of three Māori words: kāwanatanga (governorship), which is ceded to the Queen in the first article; rangatiratanga (chieftainship) not mana(which was stated in the Declaration of Independence just five years before the Treaty was signed), which is retained by the chiefs in the second; and taonga (property or valued possessions), which the chiefs are guaranteed ownership and control of, also in the second article. Few Māori had good understanding of either sovereignty or "governorship", as understood by 19th century Europeans, and so some academics, such as Moana Jackson, question whether Māori fully understood that they were ceding sovereignty to the British Crown.

Furthermore, kāwanatanga is transliterated from 'governorship' and was not part of the Māori language per se. There is considerable debate about what would have been a more appropriate term. Some scholars, notably Ruth Ross, argue that mana (prestige, authority) would have more accurately conveyed the transfer of sovereignty.[18] However, it has more recently been argued by others, for example Judith Binney, that mana would not have been appropriate. This is because mana is not the same thing as sovereignty, and also because no-one can give up their mana.[19]

The English language version recognises Māori rights to "properties", which seems to imply physical and perhaps intellectual property. The Māori version, on the other hand, mentions "taonga", meaning "treasures" or "precious things". In Māori usage the term applies much more broadly than the English concept of legal property, and since the 1980s courts have found that the term can encompass intangible things such as language and culture. Even where physical property such as land is concerned, differing cultural understandings as to what types of land are able to be privately owned have caused problems, as for example in the foreshore and seabed controversy of 2003-04.

The pre-emption clause is generally not well translated, and many Māori apparently believed that they were simply giving the British Queen first offer on land, after which they could sell it to anyone. Doubt has been cast on whether Hobson himself actually understood the concept of pre-emption. Another, less important, difference is that Ingarani, meaning England alone, is used throughout in the Māori version, whereas "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is used in the first paragraph of the English.

The entire issue is further complicated by the fact that, at the time, Māori society was an oral rather than literate one. Māori present at the signing of the Treaty would have placed more value and reliance on what Hobson and the missionaries said, rather than the words of the actual Treaty.[20]

Māori beliefs and attitudes towards ownership and use of land were different from those prevailing in Britain and Europe. The chiefs saw themselves as 'kaitiaki' or guardians of the land, and would traditionally grant permission for the land to be used for a time for a particular purpose. Some may have thought that they were leasing the land rather than selling it, leading to disputes with the occupant settlers. A northern chief, Nopera Panakareao, also early on summarised his understanding of the Treaty as "the shadow of the land is to the Queen, but the substance remains to us.", even as a British official later remarked that the Māori would discover that the British had acquired "something more than the shadow.". Nopera's later reversed his earlier statement - feeling that the substance of the land had indeed gone to the Queen; only the shadow remained for the Māori.[21]

Effects

The short-term effect of the Treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown. This was intended to protect Māori from the kinds of shady land purchases which had alienated indigenous people in other parts of the world from their land with minimal compensation. Indeed, anticipating the Treaty, the New Zealand Company made several hasty land deals and shipped settlers from England to New Zealand, assuming that the settlers would not be evicted from land they occupied. Essentially the Treaty was an attempt to establish a system of property rights for land with the Crown controlling and overseeing land sale to prevent abuse.

Initially this worked well. Māori were eager to sell land, and settlers eager to buy. The Crown mediated the process to ensure that the true owners were properly identified (difficult for tribally owned land) and fairly compensated, by the standards of the time. However after a while Māori became disillusioned and less willing to sell, while the Crown came under increasing pressure from settlers wishing to buy. Consequently government land agents were involved in a number of dubious land purchases. Agreements were negotiated with only one owner of tribally owned land and in some cases land was purchased from the wrong people altogether. Eventually this led to the New Zealand Wars which culminated in the confiscation of a large part of the Waikato and Taranaki.

In later years, this oversight role was vested in the Native Land Court under the Native Land Court Act 1862, and later renamed the Māori Land Court. It was through this court that much Māori land was alienated, and the way in which it functioned is much criticised today. Over the longer term, the land purchase aspect of the Treaty declined in importance, while the clauses of the Treaty which deal with sovereignty and Māori rights took on greater importance.

The treaty was never ratified by Britain and carried no legal force in New Zealand for over a century, finally receiving limited recognition in 1975 with the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. The Colonial Office and early New Zealand governors were initially fairly supportive of the Treaty as it gave them authority over both New Zealand Company settlers and Māori. As the settlers were granted representative and responsible government with the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852, the Treaty became less effective, although it was used to justify the idea that Waikato and Taranaki were rebels against the Crown in the wars of the 1860s. Court cases later in the 19th century, especially Wi Parata v the Bishop of Wellington (1877), established the principle that the Treaty was a 'legal nullity' which could be ignored by the courts and the government. This argument was supported by the claim that New Zealand had become a colony when annexed by proclamation in January 1840, before the treaty was signed. Furthermore, Hobson only claimed to have taken possession of the North Island by Treaty. The South Island he claimed for Britain by right of discovery, by observing that Māori were so sparse in the South Island, that it could be considered uninhabited.

Despite this, Māori frequently used the Treaty to argue for a range of issues, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land. This was especially the case from the mid-19th century, when they lost numerical superiority and generally lost control of most of the country.

However irrelevant in law, the treaty returned to the public eye after the Treaty house and grounds were purchased by Governor-General Viscount Bledisloe in the early 1930s and donated to the nation. The dedication of the site as a national reserve in 1934 was probably the first major event held there since the 1840s. The profile of the Treaty was further raised by the centenary of 1940. For most of the 20th century, text books, government publicity and many historians touted it as the moral foundation of colonisation and to set race relations in New Zealand above those of colonies in North America, Africa and Australia. Its lack of legal significance in 1840 and subsequent breaches tended to be overlooked until the 1970s, when these issues were raised by Māori protest.

Legal standing

The Treaty itself has never been ratified or enacted as statute law in New Zealand, although it does appear in authoritative collections of treaties, and is sometimes referred to in specific pieces of legislation. There are two major points of legal debate concerning the Treaty:

• Whether or not the Treaty was the means by which the British Crown gained sovereignty over New Zealand, and
• Whether or not the Treaty is binding on the Crown.

Sovereignty

Although the Treaty was considered to be Māori consenting to British sovereignty over the whole country, the actual proclamation of sovereignty was made by Hobson on 21 May 1840 (the North Island by treaty and the South by discovery - Hobson was unaware his agents were collecting signatures for the Treaty in the South Island at this stage).[9] This was in response to New Zealand Company attempts to establish a separate colony in Wellington. The proclamation was published four months after the signing of the Treaty, in the New Zealand Advertiser and Bay Of Islands Gazette issue of 19 June 1840, the proclamation "asserts on the grounds of Discovery, the Sovereign Rights of Her Majesty over the Southern Islands of New Zealand, commonly called 'The Middle Island' (South Island) and 'Stewart's Island' (Stewart Island/Rakiura); and the Island, commonly called 'The Northern Island', having being ceded Sovereignty to Her Majesty." [22]

In the 1877 Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington judgement, Prendergast argued that the Treaty was a 'simple nullity' in terms of transferring sovereignty from Māori to Britain.[23] This remained the legal orthodoxy until at least the 1970s.[24] Since then, legal commentators have argued that whatever the state of Māori government in 1840, the British had acknowledged Māori sovereignty with the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand in 1835.[25] Therefore, if both parties had agreed on the Treaty it was valid, in a pragmatic if not necessarily a legal sense.

There has been some popular acceptance of the idea that the Treaty transferred sovereignty since the early twentieth century. Popular histories of New Zealand and the Treaty often claimed that the Treaty was an example of British benevolence and therefore an honourable contract.[26]

Binding on the Crown?

While the above issue is mostly academic, since the Crown does have sovereignty in New Zealand, however it was attained, the question of whether the Crown is bound by the Treaty has been hotly contested since 1840. This has been a point of a number of court cases:

• R v Symonds (1847). The Treaty was found to be binding on the Crown.
• Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington (1877). Judge James Prendergast called the Treaty 'a simple nullity' and claimed that it was neither a valid treaty nor binding on the Crown. Although the Treaty's status was not a major part of the case, Prendergast's judgment on the Treaty's validity was considered definitive for many decades.
• Te Heuheu Tukino v Aotea District Maori Land Board (1938). The Treaty was seen as valid in terms of the transfer of sovereignty, but the judge ruled that as it was not part of New Zealand law it was not binding on the Crown.
• New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General (1987). Also known as the SOE (State Owned Enterprises) case, this defined the "principles of the Treaty". The State Owned Enterprises Act stated that nothing in the Act permitted the government to act inconsistently with the principles of the Treaty, and the proposed sale of government assets was found to be in breach of these. This case established the principle that if the Treaty is mentioned in a piece of legislation, it takes precedence over other parts of that legislation should they come into conflict.
• New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General (1990). This case concerned FM radio frequencies and found that the Treaty could be relevant even concerning legislation which did not mention it.[27]

Since the late 1980s the Treaty has become much more legally important. However because of uncertainties about its meaning and translation, it still does not have a firm place in New Zealand law or jurisprudence. Another issue is whether the Crown in Right of New Zealand is bound. The separate New Zealand Crown was created when New Zealand adopted of the Statute of Westminster in 1947, which granted legislative independence to New Zealand and created the Crown in Right of New Zealand.[28] Dr Martyn Finlay rejected this contention.[28]

Legislation

The English version of the Treaty appeared as a schedule to the Waitangi Day Act 1960, but this did not technically make it a part of statute law. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal, but this initially had very limited powers. The Act was amended in 1985 to increase the Tribunal membership and enable it to investigate Treaty breaches back to 1840. The membership was further increased in another amendment, in 1988.

Although the Treaty has never been incorporated into New Zealand municipal law, its provisions were first incorporated into legislation as early as the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 and the Native Rights Act 1865.[29] Later the Treaty was incorporated into New Zealand law in the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. Section 9 of the Act said that nothing in the Act permitted the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This allowed the courts to consider the Crown's actions in terms of compliance with the Treaty (see below, "The Principles of the Treaty"). Contemporary legislation has followed suit, giving the Treaty an increased legal importance.

The Bill of Rights White Paper proposed that the Treaty be entrenched in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act, however this proposal was never carried through to the legislation, with many Māori being concerned that this would relegate the Treaty to a lesser position, and enable the electorate (who under the original Bill of Rights would be able to repeal certain sections by referendum) to remove the Treaty from the Bill of Rights altogether.

In response to a backlash against the Treaty, political leader Winston Peters and others have campaigned to remove vague references to the Treaty from New Zealand law, although the New Zealand Māori Council case of 1990 indicates that even if this does happen, the Treaty may still be legally relevant.

"Principles of the Treaty"

The "Principles of the Treaty" are often mentioned in contemporary politics.[30] They originate from the famous case brought in the High Court by the New Zealand Māori Council (New Zealand Māori Council v. Attorney-General[31]) in 1987. There was great concern at that time that the ongoing restructuring of the New Zealand economy by the then Fourth Labour Government, specifically the transfer of assets from former Government departments to State-owned enterprises. Because the state-owned enterprises were essentially private firms owned by the government, they would prevent assets which had been given by Māori for use by the state from being returned to Māori by the Waitangi Tribunal. The Māori Council sought enforcement of section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986 "Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi".

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment of its then President Sir Robin Cooke, decided upon the following Treaty principles:

• The acquisition of sovereignty in exchange for the protection of rangatiratanga.
• The Treaty established a partnership, and imposes on the partners the duty to act reasonably and in good faith.
• The freedom of the Crown to govern.
• The Crown's duty of active protection.
• Crown duty to remedy past breaches.
• Māori to retain rangatiratanga over their resources and taonga and to have all the privileges of citizenship.
• Duty to consult.

In 1989, the Lange Labour Government responded by adopting the following "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi":

Principle of government or the kawanatanga principle

Article 1 gives expression to the right of the Crown to make laws and its obligation to govern in accordance with constitutional process. This sovereignty is qualified by the promise to accord the Māori interests specified in article 2 an appropriate priority. This principle describes the balance between articles 1 and 2: the exchange of sovereignty by the Māori people for the protection of the Crown. It was emphasised in the context of this principle that 'the Government has the right to govern and make laws'.

Principle of self-management (the rangatiratanga principle)

Article 2 guarantees to Māori hapū (tribes) the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain. The preservation of a resource base, restoration of tribal self-management, and the active protection of taonga, both material and cultural, are necessary elements of the Crown's policy of recognising rangatiratanga.
The Government also recognised the Court of Appeal's description of active protection, but identified the key concept of this principle as a right for iwi to organise as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own.

Principle of equality

Article 3 constitutes a guarantee of legal equality between Māori and other citizens of New Zealand. This means that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, the common law system is selected by the Treaty as the basis for that equality, although human rights accepted under international law are also incorporated. Article 3 has an important social significance in the implicit assurance that social rights would be enjoyed equally by Māori with all New Zealand citizens of whatever origin. Special measures to attain that equal enjoyment of social benefits are allowed by international law.

Principle of reasonable cooperation

The Treaty is regarded by the Crown as establishing a fair basis for two peoples in one country. Duality and unity are both significant. Duality implies distinctive cultural development while unity implies common purpose and community. The relationship between community and distinctive development is governed by the requirement of cooperation, which is an obligation placed on both parties by the Treaty. Reasonable cooperation can only take place if there consultation on major issues of common concern and if good faith, balance, and common sense are shown on all sides. The outcome of reasonable cooperation will be partnership.

Principle of redress

The Crown accepts a responsibility to provide a process for the resolution of grievances arising from the Treaty. This process may involve courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or direct negotiation. The provision of redress, where entitlement is established, must take account of its practical impact and of the need to avoid the creation of fresh injustice. If the Crown demonstrates commitment to this process of redress, it will expect reconciliation to result.

The "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill" was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament in 2005 as a private member's bill by New Zealand First MP Doug Woolerton. "This bill eliminates all references to the expressions "the principles of the Treaty", "the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" and the "Treaty of Waitangi and its principles" from all New Zealand Statutes including all preambles, interpretations, schedules, regulations and other provisos included in or arising from each and every such Statute".[32] The bill is unlikely to become law.

Reverse of a 1990 one dollar coin commemorating the sesquicentenary of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Claims for redress

Main article: Treaty of Waitangi claims and settlements

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Treaty of Waitangi became the focus of a strong Māori protest movement which rallied around calls for the government to "honour the treaty" and to "redress treaty grievances." Māori expressed their frustration about continuing violations of the treaty and subsequent legislation by government officials, as well as inequitable legislation and unsympathetic decisions by the Māori Land Court alienating Māori land from its Māori owners.

During the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical (pre-1992) claims. As of September 2008, there have been 23 such settlements of various sizes, totalling approximately $700 million. Settlements generally include financial redress, a formal Crown apology for breaches of the Treaty, and recognition of the group's cultural associations with various sites.

Public opinion

While during the 1990s there was broad agreement between major political parties that the settlement of historical claims was appropriate, in recent years it has become the subject of heightened debate. Claims of a "Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry", which profits from making frivolous claims of violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, have been made by a number of political figures, including former National Party leader Don Brash. Although claims relating to loss of land by Māori are relatively uncontroversial, debate has focused on claims that fall outside common law concepts of ownership, or relate to technologies developed since colonisation. Examples include the ownership of the radio spectrum and the protection of the Māori language.

The New Zealand Election Study of 2008 found of the 2,700 voting age New Zealanders surveyed, 37.4% wanted the Treaty removed from New Zealand law, 19.7% were neutral and 36.8% wanted the Treaty kept in law. 39.7% agreed Māori deserved compensation, 15.7% were neutral and 41.2% disagreed.[33]

This article is copied from an article on Wikipedia® - the free encyclopedia created and edited by online user community. The text was not checked or edited by anyone on our staff. Although the vast majority of the Wikipedia® encyclopedia articles provide accurate and timely information please do not assume the accuracy of any particular article. This article is distributed under the terms of GNU Free Documentation License.

Thanks to Encyclopedia The Free Dictionary / Farlex, Inc.
http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/p/History%20of%20New%20Zealand

To Get Uninterrupted Daily Article(s) / Review(s) Updates; Kindly Subscribe To This BlogSpot:- http://Ziaullahkhan.BlogSpot.com Via "RSS Feed" Or "Email Subscription".
BlogSpot	http://ziaullahkhan.blogspot.com
Other Sites Related To This Blog; Kindly Visit:
Amazon Books	http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20
Amazon Magazines	http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=1323
Kindle Store	http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-book-books-20?_encoding=UTF8&node=851
Products	http://astore.amazon.com/amazon-everyday-low-prices-sale-deals-bargains-discounts-20
Google+	https://plus.google.com/i/TJK3yQ6lPWQ:hSGLwIJTQU8
Facebook Page	http://www.facebook.com/pages/KnowledgeCenter-Products/267269689987751?sk=wall
Twitter	http://twitter.com/#!/Babajan786
YouTube	http://www.youtube.com/user/ZKDQ786