The Treaty of Waitangi / te tiriti o waitangi: incomplete notes on NZ's foremost political problem

not a legal instrument, but a peg on which to hang integrity

- in Hebrew thought, 'my people' are those by whom I have been adopted, almost if not actually synonymous with those with whom I identify, and on this basis the Christian scriptures construct intergenerational solidarity

- I am part of my people in a way which identifies me with their obligations and their benefits

- in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi/te tiriti o waitangi (the English version is significantly different from its Maori 'translation', though not intentionally, I believe) was a solemn covenant entered in good faith between the Christian apologist, Governor Hobson, on behalf of his Christian Queen, Victoria of England, and the Maori peoples of NZ, by virtue of the signatures or marks of many of their chiefs

- for various reasons the Treaty/te tiriti cannot be considered an enforceable legal instrument within any category avaialable to our legal system

- 'sovereignty', passed to the Queen in the English version, included by English law 'eminent domain'/underlying title, which conveys absolute rights to the holder

- soveriegnty vests rights of posession, use and disposal in the ultimate hands of the Crown, to pass 'in trust' as 'private' ownership to whomever it wishes (and a common law tradition exists to preserve the 'customary use' of unconquered (or is it conquered??) native peoples)

- yet 'sovereignty' in the Maori version was translated in terms of 'governorship' (a transliteration of the word 'governor'), giving the sense of 'overall benevolent oversight'

- rangitiratanga, preserved to Maori in te tiriti, meant control & guardianship, which excludes eminent domain (not only because rangitiratanga has no such category, but) especially when read in conjuction with the express guarantee of taonga (treasures/resources-under-stewardship) preservation

- Maori believe that their role with respect to the land & taonga is not to be construed in terms of any European legal constructs or privileges such as 'rights', 'ownership', 'exclusion', or outcomes such as 'disposal' or 'profit'

- rather, Maori self-identity is as guardians & stewards, preservers of the land for all their generations, who are 'the people of the land' (tangata whenua)

- after the Treaty/te tiriti, all people of NZ have become by that agreement, 'people of the land'

- in other words, the basic spirit of te tiriti on the part of maori was to welcome a new people to use and benefit from their land, provided they retained the guardianship (rangitiratanga) of it

- return of rangitiratanga is no threat to NZ, will remove the stain of dishonour from a Christian heritage in this land, and will be a great blessing and example in terms of covenant-keeping

- breach of Maori obligation is also to be dealt with by the courts in response to the Treaty/te tiriti, because by that treaty they too are obliged to act faithfully

My opinion is that the Crown, my people, should keep covenant, repent of their breaches, and restore rangitiratanga to the iwi (tribes) of Maori from whom it was faithlessly wrested.