Post by Kiwi Frontline on Feb 3, 2024 5:24:51 GMT 12
Barrie Davis: TEMERITY AFTER TEMERITY.
Salmond’s 2023 book, but not her 2010 submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, includes the following regarding ‘partnership’ when considering Article 3 of the Treaty (p. 365):
“While the relationship between Maori and the Queen has often been described as a ‘partnership’ between the ‘Maori race’ or the ‘Maori people’ and the Crown, this is a misunderstanding. Nga tangata maori, often translated as ‘the Maori people’, describes indigenous individuals in their personal capacities (literally, ordinary human beings), not as an ethnic or racial group (e.g., te iwi Maori).”
Salmond explains,
“In English, there is only one definite article (the), while in te reo there are two, singular (te) and plural (nga). To define ‘nga tangata maori’ in the plural as ‘the Maori people’ in the singular, as in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, or ‘the Maori race’ in the 1987 Lands Case, is a translation error. This grammatical difference – at least in part – allows an interpretive slippage into a reading of Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between two races’.”
So, there is not a partnership between the Maoris collectively and the Crown in the Treaty, as the Waitangi Tribunal may have believed, but a personal relationship between the Queen and individual Maoris. Salmond continues (in the 2023 revised version, p. 365):
“This echoes Ture 2 [Article 2], in which the Queen agrees to uphold te tino rangatiratanga of nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani (all the inhabitants of New Zealand), as well as the rangatira and the hapu; i.e., a multilateral and personal relationship with these different parties.”
Note that the above quote in Maori is the same as that in the ‘leaked’ document under Article 2, “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga”, the English part of which reads, “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and their property”.
Of the Second Article (in Maori), Salmond further writes (p. 362):
“These phrases, which we have translated as ‘The Queen ratifies and agrees with the Rangatira, the hapu and all the inhabitants of New Zealand to the full chieftainship of their lands, their dwelling places and all of their valued items [taonga]’, suggest that within their own domains, under the new relationship, the rangatira, hapu and all the inhabitants of New Zealand would retain autonomous control over their lands, villages and prized items. This was in effect a promise to these parties that their mana would be upheld in any relationship with the Queen. ‘All the inhabitants of New Zealand’ is not restricted to indigenous inhabitants in this clause.”
Furthermore, the back translation into English by Professor (later Sir) Hugh Kawharu, which was that preferred by the Waitangi Tribunal, also says: “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.” Surely the Tribunal must have known that ‘all the people of New Zealand’ includes non-Maoris?
Whereas Salmond says by the 1840 Treaty (in Maori) the Queen ratifies for all New Zealanders – Maori and non-Maori – the full chieftainship of their land and property; the ACT Bill says the New Zealand Government (which is said to be ‘the Crown’) will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and property. Both say they will fulfil the chieftainship of land and property for all New Zealanders. So really, the ACT proposal does not so much update the Treaty, as correct a mistake made by the Waitangi Tribunal and/or the Courts……
Read the full article here > breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/02/barrie-davis-temerity-after-temerity.html
Salmond’s 2023 book, but not her 2010 submission to the Waitangi Tribunal, includes the following regarding ‘partnership’ when considering Article 3 of the Treaty (p. 365):
“While the relationship between Maori and the Queen has often been described as a ‘partnership’ between the ‘Maori race’ or the ‘Maori people’ and the Crown, this is a misunderstanding. Nga tangata maori, often translated as ‘the Maori people’, describes indigenous individuals in their personal capacities (literally, ordinary human beings), not as an ethnic or racial group (e.g., te iwi Maori).”
Salmond explains,
“In English, there is only one definite article (the), while in te reo there are two, singular (te) and plural (nga). To define ‘nga tangata maori’ in the plural as ‘the Maori people’ in the singular, as in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, or ‘the Maori race’ in the 1987 Lands Case, is a translation error. This grammatical difference – at least in part – allows an interpretive slippage into a reading of Te Tiriti as a ‘partnership between two races’.”
So, there is not a partnership between the Maoris collectively and the Crown in the Treaty, as the Waitangi Tribunal may have believed, but a personal relationship between the Queen and individual Maoris. Salmond continues (in the 2023 revised version, p. 365):
“This echoes Ture 2 [Article 2], in which the Queen agrees to uphold te tino rangatiratanga of nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani (all the inhabitants of New Zealand), as well as the rangatira and the hapu; i.e., a multilateral and personal relationship with these different parties.”
Note that the above quote in Maori is the same as that in the ‘leaked’ document under Article 2, “ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga”, the English part of which reads, “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and their property”.
Of the Second Article (in Maori), Salmond further writes (p. 362):
“These phrases, which we have translated as ‘The Queen ratifies and agrees with the Rangatira, the hapu and all the inhabitants of New Zealand to the full chieftainship of their lands, their dwelling places and all of their valued items [taonga]’, suggest that within their own domains, under the new relationship, the rangatira, hapu and all the inhabitants of New Zealand would retain autonomous control over their lands, villages and prized items. This was in effect a promise to these parties that their mana would be upheld in any relationship with the Queen. ‘All the inhabitants of New Zealand’ is not restricted to indigenous inhabitants in this clause.”
Furthermore, the back translation into English by Professor (later Sir) Hugh Kawharu, which was that preferred by the Waitangi Tribunal, also says: “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.” Surely the Tribunal must have known that ‘all the people of New Zealand’ includes non-Maoris?
Whereas Salmond says by the 1840 Treaty (in Maori) the Queen ratifies for all New Zealanders – Maori and non-Maori – the full chieftainship of their land and property; the ACT Bill says the New Zealand Government (which is said to be ‘the Crown’) will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and property. Both say they will fulfil the chieftainship of land and property for all New Zealanders. So really, the ACT proposal does not so much update the Treaty, as correct a mistake made by the Waitangi Tribunal and/or the Courts……
Read the full article here > breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/02/barrie-davis-temerity-after-temerity.html