Re-interpret the treaty

Tu Tangata, Issue 16, 1 March 1984, Page 34

Re-interpret the treaty

Marjorie Fuller

Although there has been no debate by the public regarding the Treaty of Waitangi, it is a timeless subject still widely discussed on most marae in the country. This proves the serious concern it holds for Maori people rather than the general public.

Most petitions to Parliament by Maori people regarding lands, seashore, rivers and lakes are based on the Treaty of Waitangi. The document, signed over 140 years ago, guaranteed to the Maori people the full possession of their lands, estates, forests and fisheries. Breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi are seen in the compulsory acquisition of customary Maori Land under the Public Works Act 1928; the Soil Conservation and Rivers Control Act; the Petroleum Act 1937; and other Acts pertaining to the land confiscation. Radicals protest that the Treaty is a fraud saying at the time of its inception it gave the Maori people no protection against land-hungry capitals who carved up and developed Maori lands: These radicals push for ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi to give it judicial

recognition. However, the result would end in amendments to the Treaty which would end up becoming a political football. Another veto against the interference with the Treaty, is that a majority of Maori people believe it has strong tapu elements, thus making it sacrosanct. The document is signed by ancestors. Their mark or signature is inked onto the parchment indicating the significance and tapu as is any piece of traditional material preserved from former days. In short, who would dare alter the surface of a carved doorway or panel within a meeting house because his or her modern view looks better done another way? Now, 144 years later, it would be unwise to alter the words of the Treaty. What is needed is to alter the effect of the words. With the full consultation and cooperation on equal terms with European and Maori alike, and with full awareness on both sides of the demands and obligations of both culture's customs and concepts, this could be done. The Motunui furore would never have occured it this had been the policy in 1840. (Abridged)