In terms of peace, new knowledge and understanding about the Treaty and issues of race and ethnicity, Aotearoa New Zealand remains very much a calabash yet to be carved. Peace, new knowledge and understanding can be inscribed within our society, however, with the advent of stronger Treaty of Waitangi and citizenship education. This education can embrace cultural distinctiveness whilst maintaining national and global unity. It must empower students to actively engage in measures to realise societal transformation. Current education in Aotearoa fails to encourage critical self- exploration and acts as a barrier to the attainment of the critical consciousness. As a result, Māori continue to be marginalised and absorbed within structures that serve to exasperate societal inequalities. The dialogue between Māori and Pākehā is stained with ‘dirty politics’ that represent the continued dominance of colonialism in Aotearoa. Treaty and citizenship education can play an influential role in improving ‘race relations’ in Aotearoa and its components must be better reflected within the New Zealand Curriculum. Treaty and citizenship education can ensure that the rhetoric of ‘race’ is not adopted to legitimize societal inequalities and endorse arguments of Māori receiving ‘special privileges’. Until Treaty and citizenship education become more prevalent within schools, the action-reaction cycle of societal inequality and cultural marginalisation will continue to occur, and the many benefits our next generation in secondary school could be receiving will never be realised. New/beginning social sciences teachers must be better supported, through their teacher training, the New Zealand Curriculum, teaching resources and professional development, to ensure Treaty and citizenship education are strong core components of a New Zealand education. The next chapter provides a summary of recommendations and a model for support for these new beginning teachers.
140 Read more
Here the aim is not to provide full reparation according to rights, but rather to achieve a mutually acceptable accommodation of claims that allows the parties to move forward in a relationship of good faith and trust. In situations where the rights and culture of Indigenous peoples have been denied unjustly in the past, this will likely involve the giving of an apology, at least, and also the provision of substantive redress to restore the victim to a position of strength so that the ongoing relationship between the parties is one of equality or partnership. The Treaty of Waitangi provides the boundaries for negotiating such an “overlapping consensus” in New Zealand’s Treaty settlement process. Further, the counterfactual of ensuring Maori cultural survival sounds very much like Thompson’s reconciliatory approach: by providing reparation (including an apology) to restore the cultural integrity of the tribe, the parties are able to re- establish a relationship of respect and trust. Thus, reparative justice as reconciliation allows us to view the results of the Treaty settlement process as ‘justice’ while accepting that it may be impossible, strictly speaking, to give Maori claimant groups their full rights under the Treaty either because there is limited agreement about what those rights are or it is simply outside the power of the wrongdoer to provide them.
40 Read more
My argument here is that the invocation of the Treaty and partnership in the NZAC Code calls counsellors to take a moral position in support of partnership activities in all areas of life in Aotearoa New Zealand, and not just to locate partnership within their practice with their clients. I will return to this point later when I consider various impli- cations across a range of practice contexts. I suggest that, as counsellors, we need to decide whether we should respond in the “spirit of partnership” or whether we could frame our response as the more familiar “partnership,” given that the latter does not match the particular emphasis of the definitive interpretation by the Royal Commission. Just prior to the work of the Royal Commission, the Treaty of Waitangi was first seen as creating a relationship “akin to a partnership” in what is generally referred to as the “Lands” case (New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, 1987). In his judgement, Mr Justice Cooke, the President of the Court of Appeal, found that the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi “require the Päkehä and Mäori Treaty partners to act towards each other reasonably and with the utmost good faith” (New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General, 1987, p. 669). Here, Justice Cooke followed the common usage of that time in using “Päkehä” to refer to the Crown, and in using “Mäori” he was referring to a collective who represented iwi, the New Zealand Mäori Council. His comments need to be read as relating to Iwi and the Crown
12 Read more
delegation was snubbed and referred back to the New Zealand government. And what did our government say, 5 years later when they eventually replied? They dismissed as “unreasonable and absurd” Tawhiao’s petition for a Maori Council to administer Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi. In 1882, a Ngapuhi deputation to England appealed to the Queen a Royal Commission to investigate and rectify laws that contravene the Treaty, and permission to establish a Maori Parliament. Again, the deputation was snubbed, and belittled locally.
Until relatively recently M?ori used both versions of the Treaty of Waitangi as it suited them and the English version, explicitly identifying forests and fisheries, was more useful in some litigation. M?ori grievances against the Crown leading to the Northern War of 1845 can all be justified as breaches of even a narrow reading of the English text. Restriction on felling of kauri was clearly in violation of article two’s promise in English to protect ‘exclusive and undisturbed’ possession of forests and taking as Crown land, land not awarded to settlers, but not sold to the Crown by M?ori was also a clear breach of the article two text in English. No right to impose excise duties was negotiated in any form at Waitangi. Until the 1980s it did not matter much which text of the Treaty of Waitangi was appealed to, the courts considered both beyond their jurisdiction. Either one could be a symbol of promises broken. Historically, M?ori appeals to the treaty combined protest over resources lost and rights to constitutional autonomy: they often challenged the authority of the New Zealand Parliament to make law over M?ori. However, they very rarely questioned the sovereignty of the monarch and often appealed to the monarch to protect M?ori from the powers of the New Zealand Parliament. The idea that there were two very different treaties on 5 February 1840 is, in recent decades, largely due to the influence of Ruth Ross’s 1972 article in the New Zealand Journal of History, which has played a dominant role in interpreting the treaty negotiations ever since. Academics and lawyers latched onto Ross’s view that the M?ori text of the treaty did not adequately transfer sovereignty. This provided academic support to tribal histories that denied the Crown’s assertions that ancestors had given the Crown powers to impose laws on M?ori without their explicit consent. Ross’s conclusions clearly influenced Ranginui Walker in his highly influential 1991 M?ori history Ka Whawhai Tonu Matou: Struggle without End and Walker sat on the Northland Waitangi Tribunal.
10 Read more
The reasons for signing and not signing To fully understand the Treaty of Waitangi, it is important to consider not only the objectives of the British Government and Crown officials but also of Mäori. What did the 500 or so Mäori chiefs from all over the country who signed the Treaty hope to obtain? And why did some chiefs not sign it? Chiefs based their decision to sign the Treaty (or to refuse to sign) on the terms of the Treaty presented to them, the Mäori text, on explanations given by Crown representatives and advisors, and on their own assessment of the benefits to be gained by agreement. The latter two factors varied. Those who agreed to sign, therefore, did so for reasons that varied from one region to another. Many who did sign were fearful or uncertain of the outcome. One issue on which there seems to have been real confusion was Crown pre-emption (the exclusive right of land purchase). On only one occasion, it seems, when Captain Bunbury took the Treaty to Tauranga, was this discussed comprehensively. It is possible that those who explained the Treaty to Mäori did not themselves fully understand the implications of this legal doctrine. Mäori in some areas believed that they had agreed only to a right of "first refusal", that is, if the Crown was unable or unwilling to buy a particular piece of land at a price the Mäori owners regarded as fair, then it could be sold freely to private buyers. As a matter of law, however, the pre-emption doctrine is not a right of first refusal: it means that land held under customary title can be sold only to the Crown or not at all. Generally, those charged with explaining the Treaty to Mäori stressed the advantages of bringing British subjects under the control of the Crown, something the chiefs had been asking for since 1831. They played down the impact of the British acquisition of sovereignty and its likely consequences for Mäori. The second article seemed to assure Mäori that the position and authority of the chiefs was recognised and protected by the British Government. Missionary assurances that the Treaty would be of benefit to Mäori were significant in overcoming the caution
12 Read more
On 8 July 1844, Hone Heke, the first of 45 chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi, cut down the flagstaff at Russell. That Maori would at some point challenge British authority was perhaps inevitable. 79 Faced with an impending crisis Fitzroy requested a detachment of troops from Sydney which arrived in July 1845. In the meantime he took the opportunity to remind Maori of the many benefits and privileges they had received as a result of British colonisation. At Waimate, in Northland, in September 1844 Fitzroy stated that 30 years earlier they ‘were wild barbarians, utterly unlike Christians-utterly uncivilised’. At that time people came to trade, ‘among them came some bad men, who did much harm’. He made sure to stress that it was they who had requested King William’s help. They were informed that ‘formerly, European nations attacked and conquered countries inhabited by uncivilized men’. He assured them that ‘England acted differently’, it was ‘determined to save and protect the inhabitants of New Zealand’. By placing them ‘under the protection’ of the British flag—a ‘signal of freedom, liberty, and safety’—they were spared ‘a fate as that which has since befallen Tahiti and Marquesa’. 80
291 Read more
As of 2014 the Commission will be reduced to 2/3 of the number of member states. The reduction must based on a system of “strictly equal rotation” (article 9d (5) TEU). This means that every third term there will not be a Maltese or Luxembourg Commissioner just as there will not be a French or German one, i.e. regardless of the size of the member state. One could argue that this does not matter, since Commissioners are not meant to be representative of their home country anyway, and should rather define (and defend) the common European interest. However, the French President Nicolas Sarkozy in particular has already voiced concern and suggested that the elected Commission President should be free to chose his/her team in the future. Certainly this suggestion was also motivated by the (probably realistic) belief that a Commission President would not dare to ignore a French candidate for his/her team. The system of equal rotation still needs to be implemented through a unanimous Council decision before 2014. With the rest of the treaty already in force by then, the requirement for unanimity will still give large member states an opportunity to
127 The article represented something of a turning point for the river. It gave a level of exposure to the river’s state that built on previous negative publicity (see, for example, Burns, 2009; One News, 2006; Smale, 2001), and precipitated the formation of the Manawatū River Leaders’ Forum. In February 2010, the then chairman of the regional council called a private meeting of senior individuals representing groups, corporates and agencies that had an interest in the river. Iwi were not invited (see Chapter 6). Representatives from Fonterra, New Zealand Pharmaceuticals, Forest and Bird, Fish and Game, and the Department of Conservation attended, however, alongside the mayors of the catchment’s four district councils (see L. Jackson, 2010). According to the media, ‘the main polluters admitted the state of the river is not acceptable’ and ‘vowed to clean up their act’ (as cited in L. Jackson, 2010). High profile freshwater ecologist Dr Mike Joy, who also attended the meeting, regarded the polluters’ collective admission as ‘amazing’ (as cited in L. Jackson, 2010). ‘Nobody tried to deny it’, he was reported as saying, ‘I thought I was in a dream’.
332 Read more
Cotton textiles (1300-1840) in China bore many similarities with the proto-industry in other advanced premodern economies such as 18h century England. The following key dif- ferences, however, deserve emphasis. (a.) Chinese households typically owned the machines rather than renting them. Households occasionally owned more than one machine and hired help, but they did so on a very limited scale(Fairbank, 1978). (b.) Few concurrent technology shocks occurred during the relevant time frame (1300-1840). The cotton revolution took place in an agrarian economy, and the economy remained largely agrarian for the next sixth cen- turies. (c.) A relatively small number of regions had the geo-climatic conditions suitable for spinning and weaving, and especially, for weaving. (d.) Though the goods market was dense and highly sophisticated in both countries, the labor market was far from being a free labor market. Emperors in the Ming and Qing periods instituted strict laws on labor mobility. The
97 Read more
Figure 4 shows the results of monthly variations of mean length and weight. The best growing season was observed between August and December. Females showed higher mean lengths in November, January, July, August, September and October in comparison to males (P<0.05). No significant differences in monthly weight variation were observed for December, February, April, May and June. On the other hand, females have higher mean weights than males in the rest of the year (P<0.05).
This sheet is in the same handwriting as the one used by Henry Williams and also has a ruled double border. It has another genuine but shaky signature by Hobson, showing that he was recovering from his stroke. Henry Williams passed it to his brother William Williams on 8 April, to get signatures from chiefs from the East Cape through to Ahuriri (Napier). Between 5 and 12 May, 25 chiefs at Türanga signed this copy and further marks were gathered at other places. These were witnessed by William Williams, Henry Williams Jnr, and George Clarke Jnr, and made a total of 41. In his letter to Shortland on 8 May, William Williams refers to it as a "draft of [a] Treaty", indicating that he expected a subsequent confirm- ation or ratification. He is the only missionary to suggest this. In his instructions to Bunbury dated 25 April, Hobson stated that all signatures taken after 6 February were merely testimonials of adherence.