The Treaty of Waitangi is a very important document to New Zealand. It is an agreement that was drawn up by representatives of the British Crown and Maori Hapu and Iwi. It was first signed at the Bay of Islands on February 6th, 1840. There has been a lot of debate over the years about the translation of words between the English and Te Reo Maori versions of the text and the differences in the word meaning over the who languages. In this assignment I am going to cover the rights and responsibilities that the treaty contains and an explanation of the differences in wordings and I am also going to contextualise my understanding of the differences of wording against the Maori Worldview and the Declaration of Independence.
The Treaty of Waitangi held many agreements and promises. It held many rights within it also. For the Crown, it granted the right to governorship, not sovereignty, over Maori land. But for Maori, there were many more rights for iwi and hapu that the Treaty contained. Maori were granted the right to full rangatiratanga of their lands, they had the right that the Crown would protect them from further invasion of their land and Maori were also given the same rights and privileges as British people. With the Treaty came many responsibilities to both the Crown and Maori. The Crown had a responsibility to govern the land, not possess the land, but merely guard it. In the Treaty of Waitangi the Crown granted Maori rangatiratanga over their lands, so the Crown had a responsibility to let Maori have chieftainship over their lands and taonga, and with that The Crown also had the responsibility to actively protect Maori and Taonga. The Queen, the Crown and all of Britain had a responsibility to honour the Treaty, in which th...
... middle of paper ...
...n. In this assignment I have covered the rights and responsibilities that the treaty contains and an explanation of the differences in wordings and I have also contextualised my understanding of the differences of wording against the Maori Worldview and the Declaration of Independence.
Works Cited
All about the Treaty. (2005). Wellington, New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi
Information Programme
Durie, M. (2003). Nga kahui pou launching maori features. Wellington, New
Zealand: Huia Publishers
Orange, C. (2004). The illustrated history of the treaty of waitangi. Wellington,
New Zealand: Astra Print
Merriam-Webster Dictionary. (2011). Retrieved from http://www.merriam-
webster.com
Ministry for Culture and Heritage. (2011). Retrieved from
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz
Sauguarrum’s testimony on the negotiations reveals that the English had twisted what the Penobscot leader had said to the English. Firstly, Sauguarrum talked personally to an English man about the structure of the treaty and what will be addressed. However, the answers he gave to the English never showed up in the treaty. For example, Sauguarrum did acknowledge the English king, but did not see King George as his own king. Also, during the negotiations, the English allowed the Indian chiefs to decide on justice if any quarrels occurred between the two parties, but in the treaty, King George and the English get to decide the punishment. This account of the negotiations leading up to the treaty reveal that the English intentionally changed the language in treaty to give English complete control over the Abenaki Indians. The first-hand account of the negotiations also reveals that there were complications ...
Their main vision is to empower the idea of a shared country and encourage opportunities for growth. With the perplexed requirements set out by the Native Title Act, this tribunal has helped claimants by providing legal aid to increase the chances of regaining lost land. For example, the Wik Peoples v Queensland (1996) 187 CLR 1 case was successful in recognising the lost land of the Wik people of Cape York. “They claimed native title over land that had previously been leased by the State Government to farmers for pastoral use” (Woodgate, Black, Biggs & Owens, 2011, p.354). The court then decided by a 4:3 majority that pastoral leases did not necessarily extinguish native title. This means that, in some cases, native title rights will co-exist with the rights of the pastoralists. Therefore, through progression and more native title cases heard, the laws surrounding the Native Title Act will adapt to further assist the Indigenous Australians in reclaiming their land. For instance, the processes surrounding Native Title issues are constantly being refined. As more and more people and political parties become aware of this process, the easier court litigation will become (Dow, 2002)
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights." The Canadian Encyclopedia. Historica Canada, n.d. Web. 03 May 2014.
The Treaty of New Echota, was ratified by the United States Senate, by one vote, without the approval of the Cherokee Nation (The Cherokee and the Trail of Tears). The treaty brought abou...
Struggles by Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people for recognition of their rights and interests have been long and arduous (Choo & Hollobach: 2003:5). The ‘watershed’ decision made by the High Court of Australia in 1992 (Mabo v Queensland) paved the way for Indigenous Australians to obtain what was ‘stolen’ from them in 1788 when the British ‘invaded’ (ATSIC:1988). The focus o...
Few Canadians acknowledge the Aboriginals and their land rights, and even fewer Canadians study them. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 is considered one of the most important treaties in history to be made with the Native People; yet very few have even a vague idea when they hear the words “Royal Proclamation, 1763”. Even with the grounds that the Royal Proclamation of 1763 provided, Canada has repeatedly shown ill treatment towards Aboriginals in an repugnant manner. The Royal Proclamation should be respected as an official treaty, signified as a milestone, as well as to be a lesson to teach Canadians equality toward Aboriginals.
The Effectiveness of Native Title The debate about native title issues has tended to see issues from idealistic perspectives ignoring the practical realities that native title poses to governments, industry and indigenous people. The implementation of the Native Title is an appropriate and significant aspect of Australia’s common and statute law, which effectively strives to develop a fair outcome for all Australian citizens. The Native Title Act 1993, like the court Mabo decision in 1992, transforms the ways in, which indigenous ownership of land may be formally recognised and incorporated within Australian legal and property regimes. The process of implementation, however, raises a number of crucial issues of concern to native title claimants and to other interested parties. These issues will need to be settled in court however, despite the many disputes between opposing stakeholders, the Australian Native Title effectively reaches the best and fairest possible outcomes for all Australian citizens.
Thurston, Lorrin A. “A hand-book on the annexation of Hawaii.” Foreign and Commonwealth Office Collection (1897).
In 1992, the doctrine of terra nullius was overruled by the High Court in the case Mabo v Queensland (No.2) [1992] HCA 23. After recognising that the Meriam people of Murray Island in the Torres Straits were native title landholders of their traditional land, the court also held that native title existed for all the Indigenous people in Australia prior to European contact. To make the legal position of landholders and the processes that must be followed in claiming native title clear, the federal government passed the Native Title Act 1993 (Cth). The Native Title, which was drafted in 1993, attempted to provide a fair and just method of dealing with land in the future. However one of the fundamental flaws of the native title system is that the concept of native title was based on the prejudiced principle that the Crown had the power to extinguish traditional indigenous ownership of the land. Although the government could have been able to amend the flaws of the Native Title Act following the High Court’s decision in relation to the Wik Case, which laid the rules for co-existence and reconciliation of shared interests in the land, they failed to do so. Amendments to the Native Title Act in 1998 undermined any benefits the Indigenous people could have received, and provided the already-powerful non-Indige...
Indigenous Australian land rights have sparked controversy between Non Indigenous and Indigenous Australians throughout history. The struggle to determine who the rightful owners of the land are is still largely controversial throughout Australia today. Indigenous Australian land rights however, go deeper than simply owning the land as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders have established an innate spiritual connection making them one with the land. The emphasis of this essay is to determine how Indigenous Australian land rights have impacted Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, highlighting land rights regarding the Mabo v. the State of Queensland case and the importance behind today’s teachers understanding and including Indigenous
This paper supports Thomas Flanagan's argument against Native sovereignty in Canada; through an evaluation of the meanings of sovereignty it is clear that Native sovereignty can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty. Flanagan outlines two main interpretations of sovereignty. Through an analysis of these ideas it is clear that Native Sovereignty in Canada can not coexist with Canadian sovereignty.
Introduction “We are all treaty people” Campaign. The year 1907 marked the beginning of treaty making in Canada. The British Crown claims to negotiate treaties in pursuance of peaceful relations between Aboriginal peoples and non-Aboriginals (Canada, p. 3, 2011). Treaties started as agreements for peace and military purposes but later transformed into land entitlements (Egan, 2012, p. 400).
The decision upheld the claims of five plaintiffs from Murray Island that Australia was occupied by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people who had their own laws and customs, and whose 'native title' to land survived the Crown's invasion. Therefore, the court recognised the presence of native title as part of Australian common law.
Australia’s Indigenous people are thought to have reached the continent between 60 000 and 80 000 years ago. Over the thousands of years since then, a complex customary legal system have developed, strongly linked to the notion of kinship and based on oral tradition. The indigenous people were not seen as have a political culture or system for law. They were denied the access to basic human right e.g., the right to land ownership. Their cultural values of indigenous people became lost. They lost their traditional lifestyle and became disconnected socially. This means that they were unable to pass down their heritage and also were disconnected from the new occupants of the land.
To conclude, Te reo Maori is one of the treasures given to Maori people as one of their taonga from their God as part of their identity. It is important for the Maori people to keep their language survives for the mokopuna as well as connecting them to the land, values and beliefs. The principles of Te Tiriti o Waitangi were partnership, participation and protection that the Crown failed to act upon which result in Waitangi Tribunal. Te Whariki and New Zealand curriculum promotes and implement bicultural to revitalised Te reo Maori as well as strengthening the partnership between Maori and Pakeha of the Te Tiriti of Waitangi.