Home > Issues > Race > The Rev Williams got it right back in 1844
	Empowering Men: fighting feminist lies
The Rev Williams got it right back in 1844 © Denis Hampton 2004 (Previously published in the Otago Daily Times on 7 May 2004 and in the Christchurch Press on 2 June 2004.)

 

In recognition that the Crown and Maori together have an obligation under the Treaty of Waitangi to preserve, protect, and promote te Reo Maori...” — so states the purpose clause of the Maori Television Service Act.

Its preamble tells us more. It quotes the Waitangi Tribunal which once said, “The Maori language is an essential part of Maori culture and must be regarded as a taonga, a valued possession.. . “ Maori TV and a host of government programmes in recent years have relied on this interpretation.

What I now call the “taonga industry” indeed has the best of backing. In a 1994 judgement, the Privy Council held that the treaty word taonga meant “treasures”, that the Maori language was one such treasure, and that the Crown had an obligation to protect it.

The council’s findings came at the end of a long line of Waitangi Tribunal hearings, and then actions pursued in the courts by the Maori Council. Their Lordships’ statements are now apparently accepted as definitive. But are they right? Is this really what the 1840 treaty signatories had in mind?

In his 1844 Maori language dictionary, the Rev William Williams translated taonga simply as “property”. In its third edition, in 1871, the word “treasure” was added. An explanation for this can be found in F.E. Maning’s early book Old New Zealand. In pre-European times, personal chattels, such as clothes, weapons, ornaments and tools, were precious because of the great labour and time spent in their making.

Maning was no casual observer of early Maori. By 1833 he had settled in Hokianga, where he married the sister of a chief. He was later appointed judge of the Native Land Court. He observed Maori eagerness to trade with visiting ships. The simplest of items acquired could dramatically improve their way of life. He later translated taonga as “goods; property” and gave not the slightest hint that it should include the intangible “treasures” now claimed.

To the fifth and later editions of the Williams dictionary were added the words “anything highly prized”. And there, until the recent treaty renaissance, the matter rested.

Enter the Waitangi Tribunal. In a 1984 report, it accepted the phrase “ratou taonga katoa” as meaning “all things highly prized”. The following year it concluded taonga meant more than objects of tangible value. It stated a river might be a taonga as a valuable resource, and that its “mauri” or “life-force” was another taonga.

In its Te Reo Maori report, the tribunal noted evidence given by Prof Hirini Mead, of Victoria University. His view was that the phrase “0 ratou taonga katoa” covered both tangible and intangible things and could best be translated by the expression “all their valued customs and possessions”. The tribunal added the language was an essential part of the culture and must be regarded as a valued possession.

And so the die was cast. The Te Reo Maori report is dated April 29, 1986. Perhaps it is just coincidence that Koro Wetere introduced his Maori Language Bill into Parliament on the same day.

Buoyed by the tribunal’s reports, Parliament’s Maori Affairs Select Committee, in June 1987, recommended the Bill’s preamble should declare categorically the Maori language was a taonga, guaranteed by the treaty. Parliament, in a frenzy of political correctness, duly obliged.

Meanwhile, the Maori Council was pursuing its State-Owned Enterprises (SOE) challenge through the courts. Put as evidence by the claimants, and accepted by the Crown, was Prof Hugh Kahwharu’s translation of the treaty’s Maori text. It included the now oft-quoted reference to Maori “chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures”.

Several key reports had now been published by the tribunal, and these were available to the courts. In the SOE action, it was acknowledged that although not legally binding, the reports were nevertheless of considerable value. Justice Lord Robin Cooke later (amazingly) described them as “books of authority in matters of public history and social science”.

In a 1992 Court of Appeal judgement, Lord Cooke said the Crown and Maori had agreed the Maori language (Te Reo Maori) was a highly prized property or treasure (taonga) of Maori. He also said the Crown, as well as guaranteeing undisturbed possession of the language to Maori, also undertook to protect it.

He noted this interpretation of the treaty was adopted by the tribunal in their Te Reo Maori report. In evidence given at the hearings, it was argued the word “guarantee” denoted an active executive sense rather than a passive permissive sense. It required active steps be taken to ensure Maori people had and retained the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their language and culture.

While it was commendable the tribunal gave close attention to the word “guarantee”, it was a pity it did not extend its enquiry, and in particular, to the word “exclusive”. It would surely have then realised it was nonsense to say the Crown, be it 1840 or the present, could guarantee exclusive possession of language or for that matter, any other intangible.

Language and culture cannot be exclusive; they are available to us all. Clearly, the treaty, in both its versions, was dealing only with tangible property.

The Rev Williams and F.E. Maning were right all those years ago; taonga is simply property, tangible property. The courts, and in particular the Privy Council might have accepted the tribunal’s findings, but the fact is that the taonga industry was founded on myth.

• The writer is a Christchurch Treaty of Waitangi researcher.

 

See also: Hobson's Pledge

Home Issues Links FAQ Book Quotes Lawyers Email us ! SiteMap

Webmaster Peter Douglas Zohrab Latest Update 21 February 2017

Top