Maori wellbeing, including concerns such as education, health, reasonable incomes or appropriate participation in political discussions were important matters when the Treaty was drafted. Maori had been able to manage all those issues on their own and their methods were quite advanced. Having a look at the Maori fisheries for example, Cook claimed when he arrived in 1769 that 'he was highly impressed by the sophistication of Maori fishing compared to their own primitive gear' (Hersoug 2002). Besides that, also the social organisation of the business was well developed (Hersoug 2002). Things changed as soon as foreigners, namely the British arrived in New Zealand and 'discovered' this country. With this arrival, things in New Zealand became different. Due to the fact that there were no laws to which the british settlers felt bounded, they acted the way they wanted. Besides that, the French and the Americans started to peer at this land beeing lately added to the world map. At this time, the Crown felt constrained to take actively action on the situation. The document which turned out oas a result of this situation was the Treaty of Waitangi. Drawing observance to the Aborigine Act, the Treaty would recognize certain rights of the natives, including the issues mentioned at the very beginning. Besides that, the Treaty 'guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other prized possessions' (Orange 2004) to Maori people. As the fisheries are a part of the guaranteed rights mentioned in the Treaty, they may be taken to examine the current impact of the Treaty in New Zealand society.
Maori wellbeing, including concerns such as education, health, reasonable incomes or appropriate participation in political discussions were important matters when the Treaty was drafted. Maori had been able to manage all those issues on their own and their methods were quite advanced. Having a look at the Maori fisheries for example, Cook claimed when he arrived in 1769 that 'he was highly impressed by the sophistication of Maori fishing compared to their own primitive gear' (Hersoug 2002). Besides that, also the social organisation of the business was well developed (Hersoug 2002). Things changed as soon as foreigners, namely the British arrived in New Zealand and 'discovered' this country. With this arrival, things in New Zealand became different. Due to the fact that there were no laws to which the british settlers felt bounded, they acted the way they wanted. Besides that, the French and the Americans started to peer at this land beeing lately added to the world map. At this time, the Crown felt constrained to take actively action on the situation. The document which turned out oas a result of this situation was the Treaty of Waitangi. Drawing observance to the Aborigine Act, the Treaty would recognize certain rights of the natives, including the issues mentioned at the very beginning. Besides that, the Treaty 'guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other prized possessions' (Orange 2004) to Maori people. As the fisheries are a part of the guaranteed rights mentioned in the Treaty, they may be taken to examine the current impact of the Treaty in New Zealand society.
Observing the impacts of the present times the Treaty has on Maori fisheries chronologically, it seems logical to start with the Quota Management System (QMS) which had been introduced in 1986 (Durie 2006). Having a look at the Treaty principle of Article two which claims 'full exclusive and undisturbed posession of lands and estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties' (Durie 2006), the QMS breaches the Treaty. Yet before the British arrived in New Zealand, there was already a Fish Trading bussines between the tribes, which proves that the 'Maori fishing interests were commercial in nature' (Durie 1998). When conceptualizing the QMS, the traditional Maori fishing interests were categorized as “customary”. Therefore, in the understanding of the people who drafted the QMS, the Treaty would grant the Natives the right to retain fishing for subsistence. Hence, the breach of the Treaty is therefore due to the presumption that Maori fisheries had only been substantial, which is not correct. In the light of that there can be found several evidence for the opposite.
Besides that, the provison of Article three, assuring “royal protection” occurs to be inadequat with the QMS. In relevance to this provision, it would have been the duty of the Crown to make sure that Maori rights were not affected by any Acts. Actually, the Crown showed no responsibility in terms of Maori fisheries nor tried to prove the situation of Maori fisheries was different from what the QMS imputed to the natives.
Due to the just mentioned disagreements, the Muriwhenua claim came up just in the year of the introducement of the QMS, arguing that it appears inappropriate with the rights the Treaty guaranted Maori people. As the QMS would not consider the Maori having had fisheries in terms of trade and in addition the Crown or the government was just selling rights and licences and therefore corportarising fishing, the Muriwhenua claim requested that Maori fisheries had to stand outside the QMS (Durie 1998). Bringing up that claim to the Waitangi Tribunal, the findings argued, amongst other things with the traditional views and beliefs of the Natives, that neither the land belonged to anyone, and therefore nor do the forests or the fisheries (Waitangi Tribunal 1998). This finding appears rather invalid in terms of arguing that corportarising the fisheries was a legal act. If fisheries belong to no one, then the selling of that property which belongs to no one appears impossible. In conclusion, arguing with the criteria of the Treaty or the traditional views of Maori, the QMS seems to threaten the Treaty principles and violates Maori rights.
Quite the same discrepancies can be found in terms of the Fisheries Act from 1983. In the face of that, this Act 'presumed Maori interests to be of a subsistence nature and therefore limited' (Durie 2006). It ignores the evidence of pre-existing, sophisticated and well organised fishing businesses, evident from before the signing of the Treaty, as well as does the QMS. Having again a look at the principle of Article two in the Treaty that guarantes “full and undusturbed posession”, the dissonance with the Treaty is proved. Furthermore, the Fisheries Act itself turns out to be dissonant in itself by endorsing 'Nothing in this Act shall affect any Maori fishing rights' (Durie 2006).
Maori were unwilling to disclaim the rights which were given to them when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. To give them anything less would be in direct conflict with the Treaty. Concerning Article two that claims “full and undisturbed posession”, the Maori disapproved the QMS as they felt their rights were curtailed. Based on the provision of the Treaty, Maori claimed at least and not less than 50 percent of the Quota, what seems already to be a compromise. In accordance with the Treaty that both parties signed, the Maori rights were supposed to be “full” and “undisturbed”, not “half”, nor “shared”. Therefore, claiming only a share of their rights, the Maori had already legally conceded a part of the fisheries to the government, part of the land and the rights that belonged, according to the Treaty, to them.
[...]
- Quote paper
- BA Anke Weiland (Author), 2010, The Treaty of Waitangi, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/280063
-
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X. -
Upload your own papers! Earn money and win an iPhone X.