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.
