Gerry Brownlee: Treaty needs redefining

I am a fifth-generation New Zealander of Scottish and Irish descent, who was honourably represented at the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi by the British Crown.

But my rights are slowly but steadily being usurped by judges, lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats and lost soul academics who perpetrate the view that the treaty was only for the Maori. It was not.

By 1839, there were 2000 known European settlers in NZ. James Busby had been appointed British resident in 1833, to protect settlers and traders, to prevent outrages by Europeans against Maori and to apprehend escaped convicts.

As early as 1835 he began lobbying for the British Government to enter into an agreement with Maori to establish a settled form of government.

In 1839 Captain William Hobson was dispatched as British consul with the direction to obtain land from the Maori by fair and equal contracts. The Church Missionary Society had been in New Zealand since about 1813 and from 1823, was led by Henry Williams.

Hobson, Busby and Williams were good and honest men who acted honourably in seeking a treaty with Maori. Their concern was for care, protection and peace for all those who made New Zealand their home.

They were the main players in organising the meeting of chiefs at Waitangi on February 5 and 6, 1840, and in drawing up the treaty itself.

As the signatories to the treaty placed their mark on the parchment, Hobson shook their hand said: He iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people.

So the sovereign nation of New Zealand was born with a treaty that contained three simple clauses (articles).

The first article ceded authority to the British Crown by all who made this country their home. The second article guaranteed all inhabitants of this land free and unencumbered rights to own real property. The third stood us all as subjects of the British Crown equal before the law.

So my questions are how on earth did something so simple become so complex and contentious?

Do Maori believe the treaty conferred greater rights and entitlements on them than it did on me? Was my representative (the British Crown) a lesser party to the treaty? And where on earth did the idea that this treaty established a partnership between the parties that allowed anything more than a commitment to one nation and one people come from?

A great deal of legislation these days requires those who operate under a particular law to do so with full reference to the principles of the treaty.

The problem is that not even the Prime Minister can say what those principles are, such has been the raft of interpretations applied by courts and bureaucrats over recent years.

I have no problem with the settlement of land claims established through the Waitangi Tribunal. I have no problem with Maori or any other group fiercely protecting their culture.

But all too often it appears as if the word Maori in association with an individual, an organisation, or project means special and preferential treatment all because others involved misunderstand just what the principles of the treaty are.

In the loose constitutional arrangements that New Zealand has, the treaty is an important document. It is a charter for the rights of free men and women in a democracy held together by the limited authority of the Crown.

To diminish its importance in any way would show disrespect for all of our ancestors who sought to build a new nation on the day of the signing.

But I do not want to be a second-class citizen in the only land that is my home, and I am not alone in that. We have to do something to make the treaty as relevant for all New Zealanders today as it was on February 6, 1840.

What we should do is pass a new law to define the principles of the treaty. A law that will affirm the treaty with status as a founding document. A law that leaves no room for ambiguous interpretations about the equality of rights conferred on both parties to the treaty. But most of all a law to proclaim one standard of citizenship inside one nation, New Zealand.

* Gerry Brownlee is National MP for Ilam. This article is a personal view.