Aardvark Daily

Please visit the sponsor!

We can not fix this

Here in New Zealand we have a bit of a problem.

Right now, a bunch of people are on a journey to parliament to voice their outrage over an attempt to introduce measures that would treat all citizens with equal favour instead of allocating special rights and privileges to some on the basis of race.

Now you might think that nobody in their right mind could object to legislation desiged to ensure equality for all -- but you'd be wrong.

At the heart of this situation is a document called "The Treaty of Waitangi". This document was supposed to represent a contract between the Maori people of New Zealand and the colonists who arrived later, seeking to claim the land for themselves.

Unfortunately, there is a problem with this contract -- a huge problem.

The root cause of the problem is that there is no "Treaty of Waitangi". In fact, there are two treaties and, if what I'm told is correct, they are quite different in respect to the obligations and rights they describe.

The English version of The Treaty says one thing and (apparently) the Maori-language version says something quite different.

The Crown signed up to the English version and most Maori signed up to the Maori-language version. Each side thinking they knew exactly what they were giving up and getting in return.

Unfortunately, when the two documents differ by such a degree, both sides will naturally end up believing they've been hard-done-by when the other side seeks to enforce the rights and entitlements they believe they've agreed to.

Surely, as a nation, it's time we acknowledged that The Treaty as such is worthless due to the fact that there appears to be significant contradiction between the two versions.

Imagine if I signed a property purchase contract with a seller and my copy of the contract said "pay $x and the property belongs to you" -- while the seller's copy says "pay $x and you have a right to use the property for y years, after which title reverts to the seller".

Clearly, in this case, the buyer thinks they've bought the property outright and once they've paid, the title will be transferred and all obligations to the seller have ended.

However, the seller believes that they've simply granted a temporary title to the purchaser for a fixed sum and that, at the end of the prescribed term, title will revert to them.

What happens when the seller seeks to recover the title after the term prescribed in *their* copy of the contract?

Well obviously the buyer will object, claiming that they've signed a contract that gives them full and clear title in perpetuity. The seller will present their version of the contract that clearly re-assigns the title back to them after the term.

Who's right?

Was their even an enforceable contract in the first place -- if the two documents do not match?

Well that's the situation we find ourselves in with The Treaty right now.

At the root of the problem is the language barrier, something that allowed two different contracts to be created with each side assuming that they were identical in meaning.

If presented to a court today, I suspect that the contract would be struck-out as unenforceable due to the conflicted documents involved. Maybe that's what should be done with The Treaty.

Since the original signatories to The Treaty are long dead and burried, maybe the entire ownership of the nation and all its treasures should be placed into the trust of a new entity and we should start from scratch.

One thing is for sure... we can't continue to try and enforce a document that is not a single document at all. There can never be a resolution to Treaty grievances if both parties to The Treaty seek to use their copy of the document to assert the rights they believe were granted them by that document.

This is a dog's breakfast of huge proportions and until we finally concede that The Treaty is an unenforceable contract (for the reasons stated above) then huge amounts of money will be wasted on both sides simply arguing cases that can not be won.

As a small nation with huge potential but limited fiscal resources, we can't afford to go squandering money on follies such as this. We need a smarter approach to the whole issue that makes sure *everyone* benefits -- not just a few elite and a legion of lawyers.

Am I the only one who has spotted this -- or am I simply mistaken?

I'd love those who know more than me or who have a different perspective on this matter to educate and enlighten me on the subject. Hey, drop me an email and I may even invite you to write a guest column to put your point of view.

Carpe Diem folks!

Please visit the sponsor!

Here is a PERMANENT link to this column

Rank This Aardvark Page

Change Font