The Treaty of Waitangi is relevant today?

On average, everyone disagrees with significant nonconsensus between 460 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

The treaty was with a group of Maori tribes and Queen Victoria. It is interesting to note that there is no mention of "heirs and succesors" in the treaty by either side so it really died with the signatories. I believe that the Charter of Westminster when King George V gave New Zealand, Australia and Canada complete self government should be the founding document of our nation.

The treaty is 150years old and not relevent for the 21st.century.The Maori are in a minority and should be fully intergrated into a modern vibrant multicultural society,and not treated as a separate sovereign state as the present goverment do to keep their votes.Maori is a wonderfull tourist attraction and that is all,its myth's and superstitions have no place in a modern society and should be relegated to the Marei's along with the intimidating,warlike,ignorant and downright rude "Haka".

look its totaly wrong

WHICH TREATY? There are at least three. Since they all differ and there is no way of reconciling their meaning they cannot be valid.

its all in the past you must forget and forgive

Nope - those who signed it are all dead. Time to get over it. Sell everything to the Chinese - they're going to get it anyway...

Sometime, somewhere, we have to draw a line in the sand and stop referring to issues that occured so far before our time. Whatever took place at that time was relevant then but is no longer relevant now. We need to move ahead as a country, not continually look back at a document that everyone has different interpretations of and cannot agree on. Whatever happened, happened, we cant change that - get over it>

Surely there have been enough breaches of the treaty BY BOTH PARTIES to cause it to be now considered null and void. What we really need in New Zealand is a constitution that ensures the rights of all New Zealanders regardless of race. Unfortunately, many maori wouldn't agree because at the moment they have this big guilt trip going on and are milking it for all they can get. They know that a fair constitution is not in their interests. The day they bring back to life all the Pakeha that they have murdered is the day I honour their treaty. Up yours you f'ing scum.

it is a excuse for lazy maori who are only about themselfs to get free had outs.

It should be abolished. We all become a new zealanders now. Not a maori and a pakeha. We are one people and one nation.

The treaty was an agreement between the UK government and about 500 rangatira in 1840, The chiefs agreed to UK sovereignty, and the government promised to protect land and other valuables from theft by rival tribes or other criminals, and to treat NZ natives as UK subjects. How can it be relevant to anything today?

it is now divisional and not healthy for a united NZ moving forwards

Before they try to own the lakes, clouds, rivers and then maybe the seafood market! Seriously though, it's holding new zealand back, we can all live better with a stronger new zealand and less bs about the 'treaty' that can make us rich.

one country one people one law. not required.

Personally I agree that The Treaty of Waitangi is a document of particular historical importance, however, contrary to what most people think the Treaty did not build this nation, the people did. Every single person who lives in this nation is an immigrant to it, including the Maori. Arriving in a country first does not mean that you get first dibs on the resources or anything else as a matter of fact. Even if it does that doesn't mean that we have to let these petty differences of race, culture and land divide us. Number two, the Treaty of Waitangi is not a legally binding document in Parliament, it never has been. If the Treaty was to be forgotten about and thrown into a dustbin the only thing we would lose would be a holiday. Modern New Zealand would not and will not fall into chaos without it. Third and final point, now I'm not trying to be racist but the compensation needs to stop. Of the billion tax payer dollars that has been given to the tribes how much as actually trickled down to the lower income families. 1/6th of Maori children live in poverty and this money is not making a difference. Instead of spending this money on buying back assets it should have gone to improving housing, providing school lunches and buying warm clothing. Giving more and more money in these Waitangi tribunal compensation claims is not the answer. In conclusion, arguments about compensation, land and the treaty will only stop when we put our differences aside.

Reasons To Agree

Firstly, the Treaty wasn't signed by "a group of Maori tribes and Queen Victoria": it was signed by independent chiefs and chiefs from the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand (who had declared Aotearoa/New Zealand as an independent sovereign state in 1835), and the Queen as head of state of Great Britain and Ireland. Thus, to the best of my knowledge, this by law is interpreted to perpetually mean the Maori inhabitants of NZ and the British Crown, who ceded that responsibility to the NZ govt upon granting NZ independence (I guess that's really re-independence :P). Secondly, the state has a perpetual obligation to fufill the obligations of Te Tiriti. Any arguments that "well, I didn't sign it. Why should I be beholden to it?" aren't valid: a.) It's not between the state and Maori, you're not party to the contract; b.) No-one disputes inheritance on the same grounds, even though you weren't party to the generation of that historic wealth (esp. if that wealth has passed through many generations). Ultimately, it is a contractual agreement between two parties, but contractual obligations have not been met. Doing the right thing mightn't be easy (or inexpensive) but it is just.

Just like the statement said. Doing the right thing mightn't be easy (or cheap) but it is just.

Outside the treaty of waitangi the government has no other written constitution to govern. When David Lange broke ties to the queen, he unwittently severed any further right to govern.

I agree the Treaty has great signifigance, infact if people dont stop giving unresearched information such as the first posting, it just might go down in history as NZ's if not the world's greatest lost opportunity of continued peace and stability beyond the historical norm.

Of course, it seems like everything maori have someone wants to take it away from them,

I can't think why the Treaty should be judged because if its age. Out whole system of government is based on archaic notions such as the rouyal perogative. If age is a disqualification, we need a new constitution, this time at which both sides have a lawyer.

I am a New Zealander of predominantly european descent. I'm not a Maori Radical and I don't always sympathise with that faction. However, the Treaty of Waitangi was an agreement made between the Crown and the existing nation of inhabitants of Aotearoa. It is therefore dishonourable that anyone should abandon it for the sake of convenience. What lacks in this argument is perspective - if this was the case now between modern NZ and an advanced power who wished to colonize us only to abandon their promises.

Absolutely it is. Someone said the treaty was bwtween "a group of Maori tribes and Queen Victoria". It was, and still is, between the Crown and the Maori who signed it. What's hilarious is that a lot of Pakeha (and I am Pakeha if you're reading this and thinking I'm some "bloody Maori") seem to think the Treaty is some terrible thing that gives Maori all sorts of privileges. In reality, it gives us the privilege to be here. Before the Treaty, the Crown had no right to enforce any law here and that's one of the reason's it was signed - to put a stop to crime and debauchery amongst Pakeha settlers. The settlers weren't a good example for the missionaries who wanted to teach Maori how great western society was. The Treaty was breached in a number of ways, mainly through land confiscations. How much better off would Maori be if they'd retained this land? How much more intact would their culture and language be? They could have developed farming economies on the vast amounts of lands they owned - land they will now never get back, nor ever be fully compensated for. As for the people who like to imply that Tuhoe has no right to make Treaty claims because they never signed it, what goes through your head? Are the wrongs committed against Tuhoe somehow A-OK just because they never signed the Treaty? Surely, having not signed the Treaty, they should have been left completely alone, and remained independent? New Zealanders, on the whole, are much too ignorant about the Treaty and race relations.

The Treaty should stay, could you imagine how dysfunctional the country would be if we stop adhering to what it relates to? there would be no government, no protection to anybody and i bet there would be a big war. We didn't sign it but i still see people are listening and obeying the rules of the government which is saying something!

I agree that Treaty Claims should be at an end so that those on the gravey train (Law Firms) can stop piliging our tax dollar. Interestingly enough is that the majority of these firms are non Maori. The Treaty is the only thread that the Maori can hang onto to ensure some parity. Place the shoe on the other foot and experience what continues to happen and lets see who grieves. Ask the U.S to scrap the Declaration of independence because it is old since they are certainly no democracy. To all of those that comment from positions of ignorance " Get a education and a life"

THE TREATY IS THE ONLY REASON WHY PAKEHA SURVIVE HERE TODAY AS WE KEEP TO OUR PART OF THE AGREEMENT PEACE 170 YEARS AND STILL GOING , WE will HONOR IT yes we are a warlike race mostly towards each other , you pakeha just get in our way , rule number 1 : you do business with 1 iwi not with another and let iwi do business with iwi DO not break this rule

if you looked on the treaty do you see an expiry date?

The only immigration document that holds currency for today's descendent's of colonisers otherwise an expiry date would be evident (note ex pats of Hong Kong). A founding document for a legitimate constitution otherwise civil war would be evident (note Gaza strip). Silly question really.

It saddens me that any issue regarding the Treaty and Maori automatically brings out the racism in people. I believe it is still relevant. The treaty is more than a historical document allowing Maori to "milk it for all its worth" as was stated before. As an agreement between the crown and Maori, it is (and always has been) a founding document for New Zealand outlining the basic principles that both sides agreed to live by. I do think clarity is needed, and there will always be disagreement around which version is correct, what they mean and (especially) the interpretation of it. However, there are BASIC POINTS which can be agreed upon. The age of the document should have nothing to do with its relevance. If this is the case, then that implies we should also scrap the Imperial Laws Application Act 1988, as this is entirely based on old documents (Magna Carta, for example). I think there is a need for a written New Zealand Constitution, that acknowledges the Treaty and the BASIC PRINCIPLES they were trying to negotiate around living together in harmony. The racism that has been displayed both here on this site, as well as in general, makes me embarrassed to call myself a NEW ZEALANDER. Not of my Maori heritage, nor of my European heritage, but being from New Zealand at all.

Everyone involved in the treaty is dead, so yes it is irrelevant