CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Te Triti o Waitangi – Purpose, Scope and Interpretational Variances 4
Waitangi Tribunal and its impact on Maori Business Development 5
Te Tiritii of Waitangi and Information Technology Contexts 6
Conclusions 7
References 9
Introduction
Triti of Waitangi or the Treaty of Waitangi was signed on 6 February 1840 between the Government of the Her Majesty and chieftains of the major Maori tribes of New Zealand. Though its long-term ramifications in property (real and intellectual), environmental, constitutional, economic, social and other contexts are vehemently contested by the politicians and the academicians (Zepke, Nugent & Leach, 2003), Orange argues (1989) that it is commonly agreed that this covenant resulted in a formal establishment of the UK sovereignty over the territories of New Zealand.
The importance of the act was underscored by the advent of information technologies. In particular, Article II of the Treaty recognizes that the Maori people have exclusive possession ‘over the lands.and other properties’ (Durie, 1998). Thus, there is a heated debate whether the concept of ‘other property’ encompasses the idea of intellectual property, which is the core of this type of assets (Walker, 2004).
The goal of this research is to explain how the Treaty of Waitangi is applied in the context of contemporary requirements of information technology systems. Thus, it pursues the following research objectives. Firstly, it analyzes the purpose of the Treaty, highlights the differences between English and Maori versions, and speaks about its interpretational controversies. Secondly, the Treaty speaks about the role of Waitangi Tribunal and investigates its impact on business. The final part of this case analyzes how the Treaty of Waitangi is applicable to the broad context of informational technology organizational requirements, exploring the main benefits and challenges of applying this covenant to the IT-focused organizations.
Te Triti o Waitangi – Purpose, Scope and Interpretational Variances
Because the New Zealand was densely populated by multiple local tribes, many of whom were conversant in using firearms, while the Crown never regarded the Island as a prioritized colonial destination, a military invasion was not on the agenda of the British policymakers (Anderson, Binney & Harris, 2014). However, the territories were strategically important for sealing and whaling business, thus, the Queen’s government dispatched Lieutenant Governor William Hobson to settle the issue. Because no professional lawyer was in his crew, the Treaty was a product of him, J. Busby and J. Freeman. Because the chieftains of the tribes could not understand written English (and for many of them oral as well), the translation was entrusted to missionary P. Moon (Durie, 1998).
As a result of this amateurish approach to drafting, as well other issues, there is an ongoing legal debate in relation to the two main issues. Firstly, it is not entirely clear whether the Treaty provided sovereignty over the island to the British crown. Secondly, it has not been ruled yet whether this Treaty is binding upon the British Government (Walker, 2004).
Although the scholars and the politicians thought that the legal deposits of the instruments had been depleted by 1970s, the interest to it was revitalized by the pro-Maori activists from 1975 (Orange, 2004)
In contrast to other similar agreements, this treaty is a comparatively short document, comprising only a Preamble and three articles. The Preamble declares the intention of the Queen to institute a civilized government and invites participation of the Maori chieftains in this process (Moon, 2002). The second part of the Treaty is rather more controversial (Walker, 2004). The pro-colonial advocates argue that it established sovereignty of the British Monarchy over the territories of New Zealand, while the activists of indigenousness claim that it gave the British Queen the right of leadership only. In particular, the concept of rangatiratanga, used in the second article refers to the idea of ‘chieftainship’, not ‘leadership’. The difference between the two is essential for understanding whether the Maori ceded its sovereignty rights to the UK government. In addition, Orange (2004) also speculated about the fact that the idea of sovereignty it its conventional understanding was not entirely comprehended by the native Maoris.
Waitangi Tribunal and its impact on Maori Business Development
The Waitangi Tribunal was instituted under the enactment of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975 (Zepke, Nugent & Leach, 2003). The purpose of this organization is to investigate and develop recommendations in relation to omissions and errors of the British Government that seem to violate the provisions of the Treaty. The tribunal is not a judicial institution, thus it does not have jurisdiction to make the rulings, which are binding upon the UK government. Despite the fact that some of the Tribunal rulings are ignored by the British and New Zealand Governments, the practice shows that its inquiries persuasively affect the policymaking (Durie, 1998; Walker, 2004). The Tribunal is not entitled to settle disputes between the indigenous population and the British government. Though the reports of this institution are highly authoritative, yet they are consultative only (Orange, 1989).
The tribunal is an important element of protecting the Maori businesses against abuses of the western corporations (Anderson, Binney & Harris, 2014) For instance, as a result of 2012 geothermal rights inquiry conducted by the tribunal, the National Government of New Zealand postponed realization of Mighty River Power project, because it allegedly encroached on interests of the local population and was fraught with various unfair competition practices.
The investigative activities of the Tribunal inherently relate to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Because of legal imperfection of the Treaty, the problem of its interpretation becomes critical in this regard. The practice shows that the Tribunal is the most experienced, effective and, most importantly, unbiased authority in this regard (Durie, 1998). Because the Treaty of Waitangi is a bilateral covenant, it is the Tribunal, which is responsible for safeguarding interests of all concerned parties. Thus, one of the most important impacts exercised by the Tribunal is maintaining the balance between foreign investment and interests of the local Maori business communities.
Te Tiritii of Waitangi and Information Technology Contexts
Intellectual property rights (IPR) are one of the most critical elements of information technologies development. Thus, it is the system of IPR, which provides protection to the creators and owners of different IP objects. In a contemporary marketplace, the value of an enterprise strongly depends on its intangible assets (Miller & Davis, 2000). This principle is especially important for high-tech sector and, surprisingly, for artisan and curio shops. The latter are a popular form of business among the Maori population in New Zealand. However, the number of European, Chinese and American manufactured imitations skyrocketed. Paradoxically, but it is possible to see the Chinese replicas of Maori handicraft on the streets of Auckland. Many of them are labelled as having being produced domestically. Thus, the only way to protect the local domestic artisans is to institute strong intellectual property protection mechanisms, which legal foundations should be Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
However, the law also recognizes that there should be some basis for the intellectual property rights to emerge and to be enforced (Miller & Davis, 2000). In the present case, Article Two of The Treaty of Waitangi constitutes sufficient legal ground for the recognizing intellectual ownership over the Maori-styled products of art. This will be the best type of protection against the cheap Chinese and other imitations, which is vital for the survival of the local companies.
Moreover, cultural legacy of Maori people is being massively used by the media. There are many commercial web-sites dedicated Maori cultural legacy. The chances are also high that historical records of these people may become an inspiration for the Hollywood filmmakers. Whatever ‘Maori’ object is seen, the nation should receive the royalties.
Conclusions
Secondly, the Waitangu Tribunal has been specifically created to facilitate interpretation of the Treaty and to prevent potential abuses from by the British side, though it is not a judicial authority. This institution is especially important for protecting the local business, because its reports are highly persuasive for the National Government. Even the most promising project may be suspended, if the Tribunal supposes that it contravenes interests of the indigenous population.
References
Anderson, A., Binney, J. & Harris, A. (2014). Tangata whenua. An illustrated history. Auckland, NZ: Bridget Williams Books.
Durie, M.H. (1998). Te mana, te kawanatanga: The politics of Maori self-determination. Melbourne, Australia: Oxford University Press.
Miller, A. & Davis, M. (2000). Intellectual property: patents, trademarks, and copyright in a nutshell. St. Paul, Minn: West Group.
Moon, P. (2002). Te ara ki te Tiriti: The pathway to the Treaty. Auckland, NZ: David Ling Publishing Ltd.
Orange, C. (1987). The Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, NZ: Allen & Unwin NZ Ltd.
Orange, C. (1989). The story of a Treaty. Wellington, NZ: Allen & Unwin NZ Ltd.
Orange, C. (2004). An illustrated history of the Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington, NZ:Bridget Williams Books Ltd.
Walker, R. (2004). Ka whawhai tonu matou = Struggle without end. Auckland New York: Penguin Books.
Zepke, N., Nugent, D. & Leach, L. (2003). Reflection to transformation. A self-help book for teachers. Palmerston North, NZ: Dunmore Press Ltd.
