Al Brown, left, and kaiako Hepa Lolesi hongi following the presentation of a pounamu toki to the chef at his Auckland restaurant, Depot. Photo / Dean Purcell, File
Al Brown, left, and kaiako Hepa Lolesi hongi following the presentation of a pounamu toki to the chef at his Auckland restaurant, Depot. Photo / Dean Purcell, File
EDITORIAL
Historian Michael King pored over all the documentation around the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi and came to the conclusion the document fulfilled its singular original purpose.
That purpose was to allow William Hobson to govern.
“Hobson would have been utterly unable to govern the country, with amere 4000 pounds, 39 officials, and 11 ‘alcoholic’ New South Wales police troopers, had Maori not given their consent. At any time Maori could withdraw their consent, as they did on various occasions in the 1840s and 1860s, and the civil and military authorities were unable to establish or fully regain control over those parts of the country where ‘rebellions’ occurred.”
So we know why the Crown drew up and offered the Treaty. But why did Māori sign it?
King continues “...the Treaty appeared to offer Māori certain guarantees, and many Māori had formed their own view of what these guarantees were and pronounced them acceptable.”
This is where we sit today, 183 years on. A deal was drawn up and accepted by a majority of those around at the time. Some say the unwritten expectations, particularly on the part of Māori, are what divide us.
Today, it would be more useful to consider that these matters are what unite us.
It is not difficult to imagine what the expectations of Māori were. Indeed, Hobson is likely to have known, or at least suspected, that some were over-inflated or unlikely to be realised. But it suited his needs to set that aside while getting about the business of governing, first at Kororareka in the Bay of Islands and then in Auckland.
King points out that the Treaty process met internationally recognised constitutional procedures but there were “loose ends” that have fuelled debate over the ensuing 180 years.
Some of these are: the fact that Hobson’s proclamation of sovereignty preceded the collection of Treaty signatures; the fact that some chiefs of large tribes declined to sign the document, or were not asked to; the fact that more than one version of the Treaty was in circulation and subsequently signed; the fact that there were inherent contradictions between even the “official” English and Māori versions; and the fact that some Māori, with missionary encouragement, regarded the Treaty as being in the nature of a “sacred covenant” in the Biblical sense between themselves and Queen Victoria.
Protesters outside marae grounds as Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern delivered a Crown apology to Maniapoto at Tokanganui-a-noho marae in Te Kūiti which completed an historical Treaty of Waitangi settlement process. Photo / Mike Scott
All these matters add elements to the conversation but do not override the principle that a Treaty was agreed to and signed between two parties - a majority of Māori representation and the Crown on behalf of the settlers, described subsequently by High Court Judge Eddie Durie as “tāngata tiriti”.
Māori invested whakapono, or trust, in the Treaty. Hobson got what he wanted but few would argue Māori did. This remains unresolved and is one key purpose for Waitangi Day: an annual opportunity to reflect on what we have done well and what more can be achieved.
The Treaty, Michael King opines, was “neither a firm foundation for the construction of a state nor a blueprint for relations between governments and an indigenous people”. It was a pragmatic arrangement to allow a colony to be governed.
However, the Treaty was drawn up with “internationally recognised constitutional procedures” on encouragement from Colonial Office officials such as James Stephen and Lord Glenelg, slavery abolitionists whose concern for the welfare of Māori was “genuine and profound”, according to King.
Their desire was to protect Māori rights and their property.
Some argue that New Zealand today is now a multi-cultural society and we have moved beyond our bi-cultural beginnings. But, in fact, the Treaty holds that we are an arrangement between two people - Māori and tāngata tiriti.
The debate over interpretations and intentions is part and parcel of what it is to be a New Zealander. It is both a burden and a privilege. May we bear it with pride and, this Waitangi Day, may we be worthy bearers of it.
