Last week's protest at Te Papa has sparked a debate over the English and Māori versions of the Treaty.
Last week's protest at Te Papa has sparked a debate over the English and Māori versions of the Treaty.
Editorial
EDITORIAL
It takes a terrible certainty of history to go as far as to abseil down the wall of a gallery in Te Papa and obliterate a good deal of the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi. Those charged with wilful damage last week will explain themselvesin court, but the statement their action made was very clear.
They do not believe the English version of the Treaty has equal validity with the Māori version and should not be sharing a gallery with Te Tiriti o Waitangi, also inscribed on a wall there.
It is a common misconception that Te Tiriti is just the Treaty in te reo. It is not. The Treaty drafted by British officials for presentation to Māori in 1840 states, “The Chiefs... cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty...”
The version presented to the chiefs in te reo says they “... give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the government of all of their land”.
The Waitangi sheet of the Treaty of Waitangi, signed between the British Crown and various Māori chiefs in 1840.
The difference between “sovereignty” and the power of “government” is largely academic and New Zealand politicians have been content to leave the debate to academics over the 50 years since the difference in wording was noticed. But that is no longer possible.
The Act Party intends to present a bill to Parliament removing or redefining the “principles” of the Treaty in legislation. This, as our senior political correspondent Audrey Young wrote last week, “is likely to open up the country to a debate it didn’t bargain on - over Māori sovereignty”.
Te Pati Māori co-leader Rawiri Waititi, she pointed out, has been as keen as Act’s David Seymour to remove references to the principles from legislation. Those references, Waititi said in an unsuccessful attempt last year to amend a health bill, “have been used to water down the Crown’s commitments”.
“For legislation to be compliant with Te Tiriti o Waitangi,” he said, “it must implement the actual text of the agreement that was signed in 1840 - the articles which include reaffirmation of the tino rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi.”
The practical consequences of reinstating tribal sovereignty, for Māori as well as for the Government of this country, bear much more critical discussion than we have heard so far. So does the notion that the chiefs of 1840 did not understand what they were giving to the Queen under the term used for “government” in Te Tiriti.
It remains open to argument that the law and organisation of British colonies were known to the chiefs by that time. Several had been to Sydney or London. And what was proposed would have been attractive after inter-tribal war with firearms.
But if the meaning of government was not clear to the chiefs, legal principle is on their side. It is up to the party offering a contract to ensure the receiving party understands it correctly. If the receiver has been given a different understanding, the receiver should prevail.
What, then, would be the fate of the English Treaty? At the very least it should be restored to its place in Te Papa. The English text expresses the best intentions of those who founded New Zealand and should forever be respected.
