Photo: RNZ/ Dom Thomas
Introduction:
The Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, remains a cornerstone of New Zealand’s history, its interpretation sparking ongoing debate and shaping the nation’s identity. A recent advertisement by the New Zealand Centre for Political Research (NZCPR) highlighted Apirana Ngata’s 1922 interpretation of the Treaty, asserting that Māori ceded sovereignty to the British Crown. While Ngata’s perspective holds historical significance, it requires careful consideration in light of contemporary scholarship and the Waitangi Tribunal’s findings.
Minister Hon Winston Peters’ assertion that Māori ceded sovereignty, drawing upon Apirana Ngata’s perspective, presents a complex historical argument that requires careful scrutiny. While Ngata’s views hold weight, attributing sovereignty cession solely to his perspective, without robust supporting evidence, weakens the argument considerably. This can be likened to a rope – a single thread, however strong, cannot bear the weight of a substantial claim. It requires multiple, interwoven threads of evidence to create a sturdy and reliable argument.
Photo/ Imgflip
In this case, Minister Peters’ argument hinges on a single thread: Ngata’s interpretation of historical events. While Ngata was a prominent figure in Māori politics and a respected intellectual, his perspective is not universally accepted as definitive. To strengthen the argument, additional threads of evidence are crucial. These threads should include:
– Treaty of Waitangi: Examining the Treaty itself, its original text, and the various interpretations offered by both Māori and the Crown, can reveal whether the document explicitly or implicitly suggests a transfer of sovereignty.
– Historical Documents: Analyzing official records, correspondence, and legal proceedings from the colonial era can provide insights into the understanding of sovereignty at the time.
– Oral Histories: Incorporating oral accounts from Māori elders and descendants can offer valuable insights into the lived experiences and perspectives of Maori during the Treaty period and beyond.
– Waitangi Tribunal Evidence: Examining submitted evidence that uses a multi level pronged approach for analysing and evaluating the credibility of sources and verification of data based on testimony, historic records, statistics, case studies and multiple expert accounts, to establish its recommendations.
– Scholarly Research: Examining the work of historians and legal scholars who have studied the Treaty and the concept of sovereignty in the New Zealand context can provide a broader understanding of the complexities involved.
Without these additional threads, Minister Peters’ argument remains fragile, lacking an ability to withstand rigorous investigation, due to an inability to trianglate his evidence from multiple sources, therefore weakening the overall argument, making it susceptible to criticism and therefore undermining its overall credibility.
Ngata, a prominent statesman, viewed the first article of the Treaty as a “complete cession” of governmental authority, transferring law-making power from Māori chiefs to the Queen of England. He famously quoted Nopera Panakareao, who said, “It is the shadow of the land which had been given to the Queen while the soil remains.” Ngata interpreted this as the Crown assuming control of governance while Māori retained ownership of their land.
What also needs to be considered is that Ngata’s perspective was an opinion given in 1922. Ngata was not a signatory of Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. Ngata’s speech is being utilized for an agenda that has built its foundation on sand. It is a feeble attempt to clasp at straws by twisting, and manipulating his words, and evolving them into the interpretation, portrayal and debate we see today.
Photo /Phillips
This interpretation, emphasizing the transfer of kawanatanga (governance), holds merit in understanding the context of the Treaty. At the time, lawless foreigners residing on Māori land posed a significant challenge. As Aotearoa was outside British Empire jurisdiction, Governor Hobson sought the authority to address this issue. Colenso’s writings reveal that the Treaty was intended to grant the Crown the power to regulate British subjects and maintain peace within Māori territories.
However, the Waitangi Tribunal, in its November 2014 report, “He Whakaputanga me Te Tiriti,” presented a different interpretation. The Tribunal concluded that the rangatira who signed Te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. Instead, they agreed to share power and authority with the Crown, granting the Governor control over British subjects to maintain peace and protect Māori interests. The Tribunal emphasized that the rangatira and the Governor were to be equals, each with distinct roles and spheres of influence.
This divergence in interpretation highlights the complexities of Te Tiriti and the ongoing debate surrounding its meaning. While Ngata’s view emphasizes a clear transfer of power, the Tribunal’s findings suggest a more nuanced understanding of shared authority and ongoing Māori self-determination.
Implications for a Shared Future:
The ongoing debate surrounding Te Tiriti has significant implications for New Zealanders, who are essentially all Treaty partners.
Understanding the Treaty’s true meaning is crucial for forging a future that honors the past and creates a just and equitable society for all.
The Waitangi Tribunal’s findings, emphasizing shared power and ongoing Māori authority, offer a foundation for all New Zealanders to engage in ongoing dialogue with the Crown. This dialogue should focus on:
– Reconciling Historical Injustices: Addressing the breaches of Te Tiriti that have led to inequities in land ownership, resource management, and social outcomes for all who reside in Aotearoa New Zealand.
– Strengthening Self-Determination: Supporting initiatives and institutions that promote cultural revitalization, economic development, and political autonomy for both tangata whenua and tangata tiriti, acknowledging the diverse experiences and needs of all who connect to these lands.
– Establishing collaborative frameworks for decision-making: that recognize the rights and interests of tangata whenua and, tangata tiriti partners, alongside those of the Crown.
In conclusion, the future of New Zealand is inextricably linked to the legacy of Te Tiriti. By engaging in critical dialogue and pursuing a path of shared power and partnership, all New Zealanders can work towards a future that honors the Treaty’s principles, revitalizes cultures, and ensures a just and equitable society for all.
References:
Jock Phillips, ‘Anniversaries – New Zealand’s centennial, 1940’, Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/photograph/43020/apirana-ngata-at-waitangi-1940 (accessed 21 August 2024)
RNZ. (14, February. 2020). Winston Peters & those photos. The legal & ethical implications. [Image], Retrieved, 21/08/2024 from:
https://amp.rnz.co.nz/article/c05eb144-ae41-4c0e-8721-33df95afd1ea
Imgflip. (2024). Ripping thread template. [Image], Retrieved 21/08/2024 from:
https://imgflip.com/memetemplate/280436525/Ripping-Thread
