ROSE AGUILAR-GARCIA

Date: Oct 2016

Criteria Number: 10

THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

This paper critically examines the context of the English and Maori texts of the Treaty of Waitangi. An outline
pertaining to the key differences in the three articles will be critically analysed. The last part of the essay is an
in depth discussion of its contemporary relevance in Aoteroa New Zealand education.
The Treaty of Waitangi or Te Tiriti o Waitangi, an agreement between the Maori and British Crown, is considered
to be the “founding document of New Zealand” as a nation (Palmer, 2008). The two versions of the treaty has
resulted to political debates and controversies rooting from different perspectives with regard to how the Maori
and English texts were written and translated. A great deal of confusion arises as both parties have their own
set of interpretations regarding their assumed rights and obligations (Orange, 2015).
The English version of Article 1 says that Maori leaders gave the Queen the complete power over the land and
the people in New Zealand. On the other hand, Maori version says that Chiefs gave the Queen ‘te kawanatanga
katoa’ which was translated as complete governance over their lands (Ministry of Culture and Heritage [MoCH,
2012). ‘Sovereignty’ has no direct translation in Maori language, instead ‘kawanatanga’ was used which means
‘governorship’. ‘Sovereignty’ is more sophisticated and covered a wider scope of power as opposed to what
Maori leaders wanted to convey (Orange, 2015). Controversies arose regarding the intention of using the word
‘kawanatanga’ to mean sovereignty. In Maori perspective, it implies an abstract authority rather than concrete
one (Orange, 2015). This means that Maori people would still be able to maintain their mana and be in control
of their own businesses even if they are under the administration of the Queen (Ngata in Richardson, 1987).
The Maori version of the second article when translated to English version contradicts the statement made by
the Crown’s version of the first article. In the English version, the Queen guarantees the Maori the “the full,
exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forest, fisheries, and other properties”. The
Maori version used the word ‘rangatiratanga’ which is the “unqualified exercise of their chieftainship – over
their land, villages…” (Orange, 2015[b]). The Maori version emphasized the word ‘taonga’ which means to them
as all things that are precious including the culture and language which is believed to be excluded in ‘other
properties’ that was mentioned in the Crown’s English version. According to Orange (2015), some omission in
the Maori translation could be accidental but some explanations say that Williams just simplified the texts. Until
now, there has been no definite explanation on the intention of omitting some words in the translated version
of the second article.
The third article of the treaty is about participation. The two nations who were part of the treaty agreed to
support each other. The Crown version tells that British settlers would extend to Maori people the “Queen’s
protection and all the rights and privileges of British subjects” (Orange, 2015[b]). This text was said to be
‘reasonably accurate’ when translated to Maori version.
The scope of Articles 1, 2 and 3 is about the Crown, the rangatira and the people of both nations respectively
(Human Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi). The key difference in the three articles greatly relies on how the
Maori version was translated. The wording in the Maori version, especially on crucial and important points were
ambiguous, inexplicit and not the direct translation of the English version which led to political and social
debates (Orange, 2015[b]). It is believed that some of the words were translated in a way to secure the Maori
agreement on the treaty (Orange, 2015). The fact that only 39 Chiefs signed the English version while most of
them signed the Maori version was a clear indication that the text failed to convey the same message that the
Chiefs would like to say. Thus, both signatories in the treaty was “left with expectations about the power they
would exercise” (Orange, 2015, p. viii).
At present time, Te Tiriti o Waitangi serves its contemporary relevance in ECE setting and has influenced the
foundation for decision making of the New Zealand Curriculum (Ministry of Education [MoE], 2012). The
bicultural attitude in educational sectors of Aoteroa New Zealand has roots in Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its
principles. Article 1 of the treaty is about partnership. In an ECE setting, whanau and kaiako should work in
partnership to support the learning of children. Working in partnership means sharing the power and control
and having a voice in decision-making process. According to Education Review Office report (2011) schools
which uphold the commitment to Treaty of Waitangi have an “established relationships with students, parents,
whānau, iwi, and other community members…”. Aoteroa New Zealand Curriculum (MoE, 2007) envisions young
people working together to make the country a place where both parties of the treaty are recognise and the
contributions they bring are valued. Working in partnership benefits all learners. This is supported by Whalley
and the Pen Green Centre team (2001) in saying that children will “gain a sense of continuity and of being cared
for” and experience a “trusting and secure environment in which they can learn and grow” (p.95) if both their
kaiako and whanau are working collaboratively. This collaborative working can then be associated to Article 3
of the treaty as its emphasis is participation. In an ECE setting, collaborative partnership leads to participation
where both parties are contributing and involving themselves in the learning journey of children which are
important in their holistic development.
Article 2 of Te Tiriti o Waitangi gives emphasis on the protection and preservation of the values, language and
culture of Maori. The government has made an effort to honour the treaty through the Maori Language Act
(1987) which recognises te reo Maori as the official language of Aoteroa New Zealand (Barrett & Connolly-Stone,
1998). Te Whariki (Ministry of Education [MoE], 1996) was a big step towards biculturalism and changing the
previous views and perspectives about Maori. It is stated in Te Whariki (MoE, 1996) that “In early childhood
settings all children should be given the opportunity to develop knowledge and an understanding of the cultural
heritages of both partners of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” (p.9). Te Whāriki has made a deliberate and explicit reminder
that everyone has a place on the whāriki. Some documents like Te Mahi Whai Hua (MoE, 1998) gives emphasis
on the importance of “reflect(ing) the unique place of Maori as Tangata Whenua and the principle of partnership
inherent in Te Tiriti o Waitangi” in their objectives and practices (p.67). This document together with Ka Hikitia
(MoE, 2008) provide support for educators and management of education sector on how to uphold the Maori
culture, values and language and most importantly on how to help Maori children achieve success as Maori. The
fact that New Zealand’s first official language is Maori clearly indicates the existence of this treaty. But the reality
is, te reo Maori is only considered an official language and yet it is not widely used in the country and thus, Royal
Society of New Zealand sees the uncertainty with regard to the preservation of te reo and tikanga Maori.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi, written in two versions, is an important ‘living document’ that establishes a relationship
between the Crown and rangatira which is described as “the promise of two peoples to take the best possible
care of each other” (Bennett, 2003). The Maori version was translated from the English version which resulted
to controversies as some words used in the translated version did not exactly imply the written texts in English.
Although there are differences, there is a clear evidence of the document giving great emphasis on the
protection of the culture and heritages of both parties involved, the reason why educational documents gives
great importance in biculturalism to show commitment to the treaty. This document provides equal
opportunities and a “framework for the people to hold on to the things they value” (Peet, 2007, p.2). This treaty
hugely promotes partnership between the parties involved. The guiding principle demonstrates equality and
fairness and thus, no one should be left out. Te Tiriti o Waitangi has contemporary relevance to the education
system of Aotearoa New Zealand. In fact, the treaty has informed the development of Te Whariki, the ECE
curriculum document, in both text and approach. Bicultural development is being promoted in all education
sectors that is part of upholding the commitment to the said treaty (Ritchie, 2002). According to Ritchie (2003),
the education sectors in Aotearoa New Zealand have always demonstrated a “progressive responsiveness to
equity issues” (May 1992, 1997). The education sectors are making constant effort but with the current
situation, there is more progress to be made. The challenge in upholding the commitment to the treaty relies
on the implementation. And thus, the role of the educators in demonstrating commitment to the treaty is
deemed important.

References:
Barrett, M., & Connolly-Stone, K. (1998). The Treaty of Waitangi and social policy. Social Policy Journal of New
Zealand, 29-48.
Bennett, M. (2003). In Human Rights Commission, Human Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi: te mana i Waitangi.
(Auckland: Human Rights Commission)
Education Review Office (2011). Directions for Learning: The New Zealand Curriculum Principles and Teaching
as Inquiry. Wellington: Education Review Office.
May, H. (1992). Learning through play: Women, progressivism and early childhood education 1920s-1950s. In S.
Middleton & A. Jones (Eds), Women and education in Aotearoa 2 (pp.83-101). Wellington: Bridget
William Books.
May, H. (1997). The discovery of early childhood: The development of services for the care and education of very
young children, mid eighteenth century Europe to mid twentieth century New Zealand. Auckland
University Press/Bridget Williams Books.
Ministry of Cultural Heritages (2012). Differences between the texts. Retrieved August 29, 2016 from
http://www.nzhistory.net.nz/politics/treaty/read-the-Treaty/differences-between-the-texts.
Ministry of Education. (1996). Te Whaariki: He whaariki maatauranga moo ngaa mokopuna o Aotearoa: Early
childhood curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (1998). Quality in action: Te mahi whai hua. Wellington. New Zealand: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2007). The New Zealand curriculum. Wellington: Learning Media.
Ministry of Education. (2008). Ka hikitia: Managing for success: The Maori education strategy 2008-2012.
Wellington.
Ministry of Education (2012, January). The New Zealand Curriculum Update. Issue 16. Learning Media Limited.
Ngata, Henare. In J. Richardson (1987). New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General. New Zealand Law
Reports, 3, (4), p. 673.
Orange, C. (2015). The treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Orange, C. (2015[b]). An illustrated history of the Treaty of Waitangi. Wellington: Bridget Williams Books.
Palmer, M. S. (2008). The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand's law and constitution.
Peet, K. (2007, April). The Relevance of Treaty Today. Adult and Community Education Aotearoa. Retrieved
August 29, 2016 from http://nwo.org.nz/files/TheRelevanceOfTheTreatyToday-KMP.pdf
Ritchie, J. (2003). Te Whariki and the promise of early childhood care and education grounded in a commitment
to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. In J.G. Nuttall (Ed.), Weaving Te Whāriki: Aotearoa New Zealand's early childhood
curriculum document in theory and practice (pp.141-155). New Zealand Council for Educational
Research.
Ritchie, J. R. (2002). " It's Becoming Part of Their Knowing": A Study of Bicultural Development in an Early
Childhood Teacher Education Setting in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
The Royal Society of New Zealand (2013). Languages in Aotearoa New Zealand. 1-8.
Whalley, M., & the Pen Green Centre Team. (2001). Involving parents in their children’s learning. London: Paul
Chapman Publishing. 95.