{"id":2565,"date":"2015-02-10T07:11:26","date_gmt":"2015-02-09T18:11:26","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/?p=2565"},"modified":"2015-02-10T07:13:34","modified_gmt":"2015-02-09T18:13:34","slug":"the-declaration-and-the-treaty","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/?p=2565","title":{"rendered":"The Declaration and the Treaty"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><a href=\"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1.jpg\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" class=\"alignnone wp-image-2567 size-medium\" src=\"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1-300x173.jpg\" alt=\"treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1\" width=\"300\" height=\"173\" srcset=\"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1-300x173.jpg 300w, http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1-495x285.jpg 495w, http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/02\/treaty_of_waitangi_2_3_4_E1.jpg 620w\" sizes=\"(max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px\" \/><\/a><\/p>\n<p>He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti The Declaration and the Treaty: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 1040, 2014)<\/p>\n<p>14 November 2014<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Report by Professor David V Williams<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Summary<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Te Paparahi o Te Raki district comprises all territories north of Auckland not yet the subject of a prior Waitangi Tribunal historical report (Te Roroa, Kaipara and Muriwhenua). Hap\u016b of Ng\u0101puhi predominate in this region and many dozens of Ng\u0101puhi claimants and groups or clusters of claimants, together with a number of other claimants, were represented in the first stage of the inquiry. In a departure from previous practice, the Tribunal agreed to a stage 1 process comprising five weeks of hearings from 10 May 2010 to 24 February 2011 devoted exclusively to determining the meaning and effect of four documents: He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni first agreed to by a number of Ng\u0101puhi rangatira on 28 October 1835; the English language text known as the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand drafted by the British Resident Busby prior to he Whakaputanga; Te Tiriti o Waitangi adhered to by a number of Ng\u0101puhi rangatira at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, at Waimate on 10 February and at Mangungu on 12 February; and the English language text known as the Treaty of Waitangi that came to be accepted as the official English text and now appears in the schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. This report is the Tribunal\u2019s response to the exhaustive consideration of those texts in oral testimony, historical analysis and legal submissions put to it during the stage 1 hearings.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>There was a wide range of evidence, and many somewhat conflicting threads within the evidence given and the submissions made, yet the Tribunal came to a number of clear and unambiguous findings. Its most significant conclusion was stated in these words (at 10.4.4):<\/p>\n<p>Our essential conclusion, therefore, is that the rangatira did not cede their \u00a0 sovereignty in February 1840; that is, they did not cede their authority to make \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and enforce law over their people and within their territories. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor. They and Hobson were to be equal, although of course they had different roles and different spheres of influence. The detail of how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the M\u0101ori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis. But the rangatira did not surrender to the British the sole right to make and enforce law over M\u0101ori. It was up to the British, as the party drafting and explaining the treaty, to make absolutely clear that this was their intention. Hobson\u2019s silence on this crucial matter means that the Crown\u2019s own self-imposed condition of obtaining full and free M\u0101ori consent was not met.<\/p>\n<p>This conclusion may seem radical. It is not. A number of New Zealand\u2019s leading scholars who have studied the treaty \u2013 M\u0101ori and P\u0101keh\u0101 \u2013 have been expressing similar views for a generation. In that sense, our report represents continuity rather than change. Moreover, the conclusion that M\u0101ori did not cede sovereignty in February 1840 is nothing new to the claimants. Indeed, there is a long history of their t\u016bpuna protesting about the Crown\u2019s interpretation of the treaty. We will examine the history of that protest, and its significance for the treaty claims of northern M\u0101ori, in stage 2 of our inquiry.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>And again (at 10.5):<\/p>\n<p>Though Britain went into the treaty negotiation intending to acquire \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sovereignty, and therefore the power to make and enforce law over both M\u0101ori \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 and P\u0101keh\u0101, it did not \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 explain this to the rangatira. Rather, in the explanations \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 of the texts and in the verbal assurances given by Hobson and his agents, it \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 sought the power to control British subjects and thereby to protect M\u0101ori. That is \u00a0 the essence of what the rangatira agreed to.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Less publicised in news media reports of the Tribunal\u2019s findings, but of crucial significance to most of the Ng\u0101puhi claimants, were the findings on he Whakaputanga (at 10.2):<\/p>\n<p>In summary, then, he Whakaputanga was a declaration by rangatira in response to a \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 perceived foreign threat to their authority, in which they:<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>emphatically declared the reality that rangatiratanga, k\u012bngitanga, and mana in relation to their territories rested only with them on behalf of their hap\u016b;<\/li>\n<li>declared that no one else could come into their territories and make laws, and nor could anyone exercise any function of government unless appointed by them and acting under their authority;<\/li>\n<li>agreed to meet annually at Waitangi and make their own decisions about matters such as justice, peace, good order and trade involving Europeans and M\u0101ori-European relationships in their territories;<\/li>\n<li>acknowledged their friendship with Britain and the trading benefits it brought; and<\/li>\n<li>renewed their request for British protection against threats to their authority, in return for their protection of British people and interests in their territories.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>To those rangatira who signed, none of this \u2013 including the agreement to meet \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 annually \u2013 would have implied any loss of authority on the part of either \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 themselves or their hap\u016b, or any transfer of authority to a collective decision-\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 making body. Rather, he Whakaputanga was an unambiguous declaration that \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 hap\u016b and rangatira authority continued in force \u2013 as, on the ground, it \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 undoubtedly did \u2013 and that Britain had a role in making sure that state of affairs \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 continued as M\u0101ori contact with foreigners increased.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Overview<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>This report differs considerably from the tenor and content of most of the Tribunal\u2019s historical claims reports. It is \u2018a contextual report, not a report into claims\u2019 (at 1.4.1). Since 1975, s 5(2) of the empowering statute requires of the Tribunal in exercising its functions that it \u2018shall have regard to the 2 texts of the Treaty set out in Schedule 1 to this Act and, \u2026 shall have exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty as embodied in the 2 texts and to decide issues raised by differences between them.\u2019 Earlier Tribunal reports (discussed at 8.3.1) have touched upon such issues but this report is vastly more comprehensive in its approach. The result is a massive document comprising some 534 pages of text and detailed footnotes plus further pages of appendices. The Tribunal\u2019s findings in response to lengthy legal submissions from claimants and the Crown of course feature in the report. However significant and somewhat original features are its thorough analysis of the published writings of academic historians, and also in the amount of emphasis given to the oral traditions testimony of Ng\u0101puhi claimants concerning he Whakaputanga and te Tiriti.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>After the brief introduction of chapter 1, chapter 2 \u2018Two Peoples, Two Worlds\u2019 canvasses Te Ao M\u0101ori traditions of the claimants\u2019 forebears and then aspects of the British World from Cook\u2019s voyaging instructions to being British in the mid-eighteenth century. On the latter topic, emphasis is given to a definition of \u2018sovereignty\u2019 in the British constitution as understood by William Blackstone whose influential <em>Commentaries <\/em>were first published in 1765: \u2018a supreme, irresistible, absolute [and] uncontrolled authority\u2019 lodged in Parliament (at 2.3.4). Chapter 3, a narrative entitled \u2018From Encounter to Alliance\u2019, traverses the history of Ng\u0101puhi encounters with European voyagers then traders from 1769, early Ng\u0101puhi visits to New South Wales, Norfolk Island and England, and then the arrival of Busby as British Resident and the selection of a national flag in the early 1830s. Considerable emphasis is given to the oral and written history of the visit by Hongi to London and Cambridge in 1820 &#8211; including his lengthy meeting with King George IV. The next chapter concerns he Whakaputanga and the Declaration of 1835. It departs dramatically from the usual emphasis on the role of Busby and his disappointment that an annual congress for national law-making never eventuated. Rather, he Whakaputanga is situated within a narrative of hap\u016b autonomy and a history of inter-hap\u016b hui over many years both before and after 1835. As the report put it (at 4.7.1):<\/p>\n<p>Busby may have brought the ideas to the table, and indeed drafted the original \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 text. But it was ultimately not his declaration. The English text can therefore\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 provide evidence about the meaning of he Whakaputanga but, where the two \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 texts diverge, the M\u0101ori text must be seen as authoritative. In this respect, it is \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 unfortunate that the English text has shaped New Zealanders\u2019 understandings \u00a0 of he Whakaputanga for so long.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 5 entitled \u2018Contested Ground\u2019 provides an account of the social, economic and political context of Te Paparahi o Te Raki in the 1830s including population decline, rangatira as entrepreneurs, M\u0101ori engagement with missionaries and Christianity and the pursuit of literacy. Then the Tribunal turns its attention to \u2018The British Move towards Annexation\u2019. This begins with the unsuccessful efforts of what became the New Zealand Company to win government endorsement for organised British settlements and anti-settlement lobbying by the missionary societies. It then describes the evolution of Colonial Office policy that concluded with the appointment of and instructions to Hobson as Consul and Lieutenant-Governor of a dependency to be annexed to New South Wales after the intelligent consent of M\u0101ori had been obtained to this annexation. \u2018The Negotiation and Signing of te Tiriti\u2019 is an exhaustive account of the events at Waitangi, Waimate and Mangungu from 4<sup>th<\/sup> to 14<sup>th<\/sup> February 1840. The Tribunal is at pains to emphasise the difficulty of reconstructing those events when the record that survives is comprised largely of English language written documents from partisan observers of the k\u014drero that took place. The Tribunal also discusses the text of a failed attempt of Governor Gipps in Sydney on 12<sup>th<\/sup> February to obtain agreement of some southern M\u0101ori to a cession of sovereignty. The chapter concludes with a useful analysis (at 7.12) of the many back-translations of te Tiriti into English\u00a0 in 1840, later in the nineteenth century and in the twentieth century.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In chapter 8 the Tribunal provides an excellent summary of \u2018Past Perspectives on te Tiriti and the Treaty\u2019. This covers the engagement of scholars with the meaning and effect of the treaty texts and the findings of courts and previous Tribunal reports. It notes the significant influence of Ruth Ross\u2019s article \u2018Te Tiriti o Waitangi: Texts and Translations\u2019 which challenged the mid-twentieth century perspectives of most historians and was eventually published in 1972:<\/p>\n<p>[This one particular article] stands as probably the single most important \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 interpretive advance on the subject in modern times. Ross argued that, far \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 from the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 solemn and far-reaching blueprint for the nation\u2019s development it was often \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 portrayed to have been, the treaty transaction was characterised by \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 confusion and \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 undue haste. She made the important observation that sovereignty was translated by \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Henry Williams in a different way from his translation of \u2018all sovereign power and \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 authority\u2019 in the declaration only a few years previously. She concluded that the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 M\u0101ori text was the true treaty and that what mattered was how it had been \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 understood here, not what the Colonial Office had made of the English text(s) in \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 London. Her rigorous \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 empirical examination of the original documents exposed the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 unquestioning acceptance of myths about the treaty by an earlier generation of \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 scholars. And she left her contemporaries with the uncomfortable realisation that a \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 reliance on what was said in the English text alone was no longer intellectually \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 honest.<\/p>\n<p>As well as her influence on a range of other scholars in the decades to come, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Ross\u2019s article had perhaps an even more important impact. It was a catalyst for \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the inclusion of the M\u0101ori text in the schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1975, as well as the authority given to the Tribunal in section 5(2) of the Act \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u2026 \u00a0Indeed, the third Labour Government\u2019s Caucus Committee on M\u0101ori Affairs \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 referred to Ross\u2019s article in its reports of 1973 and 1974 on \u00a0 implementing the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Labour Party\u2019s manifesto promise to legally recognise \u2018the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 principles set out in the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Treaty of Waitangi\u2019.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Chapter 9 moves to claimant and Crown evidence and submissions made during Te Paparahi o Te Raki hearings. As indicated above, this chapter and chapter 10 \u2018Conclusions\u2019 include a rigorous inquiry into M\u0101ori understandings of te Tiriti and the oral debates as presented from an oral history perspective by a number of eminent Ng\u0101puhi elders. The Tribunal noted (at 9.4.2) Crown counsel submissions that \u2018there was no reliable documented evidence to support\u2019 some of this oral history. It concluded (at 9.5):<\/p>\n<p>In this chapter, we have related the claimants\u2019 evidence, which included some \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 understandings of the meaning of te Tiriti and the circumstances of its signing \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not previously known outside tribal communities. We are grateful to the claimants \u00a0\u00a0 for sharing their traditions with us. We were impressed by the retention of this \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 k\u014drero tuku iho, and the commitment by the claimants to the take handed down to \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 them by their t\u016bpuna. We noted the variation of emphasis in the evidence from hap\u016b \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to hap\u016b, as one might expect, but were made well aware of the common \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 understandings across all claimant groups. Principal among these was, of course, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that M\u0101ori did not cede their sovereignty or their mana through te Tiriti in February \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 1840.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>In its concluding chapter the Tribunal made it clear that in its view British intentions concerning a cession of sovereignty and a monopoly right of the Crown to purchase any land M\u0101ori wished to sell had not been explained by Hobson and the missionaries to Ng\u0101puhi who signed te Tiriti. The report states (at 10.4.2):<\/p>\n<p>We think that few if any rangatira would have envisaged the Governor having \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 authority to intervene in internal M\u0101ori affairs \u2013 though many would have \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 realised \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 that where the populations intermingled questions of relative authority would need \u00a0\u00a0 to be negotiated on a case-by-case basis, as was typical for \u00a0 rangatira-to-rangatira \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 relationships. It is significant that, while the British intended to acquire sovereignty, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 meaning the power to make and enforce laws over all, this was not what Hobson \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 explicitly had sought. The debate was characterised by his emphasis on protection \u00a0 and a M\u0101ori concern that the Governor would not have authority over them. \u2026<\/p>\n<p>Our view is that, on the basis of what they were told, the signatories were led to \u00a0\u00a0 believe that Hobson would be a rangatira for the P\u0101keh\u0101 and they would retain \u00a0 authority within their own autonomous hap\u016b.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>Comment<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal\u2019s essential conclusion quoted at the outset was met, as might be expected, with a flurry of indignant contributions to news media and blogs along the lines that New Zealand needs to move into the 21<sup>st<\/sup> century and stop always looking backwards (and being so backwards). Government ministers indicated that as of now there is no question that the Crown does indeed have sovereignty in New Zealand and that the Tribunal report does not change that fact. Yet the report may not settle even the matters of history that it had attempted to cover concerning the meaning and effect of te Tiriti and the Treaty.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The problem with any Tribunal report is that it needs must respond to the issues as put before it. The Crown was most concerned to argue that \u2018sovereignty\u2019 of the Blackstonian variety had indeed been ceded to the Crown by M\u0101ori in 1840. Claimants were totally determined to argue that no such cession had taken place and that the Crown and its representatives deliberately failed to explain the full implications of a Blackstonian version of sovereignty being imposed on New Zealand and deliberately misled M\u0101ori in the text of te Tiriti. But there are other historical possibilities and they were adverted to in the Tribunal hearings. At least two sets of legal submissions did offer the perspective that all the British sought was the \u2018power merely to impose a jurisdiction on British subjects\u2019. This would be entirely in keeping with the contemporary British acquisition of \u2018quasi-sovereignty\u2019 in places such as India and West Africa (Afeaki and Sharrock at 9.4.1) or might be a \u2018dual or shared sovereignty\u2019 (Tauwhare at 9.4.2). Moreover the Blackstonian definition of parliamentary sovereignty offers us no explanation at all for the fact of divisible British sovereignty and plurality of laws found in numbers of British colonies in the decades immediately prior to 1840.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>As it happens, in the very week the Tribunal report was released a PhD thesis was completed at the University of Auckland: \u201cA praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying savages? What the framers meant by the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi.\u201d Ned Fletcher\u2019s thesis comprises 1109 densely argued pages based on extensive archival research. His conclusions radically challenge the Ross orthodoxy followed by the Tribunal. The thesis abstract reads:<\/p>\n<p>The thesis addresses the meaning of the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi to those who had a hand in framing it. By \u201cEnglish text\u201d is meant the English draft \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 from which the Treaty in Maori was translated. Despite all the scholarship \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 concerned with the Treaty, the English text has been comparatively neglected. Its meaning has variously been treated as self-evident or irredeemably ambiguous, and therefore unrewarding as an object of study in itself. Most recent writing has taken \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the view that the Maori and English texts differ significantly. That has led to some \u00a0 focus on whether the differences were the result of deliberate mistranslation to make \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the Treaty acceptable to Maori.<\/p>\n<p>This thesis is concerned with the anterior question of the meaning of the English \u00a0\u00a0 text to its framers. It therefore begins by identifying the framers and reconstructing \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the English text, which has\u00a0 been\u00a0 treated\u00a0 by\u00a0 some\u00a0 historians\u00a0 as\u00a0 lost\u00a0 and unknowable. The meaning of the English text requires consideration of the text \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 itself (itself a neglected topic) but also of the context in which it was drawn up. That \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 context includes the backgrounds and motivations of the framers and the wider \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 experience of Empire and the currents of thought of the time.<\/p>\n<p>The thesis concludes that the English and Maori texts of the Treaty appear to \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 reconcile. It takes the position that the principal framers, William Hobson, James \u00a0 Busby, and James Stephen, understood the Treaty in much the same way and that such understanding was one generally shared by contemporaries. That shared \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 understanding was in part because the Treaty followed British imperial practice \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 elsewhere, and in part because the Instructions given to Hobson in the name of the \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Secretary of State for the Colonies, but almost entirely the work of Stephen, were \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 clear and were faithfully carried out in the English text. The principal conclusions of \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 the thesis are that British intervention in New Zealand in 1840 was to establish \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 government over British settlers, for the protection of Maori. British settlement was \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 to be promoted only to the extent that Maori \u00a0 protection was not compromised. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Maori tribal government and custom were to be maintained. British sovereignty was \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 not seen as inconsistent with plurality in government and law. Maori were recognised as full owners of their lands, whether or not occupied by them, \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 according to custom.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>The Tribunal report is a truly comprehensive report of Ng\u0101puhi perceptions and perspectives concerning he Whakaputanga and te Tiriti. There is probably more to be written yet, however, as to the meaning and effect of te Tiriti and its relationship to the English language treaty drafts.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti The Declaration and the Treaty: The Report on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry &nbsp; Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 1040, 2014) 14 November 2014 &nbsp; Report by Professor David V Williams &nbsp; &nbsp; Summary &nbsp; Te Paparahi o Te Raki district comprises all territories north of Auckland [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":22,"featured_media":2567,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2565","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-tiriti","last_archivepost"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2565"}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/22"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2565"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2565\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2570,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2565\/revisions\/2570"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/2567"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2565"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2565"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/mananews.co.nz\/wp\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2565"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}