Whoever designed and drafted the Treaty of Waitangi needs telling off. Having two different documents is something that is proving to be less than helpful 183 years on.
By 1840, the missionaries had been in New Zealand for 26 years, arriving in the Bay ofIslands in 1814.
In those 26 years, many Māori had converted to Christianity and had been taught English in both the spoken and written form, mostly those living around the various mission stations spread far apart. Of course, missionaries had not gone everywhere and te reo was the spoken language of the land.
So it was appropriate to have a Māori version of the Treaty of Waitangi, but it can be safely assumed that the few Māori chiefs and others who signed the English version had a good understanding of it.
It appears that it was the Māori version that was taken on tour around New Zealand for review and possible signature by tribal leaders. Excellent, except it was different to the English version that appears to come along after the first signing on February 6, 1840.
Around 530 to 540 Māori, at least 13 of them women, signed the Māori language version of the Treaty of Waitangi, despite some Māori leaders cautioning against it.
The Treaty, either version, is regarded by most of us as the founding document of the nation of New Zealand, the document that formed New Zealand as yet another colony of the then-huge British Empire. It’s our history and can never be put aside.
I believe its importance to us as a nation is up there with the American Declaration of Independence and even the ancient Magna Carta, signed way back in 1215 by King John of England at Runnymede to settle matters with a bunch of grumpy barons.
Not something that can or should ever be displaced or undervalued.
Of course, from about 1856 to the 1970s, the Treaty was pretty much put to one side for various reasons. It was an inconvenience for the Europeans who began arriving in their thousands in the 1840s.
So here we are today with a new government that is supportive of some sort of discussion of the Treaty in Parliament, up to select committee stage at least.
The Prime Minister tells us that he does not support any form of referendum on the Treaty. If that is so, why is Parliament going to the trouble and the expense of taking matters to the select committee stage?
Rob Rattenbury.
I hope there are no weasel words involved here. I hope we can trust our Prime Minister, take him at his word.
You see, we do need to keep talking about our Treaty. Talking brings understanding and hopefully acceptance. The fact that there are differences in the two versions of the document is a problem, but no problem is insurmountable if willing hearts and minds of both parties are present.
The Treaty is bigger than petty political arguments and a referendum that will likely cause more discord than we have seen for a long time in our country.
I often think to myself, why didn’t the person charged with drafting the original Treaty documents make them the same? Or am I being a cynical old man who also thinks the two versions were written on purpose to encourage some chiefs to not question too much but to just sign?
We are now too far down the track as a nation to let petty politics get in the way of something that just needs sorting, through patience and aroha.
