An oral submission to the Select Committee for the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill

Tuesday 25 February 2025, 10:20-10:30a.m. 

Parliament Buildings, Te Whanganui-a-Tara, Wellington

On behalf of Archbishops Don Tamihere, Justin Duckworth and Sione Ulu'ilakepa of Te Hāhi Mihinare ki Aotearoa, ki Niu Tīreni, ki ngā Moutere o te Moana nui-a-Kiwa, the Anglican Church in Aotearoa New Zealand and Polynesia.

By Archbishop Emeritus Sir David Moxon

E ngā mema ō te Komiti, tēnā koutou, ka nui te mihi atu. 

E ngā Rangatira, ma te Atua koutou e manaaki. 

 Anglican Experience

As described in the Archbishop’s written submission, The Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand, and Polynesia Te Hāhi Mihinare ki Aotearoa, ki Niu Tīreni, ki ngā Moutere o te Moana nui-ā-Kiwa, is the oldest institution established since the arrival of people from Europe in these islands. Founded in 1814, coinciding with the first Pākehā permanent settlement, our establishment predates that of Parliament: recognition of the principle of Māori and Pākehā partnership has been continuous throughout our history.

Our Church became deeply interwoven with the creation of Te Tiriti, serving as an instrument of engagement between the British Empire and ngā Rangatira me ngā Hapū of these islands. The London based Anglican Church Clapham sect's theological emphasis on liberation—initially for enslaved peoples globally, and subsequently for indigenous populations—informed our faith at the time. They believed that each person is made in the image of God and is to be accorded that humanity and dignity, not to be subjugated. 

One of the Clapham sect’s founders, William Wilberforce, the leading and Anglican British MP,  finally facilitated the banishment of slavery from the British empire, and was one of the role models and thought leaders behind the Anglican Sir James Stephens, a permanent under-secretary of the Colonial Office. Sir James was instrumental in incorporating the concept of true chiefly rule, tino rangatiratanga, into the English drafted treaty preparation documents. To describe this influence, I partly quote and partly precis from the relatively new book:  

 “The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi” by Ned Fletcher. P 529: (Italicised words mine)

‘The survey undertaken here suggests that the implications of the English text were understood in the same sense as the division between ‘kawanatanga’ and ‘rangatiratanga’ in the Māori text. On this basis, it is quite conceivable that Busby and The New Zealand Gazette were not alone in understanding the effect of the treaty as akin to the federal arrangement prefigured by Te Whakaputanga, The Declaration of Independence of 1835. 

Accordingly. ‘rangatiratanga’ refers to independence in internal affairs, leaving ‘kawanatanga’ or ‘sovereignty ‘defined and limited by reference to its objects ….as applying to foreign relations, justice, peace and good order, and trade.

Justice, peace and good order were also to be understood in the context of continuing tribal self-management. Inter-tribal disputes were to be mediated by ‘kawanatanga’, and warfare was contrary to the creation of ‘kawanatanga’, and Māori respect for the government of the Queen, 

‘Te kawanatanga’ obtained full authority over Europeans, and British justice was to regulate inter-racial conflict, both criminal and civil (although Russell envisaged that legislation would permit Māori custom to be taken into account). At least in British settlements or where a tribe relinquished authority over a malefactor, serious crimes not involving Europeans could also be prosecuted under colonial law. A principle of mutual interdependence is clearly implied here.

In 1840 there was a body of opinion that this kind of sovereignty could be limited by the terms of this kind of treaty.

Seen in this light, according to Ned Fletcher, the Māori and English texts of the treaty reconcile. The view taken is that ‘sovereignty’ in the English text is to be understood according to the principal purpose of establishing government over British subjects for the protection of Māori. The effect of the Treaty in English was to set up an arrangement similar to a federation, in which sovereign power did not supplant tribal government. 

Agreed national structural provisions for both partners are described and overarched by agreement about the common ground.

Ned Fletcher concludes that although Te Tiriti was not without precedent, This Treaty marked a relatively new method of attempting to protect an indigenous people from the inrush of a new and essentially different culture. It was conceived, written and affirmed in good faith. Such was the Anglican influence.

Best practice 

Parallel to our own church’s current treaty based internal arrangements, one of the best practice treaty-in-action models today, which expresses this original and mutually beneficial intention both ways, is the shared management of the Waikato River Authority. Te Awa o Waikato, the Waikato River as an ecosystem and “Te waiora, Te Iatuku o Te Iwi, the artery of the people”, is well overseen by a Treaty based combination of iwi and crown appointments. The many hundred-year experience of Waikato Tainui, living beside the river as a source of life and vitality, is partnered with other forms of representation and expertise by the crown. This is a win win that greatly enhances the care of the river: everybody benefits. What’s good in treaty terms was, and is, good for everybody. 

For the Anglican church too, from our earliest days at Rangihoua in 1814, to the dissemination of the faith through Kaiwhakaako (Māori evangelists), our best practice was rooted in the concept of Māori and Pākehā sharing a common faith while maintaining their distinct spheres of influence. By the 1850s, and with the establishment of the Church, this practice was further solidified, with hapū and rangatira leading, building, and resourcing their own faith communities as Pākehā did theirs. When they partnered in best practise, they were called to enhance each other’s mana.

This exemplified Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the principle of partnership, a practice maintained continuously to the present day. Māori parishes and pastorates have consistently demonstrated Māori self-determination, while always acknowledging their place within the united Church.

Over 30 years ago, our revised Constitution, Te Pouhere, formally acknowledged Te Tīriti o Waitangi as central to our identity in Aotearoa-New Zealand. This also involved the formal adoption of the Principles of Partnership and Bicultural Development. This is a lived reality of one great house, with a number of large rooms, where identity and mana are respected and enhanced; and where there are no locked doors.

Anglican Translation

Te Rongopai ā Ruka, the Māori-language Gospel of Luke, was first printed in December 1835 by a Mihinare Anglican mission. This publication included the words rangatiratanga (chiefly rule) and kawana (governor), which subsequently became seminal terms in the Anglican translation of the Treaty of Waitangi in February 1840. This is the work of Anglicans Henry and Edward Williams, who had Gospel Māori in mind, in dialogue with Rangatira at Waitangi on February 4 and 5, 1840.

Within the printed Rongopai ā Ruka, the Gospel of Luke, rangatiratanga refers to the “Kingdom” of God, paralleling the English treaty wording which ‘guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess’. 

In Luke’s gospel kawanatanga represents a specific form of self-determination reinforcing the concept of Kīngitanga present in the 1835 Te Whakaputanga , the Declaration of Independence, upon which the Treaty's moral authority rested. 

The term ‘Kawana’, from which we get the word kawanatanga suggests governance, and in Luke’s Gospel it represents a form of limited governorship interacting with another partner: between Governor Pilate and King Herod for example. Māori gospel readers would have immediately recognised the power and texture of these two words, Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga in Te Tīriti from one of the first written documents ever written and read in Māori priori to 1840.

As Claudia Orange has shown, Anglican missions often hosted treaty signings and emphasized the moral high ground being sought. This was expressed as “Te Kawenata, Covenant” in the biblical sense, by Māori mission participant Rangatira, especially Hone Heke at Waitangi, as well as mission based Pākeha. Without this sense of the covenantal good faith literally implied in the wording of Te Tīriti, The Treaty, so thoroughly discussed by everyone on February 4 and 5 1840, would never have been signed. We therefore need to respect the spirit as well as the letter of the law, in upholding the principles of Te Tīriti o Waitangi.

The Māori wording of Te Tiriti, parallel to the English version, clearly describes a balance between kawanatanga and rangatiratanga, embodying shared partnership, active participation, equity, and tribal self-determination. It is impossible to imagine Rangatira at Waitangi giving away the basic realities of their way of life away. These are the very principles threatened by the new bill. Remove or dilute them and a promise is broken at the very heart of our nation’s identity.

Conclusion

The Treaty Principles Bill effectively blurs this vision, clearly denying the very moral foundations that underpin our unique form of democracy, its health and its wellbeing.  

‘Toitu te Tīriti: Te Kawenata Tapu’