Roger Childs: The One Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one nation. Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson to each chief after he had signed the Treaty of Waitangi

What it meant at the time

It was 6 February 1840 and the location was an elevated area above the Bay of Islands known as Waitangi. The British government’s envoy, Captain William Hobson, represented the British Crown, and he had called local tribal and settler leaders together to sign a treaty.

Geoff Parker: Josie Pagani's Maori Ward & General Propaganda

In her disjointed article Josie Pagani promotes the dark forces that strive to undermine New Zealand’s precious democracy.

In my view Pagani pins her argument for Maori wards or ‘power-sharing’ on the Treaty of Waitangi, but the fact is that there is nothing in the Treaty (any version or translation) that speaks of separate racial representation in governing bodies.

The Treaty was a simple 3 clause document which simply said:

Mike Butler: Is treaty confusion deliberate?

A stumble by incoming Prime Minister Chris Hipkins in response to a request from a reporter to name all three of the Treaty of Waitangi articles during his first press conference illustrates the confusion that extends to the highest level.

After an um and an ah, he said "We have Kawanatanga, Tino Rangatiratanga, and, actually no, I can't remember the other, sorry." (1)

Former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern faced the same question in 2019 and could only say “kawanatanga”, and “tino rangatiratanga” after prompting from Labour MP Willie Jackson.

Mike Butler: Review fudges two-world treaty push

The Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property is a widespread interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi that goes back 172 years. Another interpretation that goes back about 30 years is that it confirmed Maori sovereignty over all things Maori while giving to the Crown limited power to control new settlers. Which interpretation are you familiar with?

The Constitutional Advisory Panel is reviewing the role of the Treaty within New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements without mentioning that there are two opposing views about the meaning and intent of the Treaty, one of which asserts Maori sovereignty and limits government control to non-Maori who have been written out of the treaty.