Treaty of Waitangi social policy and programmes

Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand. The name "Waitangi" refers to the place where it was officially signed - on the Bay of Islands - on the 6th of February 1840. In the Web site (www.nzhistory.net.nz) thedate of the signing of the treaty is a national public holiday in New Zealand.

This document is written in English and in the Maori language, and it was an agreement between the British Crown - when New Zealand was an English colony - and about 540 "rangatira," or chiefs, from the Maori culture. It came about as a result of the influx of many British migrants into New Zealand and the www.nzhistory.net.nzsiteprovides a "Treaty Timeline" which is germane to a paper that is presenting an analysis and review of the treaty.

History of the Treaty of Waitangi: Timeline

The first British "missionaries" arrived in New Zealand in 1814 and the Rev. Samuel Marsden of the Church Missionary Society gave a sermon in English at Rangihoua on Christmas Day, 1914. There was a translation into the Maori language by chief Ruatara. Europeans began arriving in large numbers during the early 1800s and "growing lawlessness," according to the www.nzhistory.netsiteled local indigenous peoples to petition British King William IV for protection. Also, Maori people began to fear that the French would "annex" New Zealand, and those concerns were relayed to the king in a 1831 letter that Missionary William Yate helped the chiefs to draft. The King of England did acknowledge the letter and made a promise that the Crown would protect the native citizens of New Zealand.

In 1835 fifty-two Maori chiefs signed what they believed was a "Declaration of Independence"; it was written by British resident James Busby, but he had no authorization to do what he did. What the document attempted to do was to make official that "all sovereign power and authority" was in the hands of the "hereditary chiefs and tribes." And in 1837 the British Crown decided to establish a colony in New Zealand; the government believed it needed to "intervene" to "ensure that colonization was regulated and that land transactions that defrauded Maori were stopped," the www.nzhistory.netsiteexplained. This policy followed the original British strategy of hoping that English missionaries would moderate or keep peace between the British settlers and the Maori.

In 1839, meanwhile, the British decided to "annex at least part of New Zealand to New South Wales"; and the first ship full from the "New Zealand Company" set sail for New Zealand in May of 1839. It was called the "Tory" and was loaded with emigrants. Thomas Hobson was appointed consul to New Zealand in 1839, and was ordered to "obtain sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand with the consent of a sufficient number of chiefs." At that time, agents "swarmed" over New Zealand looking for land to purchase.

The Treaty of Waitangi was signed in February 1840; the first day of the signing about 40 Maori chiefs signed on, and within a few months another 500 chiefs put their names on the document. Also in 1840, William Hobson suddenly "proclaimed sovereignty over all of New Zealand" (www.nzhistory.net);hedid that on the basis that the North Island had been acquired through the Treaty of Waitangi and as for the southern islands "by right of discovery."

By 1842, the British considered New Zealand "and its inhabitants" to be under British sovereignty but there was dissention among some chiefs who did not sign the treaty. In the subsequent years there were battles between the British and the Maori and it was clear that the Treaty of Waitangi was not being honored by all parties. In 1846 the British announced that "all Maori land ownership was to be registered" and any land that was deemed to be "unused" or "surplus" was to become "Crown land."

The Meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi:

Did the Maori chiefs really know what they were signing when they agreed to the treaty? The New Zealand History site ("The Treaty in brief") suggests that the chiefs who were briefed on the substance of the Treaty were "reassured that their status and authority would be strengthened." That did not turn out the way the chiefs who signed the Treaty hoped it would. Indeed, in the Maori version of the Treaty the word "sovereignty" translated into the word "kawanatanga" which actually means "governance." Because of that translation-based confusion, many chiefs believed that they would retain the right to "manage their own affairs." They later found out this was not to be the case.

Also, the English version of the Treaty guaranteed "undisturbed possession" of all of Maori "properties"; but the Maori translation into their language suggested a guarantee of "tino rangatiratanga" ("full authority") over "Taonga" ("treasures," but not necessarily those that are tangible). So the problem of understanding what the document actually guaranteed was substantial and significant, and remains a problem today. Those varying understandings have led to protests and demands before the New Zealand government beginning in the 1970s. The New Zealand History site explains that the Treaty of Waitangi "is not considered part of New Zealand domestic law, except where its principles are referred to in several Acts of Parliament."

Some chiefs at the time of the signing were leery of the meaning of the treaty and did not sign, while still others signed but were "uncertain" of what they were really signing. Some did not have a chance to sign the treaty. But meantime, the Colonial Office in England sometime later declared that the Treaty applied to all Maori tribes whether they had signed the document or not.

The Treaty in reality did three things; one, it made England the holder of sovereign rights in New Zealand; two, the Maori handed the British Crown the "exclusive" rights to buy land that the Maori wished to sell (in other words, France could not come in and buy lands from the Maori), but in return the Maori were "guaranteed full rights of ownership of their lands, forests, fisheries and other possessions"; and three, the Treaty guaranteed the Maori all the rights and privileges of British subjects."

Controversy Over Social Policy:

Mark Barrett and Kim Connolly-Stone, writing in the Social Policy Journal of New Zealand (Barrett, et al., 1998), explain that while much has been said and debated about Article 1 and Article 2 in the Treaty "...comparatively little debate" has been heard regarding Article 3. Barrett asserts that in most cases, when an individual in a sovereign nation is granted full citizenship rights, along with those rights comes "social rights." But the reality of the matter is that social rights were not specifically expressed in New Zealand (for anyone) until the late 1880s and early 1900s.

However, even though there are assured social rights now in New Zealand, there are those who argue that the "rights and privileges of citizenship" that the Treaty guaranteed to Maori "are limited to the civil and political rights" (Barrett, p. 140) that were in place in 1840, when the Treaty was originally signed. The doubters as to that approach contend that the Treaty is "a living document" and hence, the guarantees should not be restricted to the precise circumstances that existed" in 1840. The truth of the matter, Barrett continues, is that in 1840 when the Treaty was agreed upon, "neither signatory" believed that in the future the Maori would become "an underclass in their own lands." With that in mind, and fairness a necessity, Barrett suggest that in order to "close the gap," new policies favorable to the social welfare of the Maori people "should be developed with target assistance to Maori" (Barrett, 140). As of the writing of this article, ten years ago (1998), the New Zealand courts had not examined closely the language of the Treaty with reference to the Crown's responsibility to provide social services to the Maori.

Indeed, as of the publishing of this article, the Treaty had not been "formally" incorporated into New Zealand's Constitution, making its status "ambiguous," in Barrett's words. But if the Treaty is indeed New Zealand's founding document, then there should be means within it's guidelines and principles for the Maori to redress grievances in terms of the lack of social justice they clearly seem to be experiencing.

The New Zealand government did pass the Education Act (1989), which requires school boards to "take all reasonable steps...to discover and consider the views and concerns of Maori communities"; also the Act requires schools to provide education with respect to observing cultural practices of Maori and to incorporate the Maori language into the curriculum. But if school boards do not live up to the letter of this law, Bennett goes on, there is no legal way for Maori to sue because the Treaty is not mentioned in the legislation. Another piece of legislation ("The Children, Young Persons and their Families Act of 1989") seems to be aimed at helping the Maori out of their second-class citizenship situation; but again, the Treaty is not alluded to in the legislation.

Yet another piece of legislation ("The Health and Disability Services Act of 1993") provides that the employment needs of the Maori should be taken into consideration, but no mention of the Treaty of Waitangi. Bennett points to the New Zealand Government's statement regarding health (June 1992) with reference to the Treaty (Bennett 146); the government "regards the Treaty of Waitangi as the founding document of New Zealand, and intends to address land and health issues through consultation and discussion." That is basically saying, we'll look into it but we're not making any commitments right now. The government's narrative continues with reference to Article 2; the claim that "protection of the health of Maori has (through Article 2) a special claim on New Zealanders as a whole, over and above the responsibility of the Crown to secure the health of all citizens is, however, not one the Government accepts."

Again, the New Zealand Government is using language from the Treaty, but Bennett points out, at the same time the government is denying it has specific obligations under the treaty.

Social Services that are Available to Maori Peoples:

The New Zealand government may be reluctant to bring the Treaty into discussions when it comes to social services legislation, but the nonprofit group SAFE - reportedly the largest "community-based" therapy group working with adult and adolescent sex offenders - openly embraces the Treaty and its benefits for Maori people. While being mainly funded by the New Zealand Government (Child Youth & Family Services; Ministry of Health; Department of Corrections; Crime Prevention Unit), SAFE takes positions that the government will not accept. For example, SAFE states that the "Treaty of Waitangi" is an agreement that sets up a "partnership relationship between Maori and Tau iwi in New Zealand."

That means that SAFE's policies reflect the acceptance of the Treaty as a meaningful document that should be enforced to recognize the Maori as worthy citizens, fully eligible for any and all services the government offers to non-natives. SAFE pledges to treat Maori clients and staff in "culturally safe and respectful" ways. Also, SAFE promises to make every effort to have Maori clients seen by Maori staff; and SAFE encourages the development of "appropriate treatment services for Maori."

The Health Promotion Forum (HPF) of New Zealand states in its policy guidelines that it "takes account of the 1840 te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) which is New Zealand's "founding contract between Maori and the Crown." Here is another social services agency - that goes against the grain of official New Zealand Government policy - that is offering social programs and hands-on healthcare services to Maori as part of the Treaty's stated promises. The HPF is a national umbrella organization that provides "information, coordination, training and skills development" for members of HPF and for the "workforce at large" in New Zealand.

This is more of an advocacy organization than a healthcare delivery system, but HPF goes beyond teaching good public health practices and takes an approach to "social justice and social change." This approach is needed, the HPF organization insists, because there is "poverty and discrimination" as well as "inequalities" in the workforce of New Zealand. The right to a healthy life is a "fundamental human right" and people need to be treated "with fairness and respect" (Health Promotion Forum, http://hpforum.org.nz/).

Health is understood as a "holistic concept embracing a Maori model of health," the HPF asserts. In that model, good health is recognized as being "dependent on a balance of factors affecting well being."

Among those Maori healthcare descriptions are: "Wairua" (the spiritual); "hinegaro" (mental); "tinana" (physical health); "te reo rangatira" (language); and "whanau" (family). All these elements, believed to be assured to the Maori people through the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi - and accepted as historically and contemporarily legitimate by HPF - interact to produce what the Maori believe will be "well being."

An important part of keeping humans in a circumstance of well being, the Maori believe, is for the "tea o turoa" (environment) to be in a healthy condition. And so the HPF cooperate with Maori to help them stay healthy emotionally as well as physically. The HPF further asserts that the Treaty of Waitangi is indeed "the founding document of Aotearoa" and as such, the Treaty is the "key to health promotion" in New Zealand. The HPF urges the New Zealand Government to offer "formal recognition of the Treaty and the application of it within health promotion."

And when the Treaty alluded to "partnership" between native peoples (Maori) and the Crown, the HPF asserts that "partnership" in that sense meant a united front to provide healthy conditions and health-related services. One example of a good partnership between "the Crown and Maori," HPF explains, would be a "drink-drive program" that is "collaboratively delivered by a Maori and a mainstream organization." scholarly article in the journal Social Policy & Administration (Lunt, et al., 2002) points out that the Maori are not the only minority in New Zealand to experience cultural and racial discrimination. Indeed, full civil and political rights "were not achieved for [New Zealand's Chinese community until the 1950s" (Lunt, p. 348). And the poll tax on Chinese immigrants was not abolished until after World War II. Meantime, Lunt addresses the decisions that the New Zealand government has taken that seriously hurt the Maori's ability to provide for themselves when it comes to health and welfare.

When the government deregulated and privatized many industries - such as railroads, airlines, banks, coal and forestry - through the "State Owned Enterprises Act" (1986) it hurt Maori people a great deal. There were labor groups that "mounted some opposition" but the Maori "initiated legal action" based on a clause in the State Owned Enterprises Act. That clause stated, "no action should abrogate the Treaty of Waitangi," Lunt writes (350). And the courts looked favorably on the Maori in that litigation since resources such as coal "could not be sold while they were still subject to claims from Maori." Some concessions were obtained from the government and the process of privatizing the coal industry was delayed for a time.