This article debunks the false narrative that Te Tiriti o Waitangi has a hidden or overlooked Article 4 that gave Māori the right to religious freedom. Despite all political parties agreeing there is no Article 4, that Article 4 is not mentioned in any Waitangi Tribunal Reports and is not a part of any of the original parchments and papers that Te Tiriti o Waitangi was written on and signed in 1840 there is a small group of Māori and rumours that it exists.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Waitangi Tribunal is a standing commission of inquiry. It makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to legislation, policies, actions or omissions of the Crown that are alleged to breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. In fulfilling this role, the Waitangi Tribunal has exclusive authority to determine the meaning and effect of the Treaty. It can decide on issues raised by the differences between the Māori and English texts of the Treaty.
The role of the Waitangi Tribunal is set out in section 5 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. It includes:
- inquiring into and making recommendations on well-founded claims
- examining and reporting on proposed legislation, if it is referred to the Tribunal by the House of Representatives or a Minister of the Crown
- making recommendations or determinations about certain Crown forest land, railways land, state-owned enterprise land, and land transferred to educational institutions.
Section 5 “Functions of Tribunal’ subsection 2 states “In exercising any of its functions under this section the Tribunal shall have regard to the 2 texts of the Treaty set out in Schedule 1 and, for the purposes of this Act, 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 the differences between them.”
Schedule 1 The Treaty of Waitangi referred to above has the three articles in English and Māori. Article 4 is not a part of the Waitangi Tribunal and not a part of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The source of Article 4 gained public attention in a submission by Anglican Archdeacon Harvey Ruru before the Waitangi tribunal in WAI 785 in regard to financial assistance to the church. The tribunal suggested it had no place in an iwi settlement and declined its application. It does not appear to have been progressed.
New Zealand Parliament
The New Zealand Parliament and all political parties do not recognise Article 4. It must be emphasised here that all politic al parties agree that there is no Article 4 and that the Minister who asked the questions is a devout Catholic. When all political parties agree on the same facts, there is a significant amount of authority there to respect.
It is also important to note that Article 4 is not mentioned in any current of historical New Zealand legislation. Despite this, in recent years a few Māori individuals have introduced Article 4 into some government appointed committees’ policies.
The Ministry of Health were introduced to this falsehood of Article 4 in several ethics committees including The Advisory Committee on Assisted Reproductive Technology ACART of which at the time I was Deputy Chair. I refuted the legitimacy of the phantom Article 4 and this was verified by a committee member who was a Te Tiriti lawyer. Soon after this decision, it appears that other ethics committee removed their references to the phantom Article 4.
At the time of writing this article, it appears that only Pharmac and the National Library are still referencing the phantom Article 4.
Te Tiriti Scholars and Lawyers
Te Tiriti and History scholars and Tiriti lawyers have documented and communicate that there were many oral agreements made at the multiple (50 plus) locations that the various versions of Te Tiriti were signed. It is widely acknowledged that the so-called Article 4 was one of these many oral agreements and was not widely agreed to nor recognised outside of Waitangi at the time of some 45 chiefs signing the document.
Historical firsthand account of February 06, 1840
A first hand historical account of the signing of Te Tiriti at 9.30am on Thursday, February 06 1840 is published in ‘The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand, February 5 and 6, 1840: Being a Faithful and Circumstantial, though Brief, Narration of Events Which Happened on That Memorable Occasion: with Copies of the Treaty in English and Maori and of the Three Early Proclamations Respecting the Founding of the Colony, authored by William Colenso.
In this first-hand account we are told that the French Roman Catholic bishop and a priest spoke to the Governor. That the Governor told the Rev. H. Williams who was the Māori translator that “The bishop wishes it to be publicly stated to the Natives that his religion will not be interfered with, and that free toleration will be allowed in matters of faith. I should therefore thank you to say to them that the bishop will be protected and supported in his religion—that I shall protect all creeds alike.” The text proceeds to state that the bishop could not hear what was said, so eventually Rev. H. Williams write out the statement on a piece of paper and read that out.
The New Zealand Human Rights Commission have also noted that Article 4 is not a part of Te Tiriti, but is a separate oral statement, sometimes called Article 4 .
Archives New Zealand
Archives New Zealand is a trusted government information for the benefit of all New Zealanders. It preserve and protects more than seven million official records, from 19th century treaties to 21st century documents and data. Included in the Archives are the original documents of Te Tiriti. Some of which are digitised and online. The documents have also been on public display and none of the documents contain any text relating to Article 4.
New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990
It is widely accepted that section 13 Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 recognises everyone has the right to freedom of thought, religion and belief.
Section 13 allows religious freedom for all religions and does not discriminate against non-Christian religions.
Referring to the phantom Article 4 is pointless, when legislation provides freedom of religion and spirituality by the courts.
Supreme Court
For further consideration and in support of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, the Supreme Court decision in Peter Hugh McGregor Ellis v R [2022] NZSC 115, 07 October 2022. In its judgement, it is stated that tikanga Māori (Māori customary lore) is and was New Zealand’s first common law.
Catholic Church
The Catholic Church promoted the phantom Article 4 as an Article of Te Tiriti at the New Zealand Catholic Bishops Conference 1995. In their written conference proceedings is a commitment by the church to recognise Māori as the Indigenous Peoples of New Zealand and Te Tiriti. The conference proceedings stated
“A fourth article was added to the Maori text of the Treaty signed at Waitangi, at the request of Bishop Jean Baptiste Pompallier. In Maori the fourth article said: “E mea ana te Kawana ko nga whakapono katoa o Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori hoki e tiakina ngatahitia e ia”, which means “The Governor says that the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome and also of Maori custom shall alike be protected by him”. This article guaranteed religious freedom for all in the new nation, including Maori.”
This same narrative was introduced in a submission by Anglican Archdeacon Harvey Ruru, before the tribunal as part of the Te Atiawa claim over their tribal lands at the top of the South Island Claim, by the Catholic Church seeking financial compensation for protecting Māori. The Waitangi Tribunal rejected this claim and stated that it was not a part of an Iwi claim but should be a separate claim. The Catholic Church never made a separate claim for recognition of Article 4.
Wairuatanga
Māori Custom is intentionally mentioned in the verbal statement and not Māori Religion which the introduced religious figures including the Catholic Church preached was evil and sought to convert Māori from their traditional religious beliefs to Christianity and other foreign religious beliefs.
The word ‘wairuatanga’ was adopted by the missionaries to remove all spiritual and Māori religious beliefs and was used in translations of the Bible to mean religion.
If this phantom Article 4 of the verbal statement was ever to be debated, it would create another set of translation issues. Did the Catholic Church only mean introduced religion from England, therefore excluding other world religions such as Muslims, Buddhists, Islam and others, while also excluding Māori religion such as Papatūānuku/Ranguinui/Tangaroa and the many variances and their 70 plus children and the post post colonial Māori religious groups including the Rātana Church, Ringatū and Hauhau would also be excluded?
The wording would also raise issues with the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints who has been accused of being a historically white possessive and supremacist church for (mis)appropriated Māori genealogy Would the phantom Article 4 apply here in addition to the religious groups of England?
Conclusion
The text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi The Treaty of Waitangi has three articles that were singed by Māori chiefs from the top of the North Island to Stewart Island contains only three articles.
These three articles are recognised by New Zealand parliament, courts, lawyers, the Waitangi Tribunal, Te Tiriti lawyers and Te Tiriti scholars who all do no recognise the phantom Article 4.
The phantom article 4 was merely one of many local verbal commitments made but was never included in the Te Tiriti o Waitangi. It appears as that the Catholic Church have interpreted this as an article and have never progressed the statement further for any recognition in the Waitangi Tribunal. If we are to recognise this oral statement as an Article, what about the many other oral statements and how would those be prioritised and debated?
If any organisation commits to Article 4 of Te Tiriti, apart from it not being a factual statement, could be accused of denying Māori and other significant religions of the world a place in New Zealand.
Leave a Reply