Chapter 3: Missionaries and the start of colonisation Ūpoko 3: Ngā mihinare me te tīmatanga o te tāmitanga
Te taenga mai o ngā mihinare ki Aotearoa
Arrival of missionaries in Aotearoa New Zealand
52. Part of the history of care settings in Aotearoa New Zealand relates to the arrival of Christian missionaries.
53. Christian missionaries arrived in Aotearoa New Zealand as early as 1814. From 1815 to 1840, the Anglicans, Methodists and Roman Catholics established several missions across the Far North, close to Māori communities.[62] In the early years, missionaries were generally seen by Māori as useful members of their communities. Māori engaged with the missionaries to increase their collective status, mana and economic and military advantage (including access to trading and muskets),[63] and chiefs often provided land for missionary residences.[64]
54. Missionaries developed a reputation for mediating between rivals, providing a way out from the cycle of utu.[65] This was a reciprocal relationship, with the missionaries often relying on hapū for food, shelter and protection. Missionaries also taught domestic values based on the model of the nuclear family as part of their wider efforts to Christianise and civilise Māori.[66] Missionaries influenced Māori converts to Christianity to abandon polygamy.[67]
Ngā whakaaro o te Māori ki te Karaitianatanga
Māori responses to Christianity
55. Māori responses to the Christian teachings varied but during the 1830s some Māori adapted and absorbed aspects of Christianity into their own spirituality, “incorporating Christianity into their own belief systems at least as much as they were being converted by it”.[68] Missionaries relied on Māori co-operation, not just to live, but also to spread their message.
56. Māori evangelist teachers, or kaiwhakaako, became the intermediaries between the missionaries and iwi. Some kaiwhakaako, such as Taumata-a-kura (Ngāti Porou), had a significant impact in spreading the christian gospel while working within their own cultural frameworks.[69] Once ordination of Māori ministers (minita) began, some of the first minita were also tohunga who blended indigenous practice with Christianity.[70]
Ka tīmata te Kāwanatanga ki te tuku pūtea tautoko mō te mātauranga
State begins to fund education
57. Schools were an early tool for converting Māori to Christianity, with the first missionary school opening in 1816.[71]
58. Under the 1847 Ordinance Act, the State began funding church-run boarding schools.[72] State funding for church-run schools continued under the Native Schools Acts of 1858 and 1867.[73] Although the 1858 Act “upheld English as the dominant language”, in many areas missionaries initially taught in te reo Māori.[74] Both the State and missionaries shared the goal of making their schools “centres for civilisation”.[75] During Parliamentary debates on the Bill that later became the Native Schools Amendment Act 1871, Minister of Native Affairs Donald McLean stated that “the principle of teaching English would be adhered to, because the education of the Māori race in the English language was the factor most likely to ‘bridge over’ the gap existing between two races”.[76]
59. Māori supported the schools in the hope that their children might gain access to the benefits of settler society.[77] Māori leaders, wanting the benefits from the education system, “had to ask the Government to establish a school in their district and provide sufficient land for that school, but had no say in the curriculum”.[78]
Te taenga o ngā mihinare ki te Moana nui a Kiwa
Arrival of the missionaries in the Pacific
60. In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, missionaries began arriving in the South Pacific region. Although Pacific Peoples’ experiences of colonisation and Christianity varied, the missionaries’ impact on Pacific societies was far-reaching.
61. Many Pacific societies adopted Christianity and it became a core element of their cultural identities. Like Māori, some Pacific Peoples incorporated Christianity into their own belief systems.[79]
62. Christianity had a strong influence on Pacific Peoples’ parenting practices, to the extent that physical punishment to discipline children became seen as normal and justified. Although the well-known phrase ‘spare the rod and spoil the child’ is not actually in the Bible, it is widely attributed to the gospels and shaped the approach some Pacific Peoples took to parenting.[80]
Te Tiriti o Waitangi – te orokohanga, te hainatanga me ngā pāpātanga
Te Tiriti o Waitangi – origins, signing and impacts
He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni – The Declaration of Independence
63. Northern Māori had had the experience of signing an international document before they signed te Tiriti o Waitangi. In 1835, 34 rangatira (chiefs), mostly from the Bay of Islands and Hokianga, signed He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni – the Declaration of Independence.
64. The declaration emphasised their rangatiratanga, Kīngitanga and mana and asserted that no other person or group could make laws within their territories or exercise the functions of government except under their authority and in accordance with tikanga Māori.[81]
65. The declaration and Te Whakaminenga o Ngā Hapū o Niu Tireni (the Confederation of United Tribes) were a political response to the changes brought about by contact with Europeans. Te Whakaminenga o Ngā Hapū o Niu Tireni represented a “coming together of the tribes”, in which hapū worked together to protect and reinforce their autonomy. The intent was “for Māori to control their own changes in the new world”.[82]
66. The British Colonial Office (the government department that oversaw the colonies) recognised Aotearoa New Zealand’s independence through several statutes and official acknowledgement of He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni. This meant that if the British chose to intervene more formally, the independent and sovereign status of the country would have to be nullified, by a treaty if possible.[83]
Te orokohanga o Te Tiriti
Te Tiriti o Waitangi origins
67. In 1840, Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by over 40 rangatira Māori and Captain William Hobson on behalf of the British Crown. After the signing at Waitangi, Tiriti o Waitangi was taken around the country and gathered additional signatures. By the end of 1840 over 500 rangatira had signed. Most signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, but at Waikato Heads and Manukau only the English text was available and was signed by 39 rangatira.
68. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is Aotearoa New Zealand’s founding document and sets out the relationship between Māori and the British Crown.
69. Te Tiriti o Waitangi is an enduring and living document that sets out the Crown’s obligations to hapū and Māori and affirms the pre-existing rights of Māori as tangata whenua. It is well-established that te Tiriti o Waitangi has two texts, in te reo Māori and English. Although neither text is a direct translation of the other and there is debate over their differences, one scholar has recently argued that the texts are not irreconcilable.[84]
70. Te Tiriti o Waitangi guaranteed hapū the right to autonomy and self-government (tino rangatiratanga) and the right to manage the full range of their affairs in accordance with their own tikanga.[85] Te Tiriti o Waitangi gave the Crown, through the new kāwana (governor) the right to exercise authority (kāwanatanga) over British subjects and keep the peace and protect Māori interests.
71. The original understanding of te Tiriti o Waitangi by rangatira was that Māori self-government (rangatiratanga) could co-exist with Crown sovereignty (kāwanatanga). Rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi did so on the basis that they and the governor would be equals, and that the two parties would have distinct roles and different spheres of influence.[86] As the Waitangi Tribunal has explained, “the Treaty was an acknowledgement of Māori existence, of their prior occupation of the land and of an intent that the Māori presence would remain and be respected”.[87]
72. See Part 1 for how the Inquiry applied te Tiriti o Waitangi and its principles to its work.
Te kore whakahōnore i te Tiriti me te whai i te whenumitanga
Failure to honour te Tiriti o Waitangi and pursuing assimilation
73. For a short period after te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed tikanga Māori co-existed with the new colonial legal system. The colonial government made provisions for resolving issues where the two came into conflict.[88]
74. This approach changed from the mid-1840s. Governor Grey in particular believed that the best way forward for Aotearoa New Zealand was to assimilate Māori as quickly as possible. The 1852 Constitution Act established the first colonial parliament. It largely excluded Māori, as the collective nature of Māori land ownership meant that most did not individually have the right to vote.[89]
75. In response to settler pressure Grey chose not to implement a provision in the Constitution Act for self-governing Māori districts. After 1852, an assimilation policy was pursued together with the acquisition of Māori land under the Crown’s pre-emptive right.[90] Māori resistance to this and land-selling eventually led to the foundation of the Kīngitanga (Māori King movement) in 1858.[91]
76. Legislation and policy after 1852 further paved the way for assimilation, including:
- the establishment of the Native Department in 1861. The department’s purpose was to provide a political means of undermining the Kiingitanga movement, establish a government presence in Māori communities and undercut the political appeal of Māori chiefs[92]
- The Native Land Acts of 1862 and 1865. This led to the establishment of the Native Land Court in 1865 to determine customary ownership and convert Māori land into a freehold title that could be sold on the open market. The Native Land Court was key to assimilation and greatly facilitated the purchase of the bulk of Māori land in the North Island, converting it from collectively owned to individual title
- The Native Schools Acts of 1867 and 1871. This established schools for Māori children to prepare the next generation for assimilation
- The Māori Representation Act 1867. This act reserved four seats in the legislature for Māori representatives and established a separate Māori electoral roll. [93]
77. These laws and policies, among other Crown actions or omissions including the New Zealand Land Wars and confiscation of Māori land, undermined hapū and iwi authority and resulted in the mass alienation of Māori land. This affected Māori models of social organisation. The rapid pace of migration of European settlers especially from the 1850 onwards also made it increasingly difficult for whānau, hapū and iwi to effectively use and retain their remaining lands and way of life.[94]
78. Most hapū and iwi were deprived of their economic base, transforming them into a labouring class ‘in half a generation’.[95] By 1920, most Māori were living in rural poverty as a result of 19th century legislation and Crown actions or omissions.[96]
Ka kōkiri te Māori i ngā whanaketanga
Māori advocate for change
79. In the face of these challenges, Māori found and proposed new solutions for themselves.
80. A new generation of leaders rose, including the prophets Rua Kēnana and Tahupōtiki Wiremu Rātana, Young Māori Party members Sir Āpirana Ngata, Māui Pōmare, Te Rangi Hīroa (Sir Peter Buck), and Te Puea Hērangi.[97] These leaders took very different approaches but were each instrumental in advocating for Māori.
81. Māori religious movements such as Pai Mārire and Ringatū in the 19th century and Rātana in the 20th century combined Māori beliefs with Christianity and became important spiritual, social and political movements.[98]
Footnotes
[62] Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report (1997, page 48).
[63] Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report (1997, page 48); Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (2014, page 251).
[64] Rigby, B, The Muriwhenua North Area and the Muriwhenua claim: A historical report commissioned by the Waitangi Tribunal (Wai 45), (1990, page 6).
[65] Waitangi Tribunal, Muriwhenua Land Report (1997, page 48).
[66] Brookes, B, A history of New Zealand women (Bridget Williams Books, 2016, page 47).
[67] Ballantyne, T, Entanglements of empire: Missionaries, Māori, and the question of the body (Auckland University Press, 2015, page 6).
[68] Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (2014, page 254).
[69] Kaa, H, Te Hahi Mihinare: The Maori Anglican Church (Bridget Williams Books, 2020, pages 26–29 and 37).
[70] Kaa, H, Te Hahi Mihinare: The Maori Anglican Church (Bridget Williams Books, 2020, pages 47–49).
[71] Pihama, L, Tīhei mauri ora honouring our voices – mana wahine as a kaupapa Māori theoretical framework, Doctoral Thesis, University of Auckland (2001, page 208).
[72] Pihama, L, Tīhei mauri ora honouring our voices – mana wahine as a kaupapa Māori theoretical framework, Doctoral Thesis, University of Auckland (2001, page 208).
[73] Walker, R, “Reclaiming Māori education” in Hutchings, J & Lee-Morgan, J (eds), Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice (2016, pages 23–24).
[74] Pōtiki, MK, Te Hū o Moho – The contributing factors to the death of the Māori language at Ōtākou, Doctoral Thesis, University of Otago (2023, page 201).
[75] Barrington, JM & Beaglehole, TH, Māori schools in a changing society – An historical review, No 52 (New Zealand Council for Educational Research, 1974, page 68).
[76] Barrington, JM & Beaglehole, TH, Maori Schools in a Changing society, An Historical Review (Wellington, 1974, page 106), cited in Pōtiki, MK, Te Hū o Moho – The contributing factors to the death of the Māori language at Ōtākou, Doctoral Thesis, University of Otago (2023, page 2002).
[77] Walker, R, “Reclaiming Māori education” in Hutchings, J & Lee-Morgan, J (eds), Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice (2016, page 24).
[78] Walker, R, “Reclaiming Māori education” in Hutchings, J & Lee-Morgan, J (eds), Decolonisation in Aotearoa: Education, research and practice (2016, page 24).
[79] Yengoyan, AA, “Christianity and Austronesian transformations: Church, polity and culture in the Philippines and the Pacific” in Bellwood, P, Fox, JJ & Tryon, D (eds), The Austronesians: Historical and comparative perspectives (The Australian National University Press, 2006, page 361).
[80] Schoeffel, P & Meleisa, M, “Pacific Island Polynesian attitudes to child training and discipline in New Zealand: Some policy implications for Social Welfare and Education,” Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, No 6 (1996, page 6).
[81] Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti, The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (2014, pages 12, 154 and 501).
[82] Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti, The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (2014, page 176).
[83] Orange, C, The Treaty of Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books, 2011, pages 21, 30–32).
[84] Fletcher, N, The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books, 2022, pages 470–471).
[85] Waitangi Tribunal, Te Mana Whatu Ahuru: Report on Te Rohe Pōtae claims parts I and II (2018, page 189).
[86] Waitangi Tribunal, He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty: Report on stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry (2014, page 499).
[87] Waitangi Tribunal, Report of the Waitangi Tribunal on the Motunui-Waitara claim (1983, page 52).
[88] Fletcher, N, The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi (Bridget Williams Books, 2022, pages 470–471).
[89] Waitangi Tribunal, Te Roroa Report (1992, page 28).
[90] Williams, DV, “The continuing impact of amalgamation, assimilation and integration policies,” Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 49(1) (2019, page 3); Boast, R, Te tango whenua: Māori land alienation (Te Ara – The Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 2008, updated 2015), http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-tango-whenua-maori-land-alienation.
[91] Armitage, A, Comparing the policy of Aboriginal assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (University of British Columbia Press, 1995, page 155); Waitangi Tribunal, Te Roroa Report (1992, page 28).
[92] Armitage, A, Comparing the policy of Aboriginal assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (University of British Columbia Press, 1995, page 171).
[93] Armitage, A, Comparing the policy of Aboriginal assimilation: Australia, Canada, and New Zealand (University of British Columbia Press, 1995, page 156).
[94] Boast, R, Te tango whenua: Māori land alienation (Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, 2008, updated 2015) http://www.TeAra.govt.nz/en/te-tango-whenua-maori-land-alienation.
[95] Williams, J, “Build a bridge and get over it – the role of colonial dispossession in contemporary indigenous offending and what we should do about it,” speech for the Robin Cooke Memorial Lecture 2019, reproduced in the New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 18 (2020, page 3).
[96] Binney, J, Basset, J & Olssen, E, The people and the land, Te Tangata me te Whenua: An illustrated history of New Zealand 1820–1920 (Bridget Williams Books, New Zealand 1993, page 214).
[97] Williams, J, “Build a bridge and get over it – the role of colonial dispossession in contemporary indigenous offending and what we should do about it,” speech for the Robin Cooke Memorial Lecture 2019, reproduced in the New Zealand Journal of Public and International Law 18 (2020, page 12); Shirley, I, Koopman-Boyden, P, Pool, I & St John, S, “Family change and family policies: New Zealand,” in Kamerman, SB & Kahn, AJ (eds), Family change and family policies in Great Britain, Canada, New Zealand and the United States (Clarendon Press, 2007, page 209).
[98] Ross, M, “The throat of Parata,” in Kiddle, R, Elkington, B, Jackson, M, Mercier, O R, Ross, M, Smeaton, J & Thomas, A, Imagining decolonisation (Bridget Williams Books, 2020, page 30).