Treaty of Waitangi

The Treaty includes a preamble and three articles. There are two texts of the Treaty, one in English and one in the Māori language. • Article one of the Māori text grants kawanatanga, translated by Hugh Kawharu as complete governance, to the Crown while the English text cedes "all the rights and powers of sovereignty" to the Crown. A modern translation by Hugh Kāwharu indicates that the Māori chiefs "give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land". • Article two of the Māori text uses the word rangatiratanga, translated by Hugh Kawharu as full chieftainship, to describe the chieftainship promised by the Crown to Māori as that exercised at the time by Māori over their lands, villages and all their treasures, and this article also establishes the agreement to sell land at agreed prices to the Queen and her agents. The English text describes the Māori constitutional authority that the Crown guaranteed to protect as the full, exclusive and undisturbed ownership of Māori over their lands and other resources generally, and establishes the exclusive right of pre-emption of the Crown. • Article three of the Māori text guaranteed Māori the protection of the Queen and the rights and duties of British citizenship. The English text grants Māori people royal protection and the rights and privileges of British subjects. The two texts differ, particularly in relation to the meaning of having and ceding sovereignty, with Donald Francis McKenzie viewing its interpretation as the contrast between a literate culture and one that was wholly oral. The rangatira may have initially viewed it as an agreement to share power and authority on equal terms; the Crown has always viewed it as the acquisition of Māori consent to cession of sovereignty. These differences created disagreements in the decades following the signing, eventually contributing to the New Zealand Wars of 1845 to 1872 and continuing through to the Treaty of Waitangi settlements starting in the early 1990s. In the period following the New Zealand Wars, the New Zealand government mostly ignored the treaty, and a court judgement in 1877 declared it to be "a simple nullity". As some words in the English treaty did not translate directly into the written Māori language of the time, the Māori text is not a literal translation of the English text. Furthermore, is a loan translation from "governorship" and was not part of the Māori language. The term had been used by Henry Williams in his translation of the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand, which was signed by 35 northern Māori chiefs at Waitangi on 28 October 1835. The Declaration of Independence of New Zealand had stated "" to describe "all sovereign power and authority in the land". However, it has more recently been argued by others, including Judith Binney, that would not have been appropriate as is not the same thing as sovereignty, and because no one can give up their . The English-language text recognises Māori rights to "properties", which seems to imply physical and perhaps intellectual property. The Māori text, on the other hand, mentions "taonga", meaning "treasures" or "precious things". In Māori usage the term applies much more broadly than the English concept of legal property, and since the 1980s courts have found that the term can encompass intangible things such as language and culture. Even where physical property such as land is concerned, differing cultural understandings as to what types of land are able to be privately owned have caused problems, such as in the foreshore and seabed controversy of 2003–04. The pre-emption clause is generally not well translated. While pre-emption was present in the treaty from the very first draft, it was translated to , a word which simply meant "to buy, sell, or trade". Many Māori apparently believed that they were simply giving the British Queen first offer on land, after which they could sell it to anyone. Another less important difference is that , meaning England alone, is used throughout in the Māori text, whereas "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is used in the first paragraph of the English. Based on these differences, there are many academics who argue that the two versions of the treaty are distinctly different documents, which they refer to as "Te Tiriti o Waitangi" and "The Treaty of Waitangi", and that the Māori text should take precedence because it was the one that was signed at Waitangi and by the most signatories. The Waitangi Tribunal, tasked with deciding issues raised by the differences between the two texts, also gives additional weight to the Māori text in its interpretations of the treaty. The issue is further complicated by the fact that, at the time, writing was a novel introduction to Māori society. As members of a predominately oral society, Māori present at the signing of the treaty would have placed more value and reliance on what Hobson and the missionaries said, rather than on the written words of the treaty. Although there is still a great deal of scholarly debate surrounding the extent to which literacy had permeated Māori society at the time of the signing, what can be stated with clarity is that of the 600 plus chiefs who signed the written document only 12 signed their names in the Latin alphabet. Many others conveyed their identity by drawing parts of their (personal facial tattoo), while still others marked the document with an X. Māori beliefs and attitudes towards ownership and use of land were different from those prevailing in Britain and Europe. The chiefs would traditionally grant permission for the land to be used for a time for a particular purpose. A northern chief, Nōpera Panakareao, early on summarised his understanding of the treaty as "" ("The shadow of the land will go to the Queen, but the substance of the land will remain with us"). Nōpera later reversed the statement – feeling that the substance of the land had indeed gone to the Queen while only the shadow remained for the Māori. Beginning in the 1970s with a renewed Māori protest movement, Māori increasingly sought the recognition of the Treaty, sparking nation-wide debate over its meaning and interpretation, particularly in contemporary society. Governments in the 1960s and 1970s responded to these arguments, giving the treaty an increasingly central role in the interpretation of land rights and relations between Māori people and the state. In 1975 the New Zealand Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act, establishing the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry tasked with determining the meaning and effect of the two texts of the Treaty, investigating breaches of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi by the Crown or its agents, and recommending means of redress. The Office of Treaty Settlements was set up in 1988 to negotiate settlements on behalf of the Crown to resolve claims about historical breaches of the Treaty directly with iwi. Settlements with a total value of roughly $1 billion have been awarded. Various legislation passed in the latter part of the 20th century has made reference to the treaty, which has led to ad hoc incorporation of the treaty into law. Increasingly, the treaty is recognised as a founding document in New Zealand's developing unwritten constitution. The New Zealand Day Act 1973 established Waitangi Day as a national holiday to commemorate the signing of the treaty. ==Background==

Treaty making by European powers with indigenous peoples had always been common in empire building. Treaties were dependent on the specific situation. In 19th century New Zealand, the British wanted to formalise their involvement in the country, protect British interests, regulate land speculation, control violence and disordered settlement. They were faced with a Māori population that was more numerous, with cultivated land and government. Therefore, the British drew up the Treaty of Waitangi. In comparison, this situation did not apply in Australia where no treaties were deemed necessary by the British. While heading the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty years, leading to slave trading being prohibited in the British Empire in 1807, William Wilberforce, with other members of the Clapham Sect, championed the foundation of the Anglican Church Missionary Society (CMS) in 1799, with the determination to improve the treatment of indigenous people by the British. This led to the establishment of the Christian mission in New Zealand, which saw laymen arriving from 1814 to teach building, farming and Christianity to Māori, as well as training Māori ministers. In 1832, the British government sent James Busby to serve as the British Resident in New Zealand, partially in response to calls from merchants, missionaries and individuals citing the Elizabeth affair, but largely in order to protect British trade. Despite his lack of authority, Busby's immediate intentions were to create a centralised body of chiefs through which he hoped to indirectly govern the tribes. In 1834, Busby, Henry Williams, William Colenso and Eruera Pare Hongi drafted , (a Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand) often shortened to He Whakaputanga. English translation was made at the time of signing. Thirty-four northern Māori rangatira signed the declaration on 28 October 1835, becomming known as the Confederation of United Tribes. The signatures of a further eighteen rangatira were added to He Whakaputanga by 1839, including two non-northern rangatira: Te Wherowhero, the Waikato chief who would later become the first Māori king, and Te Hāpuku of Ngāti Te Whatuiāpiti. Matthew Palmer has said that He Whakaputanga asserted that the 'public authority' of New Zealand remained with Māori; the English text as translated by Busby declares "sovereign power and authority" and the original text refers to kingitanga and mana, which has been translated by Manuka Henare as referring to sovereignty or kinship. Although one official called it "silly and unauthorised", the Colonial Office acknowledged He Whakaputanga with the assurance that the King would protect Māori as long as it was ‘consistent with a due regard to the just rights of others and to the interests of His Majesty’s subjects’. From a Māori perspective, He Whakaputanga had a twofold significance: first, for the British to establish control of its lawless subjects in New Zealand; and second, to establish internationally the mana and sovereignty of Māori leaders. From May to July 1836, Royal Navy officer Captain William Hobson, under instruction from Governor of New South Wales Sir Richard Bourke, visited New Zealand to investigate claims of lawlessness in its settlements. Hobson recommended in his report that British sovereignty be established over New Zealand, in small pockets similar to those of the Hudson's Bay Company in Rupert's Land (in present-day Canada). Hobson's report was forwarded to the Colonial Office. From April to May 1838, the House of Lords held a select committee into the "State of the Islands of New Zealand". The New Zealand Association (later the New Zealand Company), missionaries, Joel Samuel Polack, and the Royal Navy made submissions to the committee. On 15 June 1839, new letters patent were issued in London to expand the territory of New South Wales to include the entire territory of New Zealand, from latitude 34° South to 47° 10' South, and from longitude 166° 5' East to 179° East. Governor of New South Wales George Gipps was appointed Governor over New Zealand. This was the first clear expression of British intent to annex New Zealand. Hobson was called to the Colonial Office on the evening of 14 August 1839 and given instructions to take the constitutional steps needed to establish a British colony. He was appointed Consul to New Zealand and was instructed to negotiate a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from the Māori to the British Crown – as the House of Lords select committee had recommended in 1837. The Secretary of State for War and the Colonies, the Marquess of Normanby, gave Hobson three instructions: to gain freely given Māori recognition of British sovereignty over all or part of New Zealand, to assume complete control over land matters, and to establish a form of civil government. The Colonial Office did not provide a draft of the treaty. Normanby wrote at length about the need for British intervention as essential to protect Māori interests, but this was somewhat deceptive. Hobson's instructions gave no provision for Māori government of any kind nor any Māori involvement in the administrative structure of the prospective new colony. His instructions required him to: treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's dominion. The historian Claudia Orange argues that prior to 1839 the Colonial Office had initially planned a "Māori New Zealand" in which European settlers would be accommodated (without a full colony), where Māori might retain ownership and authority over much of the land and cede some land to European settlers as part of a colony governed by the Crown. Normanby's instructions in 1839 show that the Colonial Office had shifted their stance toward colonisation and "a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be kept for Māori", primarily due to pressure from increasing numbers of British colonists, and the prospect of a private enterprise in the form of the New Zealand Company colonising New Zealand outside of the British Crown's jurisdiction. The Colonial Office was forced to accelerate its plans because of both the New Zealand Company's hurried dispatch of the Tory to New Zealand on 12 May 1839 to purchase land, and plans by French Captain Jean François L'Anglois to establish a French colony in Akaroa. After examining Colonial Office documents and correspondence (both private and public) of those who developed the policies that led to the development of the treaty, the historian Paul Moon similarly argues that the treaty was not envisioned with deliberate intent to assert sovereignty over Māori, but that the Crown originally only intended to apply rule over British subjects living in the fledgling colony, and these rights were later expanded by subsequent governors through perceived necessity. Hobson left London on 15 August 1839 and was sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand in Sydney on 14 January 1840, finally arriving in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840. Meanwhile, a second New Zealand Company ship, the Cuba, had arrived in Port Nicholson on 3 January 1840 with a survey party to prepare for settlement there. The Aurora, the first ship carrying immigrants, arrived in Port Nicholson on 22 January 1840. On 30 January 1840 Hobson attended the Christ Church at Kororareka (Russell), where he publicly read a number of proclamations. The first was the Letters Patent 1839, in relation to the extension of the boundaries of New South Wales to include the islands of New Zealand. The second related to Hobson's own appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand. The third concerned land transactions (notably the issue of pre-emption). CMS printer William Colenso produced a Māori circular for the United Tribes high chiefs, inviting them to meet " Hobson" on 5 February 1840 at Busby's Waitangi home. ==Drafting and translating the treaty==

, who translated the treaty into Māori with the help of his son Edward Marsh Williams. Without a draft document prepared by lawyers or Colonial Office officials, Hobson was forced to write his own treaty with the help of his secretary, James Freeman, and British Resident James Busby, neither of whom was a lawyer. Historian Paul Moon believes certain articles of the treaty resemble the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), the British Sherbro Agreement (1825) and the treaty between Britain and Soombia Soosoos (1826). The entire treaty was prepared in three days, in which it underwent many revisions. There were doubts even during the drafting process that the Māori chiefs would be able to understand the concept of relinquishing "sovereignty". Assuming that a treaty in English could not be understood, debated or agreed to by Māori, Hobson asked CMS head missioner Henry Williams, and his son Edward Marsh Williams, who was a scholar in Māori language and custom, to translate the document overnight on 4 February. Henry Williams was concerned with the actions of the New Zealand Company in Wellington and felt he had to agree with Hobson's request to ensure the treaty would be as favourable as possible to Māori. Williams avoided using any English words that had no expression in Māori "thereby preserving entire the spirit and tenor" of the treaty. He added a note to the copy Hobson sent to Gibbs stating, "I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the idiom of the language will allow." The translation of the treaty was reviewed by James Busby, and he proposed the substitution of the word for , to describe the "Confederation" or gathering of the chiefs. This no doubt was a reference to the northern confederation of chiefs with whom Hobson preferred to negotiate, who eventually made up the vast majority of signatories to the treaty. Hobson believed that elsewhere in the country the Crown could exercise greater freedom over the rights of "first discoverers", which proved unwise as it led to future difficulties with other tribes in the South Island. ==Debate and signing==

in the act of signing. Hobson is incorrectly shown in full uniform (he was actually wearing civilian clothing). Overnight on the 4–5 February the original English version of the treaty was translated into Māori. On the morning of 5 February the Māori and English versions of the treaty were put before a gathering () of northern chiefs inside a large marquee on the lawn in front of Busby's house at Waitangi. Hobson read the treaty aloud in English and Williams read the Māori translation and explained each section and warned the chiefs not to rush to decide whether to sign. Building on biblical understanding, he said: Māori chiefs then debated the treaty for five hours, much of which was recorded and translated by the Paihia missionary station printer, William Colenso. Rewa, a Catholic chief, who had been influenced by the French Catholic Bishop Pompallier, said "The Māori people don't want a governor! We aren't European. It's true that we've sold some of our lands. But this country is still ours! We chiefs govern this land of our ancestors". Moka 'Kainga-mataa' argued that all land unjustly purchased by Europeans should be returned. Whai asked: "Yesterday I was cursed by a white man. Is that the way things are going to be?". Protestant Chiefs such as Hōne Heke, Pumuka, Te Wharerahi, Tāmati Wāka Nene and his brother Eruera Maihi Patuone were accepting of the Governor. Hōne Heke said: Tāmati Wāka Nene said to the chiefs: Bishop Pompallier, who had been counselling the many Catholic Māori in the north concerning the treaty, urged them to be very wary of the treaty and not to sign anything. For Māori chiefs, the signing at Waitangi would have needed a great deal of trust. Nonetheless, the expected benefits of British protection must have outweighed their fears. In particular, the French were also interested in New Zealand, and there were fears that if they did not side with the British that the French would put pressure on them in a similar manner to that of other Pacific Islanders farther north in what would become French Polynesia. Most importantly, Māori leaders trusted CMS missionary advice and their explanation of the treaty. The missionaries had explained the treaty as a covenant between Māori and Queen Victoria, the head of state and Church of England. With nearly half the Māori population following Christianity many looked at the treaty as a Biblical covenant – a sacred bond. Afterwards, the chiefs then moved to a river flat below Busby's house and lawn and continued deliberations late into the night. Busby's house would later become known as the Treaty House and is today New Zealand's most visited historic building. Hobson had planned for the signing to occur on 7 February however on the morning of 6 February 45 chiefs Historian Paul Moon has claimed any guarantee of religious freedom implied by Pompallier's action is a myth and that there is a lack of evidence or legal basis to support the statement being a fourth article of the treaty. Historian Michael King agreed with Moon that Pompallier was probably protecting Catholic interests, but also accused Moon of being anti-Catholic in his criticism of Pompallier stirring up trouble that day. First signings The treaty signing began in the afternoon. Hobson headed the British signatories. Hōne Heke was the first of the Māori chiefs who signed that day. and after Marupō shook the Governor's hand, seized hold of his hat which was on the table and gestured to put it on. and the South Island and Stewart Island by discovery) and New Zealand was constituted the Colony of New Zealand, separate from New South Wales by a Royal Charter issued on 16 November 1840, with effect from 3 May 1841. Hobson issued the proclamation because he felt it was forced on him by settlers from the New Zealand Company at Port Nicholson who had formed an independent settlement government and claimed legality from local chiefs, two days after the proclamation on 23 May 1840, Hobson declared the settlement's government as illegal. ==Extant copies==

In 1841, treaty documents, housed in an iron box, narrowly escaped damage when saved by civil servant George Elliot as the government offices at Official Bay in Auckland were destroyed by fire. They disappeared from sight until 1865 when a Native Department officer worked on them in Wellington at the request of parliament and produced an erroneous list of signatories. The papers were fastened together and then deposited in a safe in the Colonial Secretary's office. In 1877, the English-language rough draft of the treaty was published along with photolithographic facsimiles, and the originals were returned to storage. In 1908, historian and bibliographer Thomas Hocken, searching for historical documents, found the treaty papers in the basement of the Old Government Buildings in poor condition, damaged at the edges by water and partly eaten by rodents. In 2017, the He Tohu permanent exhibition at the National Library opened, displaying the treaty documents along with the Declaration of Independence and the 1893 Women's Suffrage Petition. ==Role in New Zealand society==

Right of pre-emption The short-term effect of the treaty was to prevent the sale of Māori land to anyone other than the Crown. This was intended to protect Māori from the kinds of shady land purchases which had alienated indigenous peoples in other parts of the world from their land with minimal compensation. Before the treaty had been finalised the New Zealand Company had made several hasty land deals and shipped settlers from Great Britain to New Zealand, hoping the British would be forced to accept its land claims as a fait accompli, in which it was largely successful. In part, the treaty was an attempt to establish a system of property rights for land with the Crown controlling and overseeing land sale to prevent abuse. Initially, this worked well with the Governor and his representatives having the sole right to buy and sell land from the Māori. The Crown was supposed to mediate the process to ensure that the true owners were properly identified (difficult for tribally owned land) and fairly compensated, by the standards of the time. In particular, the Governor had the responsibility to protect Māori interests. Governor Grey set out to buy large tracts of Māori land in advance of settlement at low prices, later selling it to settlers at higher prices and using the difference to develop land access (roads and bridges). The treaty was used to justify the idea that the chiefs of Waikato and Taranaki were rebels against the Crown. , and a group of whare, are visible in the foreground. In July 1860, during the conflicts, Governor Thomas Gore Browne convened a group of some 200 Māori (including over 100 pro-Crown chiefs handpicked by officials) to discuss the treaty and land for a month at Mission Bay, Kohimarama, Auckland. This became known as the Kohimarama Conference, and was an attempt to prevent the spread of fighting to other regions of New Zealand. But many of the chiefs present were critical of the Crown's handling of the Taranaki conflict. Those at the conference reaffirmed the treaty and the Queen's sovereignty and suggested that a native council be established, but this did not occur. Native Land Court The Native Land Court (later renamed the Māori Land Court) was established under the Native Lands Act 1865, which also abolished the Crown right to pre-emption. Although the treaty has never been directly incorporated into New Zealand law, its provisions were first incorporated into specific legislation as early as the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 and the Native Rights Act 1865. However, in the 1877 Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington judgement, Chief Justice Prendergast argued that the treaty was a "simple nullity" in terms of transferring sovereignty from Māori to the British Crown. This remained the legal orthodoxy until at least the 1970s. Māori have since argued that Prendergast's decision, as well as laws later based on it were a politically convenient and deliberate ploy to legitimise the seizure of Māori land and other resources. Despite this, Māori frequently used the treaty to argue for a range of demands, including greater independence and return of confiscated and unfairly purchased land. Treaty House and revival The treaty returned to the public eye after the Treaty House and grounds were purchased by the Governor-General, Viscount Bledisloe, in the early 1930s and donated to the nation. The dedication of the site as a national reserve in 1934 was probably the first major event held there since the 1840s. The profile of the treaty was further raised by the New Zealand centenary of 1940. For most of the twentieth century, textbooks, government publicity and many historians touted the treaty as the moral foundation of colonisation and argued that it set race relations in New Zealand above those of colonies in North America, Africa and Australia. Popular histories of New Zealand and the treaty often claimed that the treaty was an example of British benevolence and therefore an honourable contract. Even though Māori continued to challenge this narrative, the treaty's lack of legal standing in 1840 and subsequent breaches tended to be overlooked until the 1970s when these issues were raised by the Māori protest movement. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the Waitangi Tribunal During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Treaty of Waitangi became the focus of a strong Māori protest movement which rallied around calls for the government to "honour the treaty" and to "redress treaty grievances". The protest movement can be seen as part of the worldwide civil rights movements, which emerged in the 1960s. As a response to the protest movement, the treaty received recognition in 1975 with the passage of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, which established the Waitangi Tribunal. The Tribunal had the power to make findings of fact and to make recommendations. It had jurisdiction to hear claims based on alleged breaches of the treaty occurring after 1975. The Act was amended in 1985 to enable the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate breaches of the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi back to 1840, It provides for the Waitangi Tribunal to determine claims that breached the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 provides for the intentions of the treaty to be taken into account through the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Waitangi Tribunal's key function is to evaluate Crown actions against the intentions of the parties that signed the Treaty. The Tribunal also has the specific authority to determine the meaning of the two texts of the Treaty. Hayward (2004) states: ''"The Tribunal's findings ...are expressed in the currency of treaty principles - which principles are applicable to the particular case, and how the Crown breached those principles, if at all"''. In order to apply the Treaty of Waitangi in a way that is relevant to the Crown and Māori in the present day, the Waitangi Tribunal and the courts must consider the broad sentiments, the intentions and the goals of the treaty, and then identify the relevant principles of the treaty on a case-by-case basis. Each Tribunal is required to determine the principles of each claim on a case-by-case basis. In 1989, the Fourth Labour Government published a report "Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi" a similar list of principles to that established in a 1987 court case. During the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical (pre-1992) claims. The ACT party has proposed a referendum on redefining the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. Bill of Rights Geoffrey Palmer argued that the treaty should be further incorporated as a part of the New Zealand constitution, to help improve relations between the Crown, Māori and other New Zealanders. The Fourth Labour Government's Bill of Rights White Paper proposed that the treaty be entrenched in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990. This proposal was never carried through to the legislation, with the attitude of many Māori towards it "suspicious, uneasy, doubtful or undecided". Many Māori were concerned that the proposal would relegate the treaty to a lesser position, and enable the electorate (who under the original Bill of Rights would be able to repeal certain sections by referendum) to remove the treaty from the Bill of Rights altogether. Geoffrey Palmer commented in 2013 that: During the 1990s there was broad agreement between major political parties that the settlement of historical claims was appropriate. Some disagreed however, and claims of a "Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry", which profits from making frivolous claims of violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, were made by a number of political figures in the late 1990s and early 2000s, including former National Party leader Don Brash in his 2004 "Orewa Speech". In 2005, New Zealand First MP Doug Woolerton introduced the "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Deletion Bill" in the New Zealand Parliament as a private member's bill. Winston Peters, the 13th Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand, and others supported the bill, which was designed to remove references to the treaty from New Zealand law. The bill failed to pass its second reading in November 2007. Public opinion In terms of public opinion, a study in 2008 found that among the 2,700 voting age New Zealanders surveyed, 37.4% wanted the treaty removed from New Zealand law, 19.7% were neutral, and 36.8% wanted the treaty kept in law; additionally, 39.7% agreed Māori deserved compensation, 15.7% were neutral, and 41.2% disagreed. In 2017, the same study found that among the 3,336 voting age New Zealanders surveyed, 32.99% wanted the treaty removed from New Zealand law, 14.45% were neutral and 42.58% disagreed, and 9.98% didn't know. Today, the treaty is still not specifically part of New Zealand domestic law, but has been adopted into various Acts of Parliament ad hoc. It is nevertheless regarded as a founding document of New Zealand. ==Commemoration==

The anniversary of the signing of the treaty—6 February—is the New Zealand national day, Waitangi Day. The day was first commemorated in 1934, when the site of the original signing, Treaty House, was made a public reserve (along with its grounds). Waitangi Day has been the focus of protest by Māori (as was particularly the case from the 1970s through to the 1990s), but today the day is often used as an opportunity to discuss the history and lasting effects of the treaty. The Waitangi crown, a 1935 commemorative coin, was issued in honour of the treaty. The treaty was added to UNESCO's Memory of the World International Register in 1997, becoming one of the first inscriptions from New Zealand. It is also on the national Memory of the World register, Memory of the World Aotearoa New Zealand Ngā Mahara o te Ao. ==See also==