Friday, January 26, 2024

Geoff Parker: Sovereignty ceded

The references to sovereignty in this first archived document establishes that the Treaty was about sovereignty (not government or governance) and transfer of sovereignty was the intent of the British Government.

* Lord Normanby’s brief to William Hobson >

These next four archived documents prove beyond doubt that the chiefs ceded full sovereignty.

* William Colenso’s recorded account of the signing and chief’s speeches >

* Rev John Warren’s recorded account of the signing >

* Sir Apirana Ngata - What is a "Government?" The English word is "Sovereignty"......."What is the Treaty of Waitangi?" It was the first article of the Treaty which transferred the chiefly authority of your ancestors, affecting you and future generations for ever. >

* Hobson’s preamble - ‘You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty’…‘But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent’ >

 There are three ways in which one state may acquire sovereignty over another – by cession, by conquest, and by occupation. The British government gained the sovereignty over New Zealand through five ways.

1) Cession by treaty. A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, mostly the Maori language text, at 34 locations around New Zealand between February 6 and May 21, 1840.

2) Proclamations by Hobson (North Island), Bunbury/Nias (South Island, Stewart Island.). The proclamations appeared in the London Gazette on October 2, 1840.

3) Occupation, by 1881 there were 500,000 settlers, 45,000 Maori

4) Conquest - If the defeats of tribes who took up arms against the government during the 1860s is to be considered, the British government also confirmed sovereignty over New Zealand by conquest.

5) Purchase – The chiefs willingly sold most of New Zealand’s land under the criteria of Article 2 of the Treaty. (See Turton’s Deeds of Maori land sales) >

 The Kohimarama Conference of 1860 was attended by 112 Maori Chiefs who were signatories to the Treaty signing 1840, some were Ngapuhi - the main signees of the 1835 DOI, some were also signees to the letter to King William for protection in 1831.

The Conference had been called to discuss the direct challenge that the Kingitanga [Maori King] Movement was mounting to the Queen’s sovereignty, something the loyal chiefs expected the Crown to quell in the interests of national unity.

The chiefs who attended the 1860 Kohimarama Conference “Pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the unions of the two races”.

Hori Kerei Te Kotuku: - “.....It was during the time of Governor Grey that we first recognized the Queen's authority. He said there is no other Sovereign for us but the Queen. I did not receive the Law without consideration. I sought it carefully in the pages of Scripture. I did not search in ignorance. I saw its benefits, and then I embraced it. Now the queen is my sovereign.”

Wi Te Tete: - “Listen ye Pakehas, and ye Maori Chiefs! We have now become one people under the Queen.”

Tohi Te Ueurangi: - “Let the Queen be above all. I have nothing more to say.”

Full account of the Kohimarama conference can be read here >

The word ‘Kawanatanga’ was used in both the 1835 Declaration of Independence and in Article 1 of Te Tiriti.

The 1835 DOI was about establishing an independent state and setting up a Maori Government to make laws etc – so ‘Kawanatanga’ used in this document, appropriately mean’t ‘Government’.

However, Te Tiriti was primarily about the transfer of Sovereignty (little to do with ‘Government/governance’), so the correct translation of ‘Kawanatanga’ in Article 1 of this document can only be ‘Sovereignty’ - All evidence (Littlewood draft, chiefs speeches at Waitangi, Normanby’s brief to Hobson, Hobson’s statements, John Warren’s statement, Kohimarama chiefs speeches and Apirana Ngata’s explanation) pertinent to the treaty confirm this.

Further - The word "kawanatanga" (Article 1)was used to translate "sovereignty" and "rangatiratanga" (Article 2) to mean "possession".

It has become confusing since the 1980s when claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Hugh Kawharu redefined these key words in the treaty -- "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" to create a treaty that was purported to grant to the governor the right to govern settlers while letting the chiefs carry on being chiefs.

That is clearly nonsense, did not happen, and was not what the chiefs signed up to because they really did not want other chiefs carrying on as they did because too many people were being killed.

If they did not understand what they were signing and still thought they were chiefs then why did cannibalism end and the chiefs free their Maori slaves?

 If sovereignty was not ceded here are seven questions to answer. WHY WAS THERE NO MENTION:

1) By Normanby, in his instructions to Hobson, that sovereignty was over settlers only?

2) In the treaty, that only settlers would be under the new Governor.

3) In the treaty debate on February 5, 1840, that sovereignty was for settlers only.

4) At any of the 34 treaty signings, that chiefs could be chiefs while the governor controls settlers?

5) In any of the four sovereignty proclamations, that sovereignty was only for settlers?

6) At the Kohimarama conference in 1860, that the governor should limit his governing to settlers?

7) By Maori Affairs Minister Sir Apirana Ngata, in his 1922 treaty book, that the governor should limit his governing to settlers?

We’ve had 40 years of treaty lawyers asserting that Maori have “rangatiratanga” but 184 years of all of us living under Crown sovereignty.

 In an astonishing report issued in 2014, the Waitangi Tribunal claimed that the Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty agreed to share power and authority with Britain, but did not cede sovereignty

But as historian and Treaty specialist Professor Paul Moon of AUT made clear at the time, the Tribunal’s conclusion was “manifestly wrong”.

Chris Finlayson, at that time Attorney General and Minister in Charge of Treaty Negotiations, and somebody well known for having considerable sympathy for Maori aspirations, said in reaction to the Tribunal’s report that there was “no question that the Crown has sovereignty in New Zealand”.

Sir Apirana Ngata, writing about the Treaty in 1922, said that “the Treaty made one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were very powerful”.

Moreover, with very rare exceptions, the overwhelming majority of New Zealanders with a Maori ancestor have behaved as if sovereignty was ceded in 1840:

* they’ve served in the Police and the Armed Forces;

* they’ve bought and sold assets, registering those transactions with an agency of the Crown;

* they’ve paid income taxes and GST;

* they’ve been employed by the Crown as teachers, nurses, and bureaucrats;

* they’ve accepted unemployment benefits, New Zealand Superannuation and other benefits;

* they’ve accepted treatment in public hospitals and from highly subsidized doctors;

* they’ve been educated in public schools and universities;

* they’ve travelled overseas on New Zealand passports;

* they’ve accepted large sums of money from the Crown in resolution of so-called historical grievances.

Very strange behaviour if Maori haven’t accepted the sovereignty of the Crown.

Gary Judd KC also concurs that there is only one treaty (Te Tiriti) and that the chiefs at Waitangi fully understood that by signing the document they would be ceding full sovereignty to the Queen - see video here >

I have now reached the end of my argument, there is nothing else that I need to say.

Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.


Anonymous said...

1839 Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent.

New Zealand had been claimed by Britain under the ‘Law of Nations’ and placed under the laws and dependency of New South Wales. Governor Gipps was Governor of Australia and New Zealand and Captain Hobson his Lieutenant when British sovereignty was established by Royal Charter/Letters Patent of 1839, issued by “Victoria by the Grace of God” under “The Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland”

Britain could not have placed New Zealand under the dependency of New South Wales if Maori had sovereignty over New Zealand.

Anonymous said...

In reading this Article, I have one question, it is the same one I have asked over the past weeks, under many articles, published with the same/similar content, posted on this Blog, that question is -

" I want Maori, of today, to step forward and verbally state, what have They been denied, since February 6th 1840".

If Maori are confused, by that question, then I suggest that they read this article because it clearly defines the birth of New Zealand, from 6th February 1840, and in subsequent Years they have been granted more freedoms than any other Native across the world - America (the African - American or Negro as they were initially named) is the best example.

With the establishment of Govt in New Zealand that later included many noted Maori Males, who worked with other Politicians, ensured that the Rights under Law and the privilege's extended from same have not been denied to Maori.

So maybe there needs to be "a walk back, by Maori on the issues they currently wish to present as a reset of what New Zealand is all about".

Anonymous said...

Tell the brown clowns this. They will just ask for more.

Anonymous said...

It needs to be noted that the most vocal opposition to the argument that Maori ceded sovereignty to the British Monarch, is of course, the same K─źngitanga movement and closely aligned iwi, such as Tainui / Waikato and Ngati Maniopoto. We are seeing now, a repeat of the divisive rhetoric of the late 1850s that led to civil war in the 1860s. At time following it , saw the Maori “King” retreat to the interior of his “country” (actually his neighbouring iwi’s) to lick his wounds for the next 20 odd years. Some wiser heads amongst all those other iwi who signed the treaty need to remind the current king of that previous outcome when the Kingitanga agitated the way he did then.