On the one hand, David Seymour argued with compelling logic the need to resolve once and for all whether New Zealanders enjoy equal political rights or whether, as Helmut Modlik argued, those with some Maori ancestry (always now with other ancestry as well, German in Mr Modlik’s case) have different political rights to those enjoyed by other New Zealanders by virtue of the Treaty of Waitangi.
It was depressing enough to see Mr Modlik argue the case that Maori New Zealanders have different political rights by virtue of the Treaty but it was even more depressing to read a poll conducted by the Curia polling company the following day. That poll, of 1000 people, revealed that only 35% of New Zealanders believe that Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty in 1840, 27% argued that they had not ceded sovereignty, with the balance being undecided. It is obvious why there needs to be a lengthy period to submit on the Treaty Principles Bill.
The argument which Mr Modlik advanced for why Maori chiefs had not ceded sovereignty in 1840 seemed to be based on the notion that it would have been ridiculous to expect some hundreds of chiefs, representing perhaps 100,000 people, to have surrendered ultimate authority to a couple of British officers and a handful of missionaries. No, they had agreed to allow the British to have authority over the British settlers but Maori were to be free to continue as before. At most, there was to be shared authority, a partnership between the chiefs on the one hand and British authorities on the other. And indeed, that argument, taken in isolation, sounds plausible.
But the argument runs up against some very awkward facts.
For a start, the wording of the Treaty. Article 1 in the official English-language version of the Treaty makes it unambiguously clear that in signing the Treaty the chiefs were accepting the sovereignty of the British Crown. Ah yes, it is argued, but the Maori language version of the Treaty is the one that must take precedence because it was that version of the Treaty that the great majority of Maori chiefs signed. Quite so, but we have known since its discovery in 1989 what the English text given to Henry Williams to translate into te reo Maori required, and while that text differs somewhat from the official English text (for example it makes no mention of fisheries or forests) it is absolutely consistent with the official text in making it unambiguously clear that Maori chiefs were being asked to surrender ultimate authority to the British Crown.
And we know, from the many speeches made by the chiefs on 5 February 1840 and recorded by Colenso at the time, that they understood they were being asked to surrender to a higher authority. Many objected strongly, pointing out that signing implied that the British authorities would be entitled to hang them.
And speeches made by chiefs at the very large meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 again made it clear that they knew that Queen Victoria was sovereign and had authority above them.
When one of the greatest of the Ngapuhi chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 died in 1871, his gravestone carried the words “In memory of Tamati Waka Nene, Chief of Ngapuhi, the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand”.
Is it plausible that the chiefs who heavily outnumbered the British in 1840 would have been willing to surrender to some distant authority? Yes, when it is recalled that the previous four decades had seen almost unbelievable inter-tribal warfare, with tens of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered – more dead, it is believed, than all the New Zealand deaths in all the wars since 1840, including the First and Second World Wars. The chiefs would have seen British authority as a way of ending that inter-tribal slaughter (and perhaps protecting them from French forces which some tribes believed, with some justification, were out for revenge of an earlier massacre of the crew of a French vessel).
Many of those who signed would also have been aware of how advanced Britain was at that time, and how powerful its naval vessels.
Plausible or not, the great Maori leaders of the past, like Sir Apirana Ngata, clearly accepted that in signing the Treaty the chiefs had effectively handed authority to the British Crown.
And it is surely significant that the most recent authoritative translation of the Maori language version of the Treaty, that by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989, translates the first article of the Treaty as “the chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined the Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England forever the complete government over their land.”
In one sense, debating what the Treaty provided in 1840 is an interesting academic exercise. The reality is that for some 180 years all of us have behaved as if the Crown is sovereign. We’ve paid taxes, been employed by the state, received benefits from the state, carried passports issued by the state, obeyed laws made by the state. In other words, we have accepted that the Government has the right to govern all of us, Maori and all other New Zealanders.
Chris Hipkins, Leader of the Labour Party, claims to believe that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840, but he totally accepts that the Crown is sovereign now, over all New Zealanders. Frankly, there is no other peaceful way forward.
The argument which Mr Modlik advanced for why Maori chiefs had not ceded sovereignty in 1840 seemed to be based on the notion that it would have been ridiculous to expect some hundreds of chiefs, representing perhaps 100,000 people, to have surrendered ultimate authority to a couple of British officers and a handful of missionaries. No, they had agreed to allow the British to have authority over the British settlers but Maori were to be free to continue as before. At most, there was to be shared authority, a partnership between the chiefs on the one hand and British authorities on the other. And indeed, that argument, taken in isolation, sounds plausible.
But the argument runs up against some very awkward facts.
For a start, the wording of the Treaty. Article 1 in the official English-language version of the Treaty makes it unambiguously clear that in signing the Treaty the chiefs were accepting the sovereignty of the British Crown. Ah yes, it is argued, but the Maori language version of the Treaty is the one that must take precedence because it was that version of the Treaty that the great majority of Maori chiefs signed. Quite so, but we have known since its discovery in 1989 what the English text given to Henry Williams to translate into te reo Maori required, and while that text differs somewhat from the official English text (for example it makes no mention of fisheries or forests) it is absolutely consistent with the official text in making it unambiguously clear that Maori chiefs were being asked to surrender ultimate authority to the British Crown.
And we know, from the many speeches made by the chiefs on 5 February 1840 and recorded by Colenso at the time, that they understood they were being asked to surrender to a higher authority. Many objected strongly, pointing out that signing implied that the British authorities would be entitled to hang them.
And speeches made by chiefs at the very large meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 again made it clear that they knew that Queen Victoria was sovereign and had authority above them.
When one of the greatest of the Ngapuhi chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 died in 1871, his gravestone carried the words “In memory of Tamati Waka Nene, Chief of Ngapuhi, the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand”.
Is it plausible that the chiefs who heavily outnumbered the British in 1840 would have been willing to surrender to some distant authority? Yes, when it is recalled that the previous four decades had seen almost unbelievable inter-tribal warfare, with tens of thousands of men, women and children slaughtered – more dead, it is believed, than all the New Zealand deaths in all the wars since 1840, including the First and Second World Wars. The chiefs would have seen British authority as a way of ending that inter-tribal slaughter (and perhaps protecting them from French forces which some tribes believed, with some justification, were out for revenge of an earlier massacre of the crew of a French vessel).
Many of those who signed would also have been aware of how advanced Britain was at that time, and how powerful its naval vessels.
Plausible or not, the great Maori leaders of the past, like Sir Apirana Ngata, clearly accepted that in signing the Treaty the chiefs had effectively handed authority to the British Crown.
And it is surely significant that the most recent authoritative translation of the Maori language version of the Treaty, that by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1989, translates the first article of the Treaty as “the chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined the Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England forever the complete government over their land.”
In one sense, debating what the Treaty provided in 1840 is an interesting academic exercise. The reality is that for some 180 years all of us have behaved as if the Crown is sovereign. We’ve paid taxes, been employed by the state, received benefits from the state, carried passports issued by the state, obeyed laws made by the state. In other words, we have accepted that the Government has the right to govern all of us, Maori and all other New Zealanders.
Chris Hipkins, Leader of the Labour Party, claims to believe that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty in 1840, but he totally accepts that the Crown is sovereign now, over all New Zealanders. Frankly, there is no other peaceful way forward.
Dr Don Brash, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank and Leader of the New Zealand National Party from 2003 to 2006 and ACT in 2011. Don blogs at Bassett, Brash and Hide - where this article was sourced
12 comments:
If it is proven that sovereignty was not ceded, then surely compensation settlements are (were) not necessary. It might then be argued that NZ was taken by conquest by the British.
However, such a stance would probably result in a revolt and a repeat of the conquest.
Of course, one would hope that saner heads would prevail.
On top of this tax paying, state benefits, passports and laws many, many maori have accepted the state when joining the military (taking the oath) and have in fact died for their country in WWII under the NEW ZEALAND flag.
Why would they do this if they felt or believed they were not New Zealanders under one government?
People like Modlik with his mixed combined and churned heritage are just stirrers of social chaos to curate their own socialist (tribalised) ideologies whilst feathering their own personal wealth and welbeing on the cultural 'ladder'.
Points to make about this:
1. "27% argued that they had not ceded sovereignty, with the balance being undecided" - that shows that a) the unprecedented level of brainwashing is working in New Zealand and b) that 38% either cannot be bothered to find out the truth for themselves or are incapable of doing so.
2. The Maori text "differs somewhat from the official English text (for example it makes no mention of fisheries or forests). This is because Freeman back translated when there was no need given Hobson's Draft was completely unambiguous and subsequent governments have not had the guts to revert to the "Littlewood"/Hobson's original text. If they did so the fisheries/forest nonsense would disappear as would the nonsense that article 2 applies only to Maori.
“In memory of Tamati Waka Nene, Chief of Ngapuhi, the first to welcome the Queen’s sovereignty in New Zealand” - Why then are Ngapuhi now arguing that sovereignty was not ceded? Are they going to dig him up and tell him he was wrong?
The common public view represents the effectivenss of positively asserted, oft repeated, propoganda statements, irrespective of factual basis. Maori have long recognised the effectiveness of such among their blinkered and often simple minded own, but now applied to all with the connivance of the education system, msm , RNZ etc. If the public were similarly bombarded with the factual counter, myth would not gain ground.
If everybody in New Zealand with Maori ancestory took the attitude that prevails from a minor percentage of them, this country would be a disaster. Tai, a colleague of mine, told me that if the English had not arrived when they did, they would have eaten each other up by now. Glen, half Maori and half Scottish, told me that he did not accept his Maori ancestry as they embarrass him. Yet another, Jim, told me that when his ancestors arrived, there were many people here before them, so they were not the first people here. Cecil, and English workmate and interested in history, was informed by a Maori that his tribe was bought out on a bird boat. Cecil told him that his tribe was bought out by the Chinese and that the ship was a type of junk with sails which looked like a bird on the wing as it came over the horizon.
Kevan
I don't understand why so much importance is being placed on whether Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840 or not. I used to believe they did, until Paul Moon convinced me that they didn't. But he also convinced that it doesn't really matter one way or the other. The Treaty itself was an initial arrangement that was followed by subsequent constitutional arrangements which superseded that first step. The fact that the Treaty isn't referenced in those subsequent arrangements shows that it was no longer considered a relevant point of reference in establishing the constitutional underpinnings of the new country New Zealand. The Treaty was a necessary first step in initiating a series of later steps that ultimately lead to where we are today, where everyone born here is automatically a New Zealander regardless of who their ancestors were. This remains true for those with Maori ancestors whether they believe those ancestors who were present in 1840 ceded sovereignty to the Crown or not. Reasonable arguments can be made for how or when it was exactly that Maori accepted Crown sovereignty, but only unreasonable arguments can be made to support the idea that Maori born here are not really New Zealanders like the rest of us. But by default, this is where any discussion over other possible constitutional arrangements involving New Zealanders of Maori descent inevitably has to begin. The history of what happened in 1840, and more importantly, since then, cannot be undone and replayed. Any realistic suggestions for change have to accept the reality of the status quo first, and then outline a way forward from there.
I believe that some of the tribes ceded sovereignty but others did not sign the treaty. If the British went away and left NZ to the French Maori would be a lot worse off.
I'm not confused about whether they ceded sovereignty, Sir Apirana Ngata wasn't confused, Sir Hugh Kawharu wasn't confused.
It was 13 Nagapuhi chiefs who 1831 wrote to King William asking for his friendship and protection which presumably led to the treaty, which was eventually signed by over 500 Maori chiefs, i.e. the British colonization of New Zealand was by invitation.
Was sovereignty ceded in 1840?
No. Britain had already claimed sovereignty over New Zealand by Law of Nations (jure gentium) and placed under the laws and dependency of New South Wales by the 1839 Royal Charter/ Letters Patent before the first signature appeared on the treaty of Waitangi.
It's almost unbelievable the level of ignorance, but then we have had years of political, academic, and judicial activism that have all been more recently turbo-charged, and all aided and abetted by a Fourth Estate/MSM that seems hellbent on destabilising the country on a woke, leftist agenda of mis and disinformation. So, we are now reaping what too many New Zealanders, in their complacency, have allowed to be sowed.
If you're reading this and haven't looked at Te Tiriti and at least looked at some of the Maori words and 'googled' what they purportedly mean; read about the "Littlewood" Treaty ; know what the "Freeman" version refers to; what the back-translations of Judge T E Young (1869), Sir Apirana Ngata (C1922), or Sir Hugh Kawharu (1988) say and how they differ, then it's high time you did. Many died in the cause for the freedom and democracy we enjoy here today and if you know little, if anything, of the aforementioned, then it's the very least you could do in their memory and for your country. Once done, certain truths become obvious and then, for our country sake, you need to spread the word.
So the British were to have authority over the settlers but Maori could continue with their way of life. How would it be possible to enforce laws on settlers, with Maori around continuing to live their virtually lawless lifestyle. I cannot see that anyone would agree to govern on this basis, it would be impossible, IMHO.
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.