We are in this position primarily because of the misintepretation by Hugh Kawharu of "tino rangatiratanga" and later, in 1987 ,in the Court of Appeal, Justice Robin Cooke intimated that “The Treaty established a relationship akin to a partnership between Crown and Maori”. Although the operative word was "akin" it was soon taken out of context and this set in motion the development of the so called principles for their inclusion in legislation. This aspect has not been covered in my submission as I believe this has not had the impact of Kawharu's misinterpretation.
I believe the documented history should prevail over the unsubjected views of those that will benefit, as a by product I would hope that the Justice Committee does the same, but I'm not holding my breath.
Members of the Justice Committee,
This submission is in support of the Treaty Principles Bill.
I trust that the background in support of my submission doesn't come across as a history lesson but I feel some context is necessary to explain my support of this bill. I have been as brief as possible and have included supporting links to show that my assertions are supported by historical references.
I don’t purport to be a historian but I have read widely on this issue.
The reasons Britain decided to colonise New Zealand are various and are not considered in this document, the instructions given to Captain Hobson are, as it is these, that provide the framework for the Treaty of Waitangi.
Lord Normanby was the Secretary of State for the Colonies from February 1839, when the British relationship with New Zealand was being finalised.It was he who approved the annexation of New Zealand to Britain and approved Captain William Hobson as the first Lieutenant-Governor.
On 14 August 1839, Lord Normanby issued the detailed instructions guiding Hobson as to how he was to proceed, including gaining Maori approval for a cession of sovereignty, the broad outline of the need for a treaty to be signed with Maori and the way in which existing purchases by Europeans were to be dealt with.
Normanby's brief to Hobson was eloquent , clear, explicit and humane, it clearly shows that Britain understood the social situation in New Zealand. This document is a valuable resource for anybody wishing to understand the intent of the British.
It proposed –
1. New Zealand was not to become a penal settlement
2. That the natives must not be permitted to enter into any contracts in which they might be ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to themselves
3. Sovereignty had to be ceded and must be done so with the free and intelligent consent of the natives
4. British law could not and would not be applied unless the Queen was acknowledged as sovereign of their country
5. In return for which Maori would become British citizens enjoying the protection of the Queen
6. They would retain ownership of their lands they currently held
7. They could only sell this land to the crown making all transactions open to scrutiny
8. All dealings with the natives for their lands must be conducted on the same principles of sincerity, justice and good faith as must govern your transactions with them for the recognition of her Majesty's sovereignty in the islands.
A KEY POINT in the instructions is that sovereignty must be ceded.
This document was the guiding document Hobson used when he drafted the Treaty. Hobson was a reliable, experienced, conscientious officer and would have taken this brief seriously, his duty was to construct a treaty which reflected Normanby's instructions
The resulting document was a simple and straightforward agreement by which the Chiefs agreed to pass sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria in return for protection and rights as British subjects and they retained possession of their lands.
With that request in mind the treaty was first drafted in English; although drafted initially by Hobson, it was finalised by James Busby, James Clendon (US Consulate) and Hobson at Clendon’s residence and penned on paper using the “W.Tucker 1833” watermark, it became known as Busby's final draft. The only know source of that paper was from Clendon’s personal stocks.
The translation of this draft into Maori was undertaken on the night of Feb 4th by the missionary H. Williams and his son.
Williams was an honorable man, thoroughly conversant with the Maori language. This knowledge saw him produce one of the first Maori-English dictionaries, what better man could you entrust with the important ask of translation.
Both Busby's draft and the Maori equivalent were read to the gathering at Waitangi. There were many bi-lingual speakers, both English and Maori and nobody questioned the translation. Williams coined two words "tino rangatiratanga and kawanatanga" - “Sovereignty” in the first article of the English text was translated into “kawanatanga” in the Maori, “Ownership” in Article 2 of the English was translated into “rangatiratanga”. This is indisputable.
It is acknowledged that the Maori version that the chiefs signed is the definitive agreement, but this doesn't mean the "mother" document, Busby’s final draft or a reputable copy/back translation, can be ignored, for the simple reason being written in English it is less likely to be mistranslated. and clearly explains the intent of British. It is clear that the Maori Chiefs understood the concept of sovereignty (despite not having a word for it), and all but one of the seven who spoke against it, signed the Treaty.
The pre-signing discussion was recorded by .William Colenso (missionary and printer)
- https://waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
After discussions and the signing of the treaty, Hobson's scribe James Freeman cobbled up a version from draft notes and produced a "royal style" version of the Treaty, this document became known as the Freeman's Treaty. It was never read to Maori, and it bears NO relationship to the Maori version. In spite of this, it was adopted by the Waitangi Tribunal as the "official" English version, interestingly, despite being a cobbled up version, it is still clear in this document that Maori were to cede sovereignty.
History tells us that Busby's final draft went missing, but before this, it was copied by James Clendon and copies sent to the US, and later by American Arctic Explorer Charles Wilkes.
http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/ClendonsDespatches.html
In 1869 in lieu of a definitive English document the Government commissioned T E Young of the Maori Affairs Department to produce a back translation from the Maori version. This document can be viewed here
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/ReadtheTreaty.html
The term “Littlewood treaty” arose when a hand-written document was found in a sideboard drawer on February 27, 1989, by members of the Littlewood family, while clearing out their mum’s house after she had died.. This document, in an envelope marked "Treaty of Waitangi" was dated 4th February 1840. Leading handwriting expert Dr Phil Parkinson of the Alexander Turnbull Library identified the handwriting as belonging to James Busby. It was written on very old paper bearing the W. Tucker, 1833 watermark.
It has been verified by New Zealand Archives as a genuine document written by James Busby and alongside the many other factors that contribute to its UNDENIABLE pedigree:-
1. it has the date February 4 on it
2. it has the exact wording in English of Te Tiriti o Waitangi
3. certified to be in Jame’s Busby’s handwriting
4. it matches the wording in the documents in Clendons and Wilkes dispatches
5. the paper has the watermark “W. Tucker 1833” – the only person who had stocks of this paper was James Clendon (see above)
The Littlewood name can be traced back to the time of the Treaty. Henry Littlewood was James Clendon's solicitor. Clendon had been loaned the final draft original by Hobson after a request to the Colonial Secretary. It had been forwarded to him in his capacity as US Consul. It remained in his possession until he lodged it with solicitor Littlewood. Compelling evidence showed that James Clendon was in attendance when the final draft of the Treaty was completed and that the final drafting took place at Clendon’s home. Clendon made his own copy of the final English text again on W. Tucker paper 1833 and he later forwarded it to the U S Secretary of State on the 20th Feb 1840. Subsequent to this on the 5th April 1840 American Arctic Explorer Charles Wilkes took a copy of the final draft complete with Busby’s spelling mistakes to the United States.
How much more provenance is required in order for this to be accepted as Busby’s final draft?
The problems started in the 1980s when claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Hugh Kawharu was requested to provide a back translation of the Maori version - (despite having Young's translation and Clendon's copies available), he redefined these key words in the treaty -- "kawanatanga" and "rangatiratanga" . In doing so he clearly undermined the “spirit” of the Treaty.
Astonishingly, It would seem that Sir Hugh knew better than the missionary H. Williams who had coined the words originally and undertaken the original translation. Kawharu simply ignored the available historical accounts and other available documents the Treaty was translated from. There was a wealth of information available to him - Colenso's record of the Chief's speeches, the documents from the 1860 Kohimarama gathering, Young's back translation, Clendon's copies, Sir Apirana Ngata's "Treaty of Waitangi".
https://waitangi.com/colenso/colhis1.html
http://onenzfoundation.co.nz/.../chiefs-swear-alliance-to...
Imagine the Tribunal's concern when the Littlewood document emerged on the scene. Their reaction was to employ Donald Loveridge to discredit the document which he attempted to do so, to the satisfaction of the Tribunal, however, his puerile arguments have been successfully debunked by Martin Doutre.
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/.../LoveridgeResponse...
At this point there are a number of documents in sync, almost matching word for word:-
1. The Treaty in Maori
2. T E Young’s back translation undertaken for the Government (1869)
3. The Littlewood Treaty (Busby’s final draft, the “mother” document)
4. Copies of Busby’s final draft sent to the US by Clendon
5. Copies of Busby’s final draft sent by Wilkes
The documents that DON'T MATCH the Maori version of the Treaty are:-
1. The bogus Freeman’s version
2. Hugh Kawharu’s translation
The latter two documents are used by the Waitangi Tribunal in their deliberations, mysteriously; Kawharu's translation doesn't even match the bogus Freeman's treaty!
SUMMARY and CONCLUSION
We are here largely because of an errant translation by Hugh Kawharu, he ignored the historically, verifiable accounts including the available supporting English documents.. This has allowed radical elements to twist the meaning of the Treaty to further their aims. They have invented "undefined" principles , partnership and self-determination where none exist. These principles DO NOT EXIST in the original English documents and even if the meaning of "Tino rangatiratanga" has been distorted over time, it is the understanding of the Chiefs at that time of signing that is relevant.
We have a situation where the historical evidence clearly points to Maori ceding sovereignty and the pre Kawharu English drafts have no mention of partnership or self-determination - it is not expressed or implied!
It is a case of history vs Hugh Kawharu - to me the insurmountable, historical evidence is the clear winner but unfortunately I am not the decision maker.
The Treaty Principles bill is not inventing new principles it is simply about reinstating the original intent of the treaty and primarily, ensuring that all New Zealanders are treated equally which is a basic human right. This is an opportunity to not only restore the original intent of the Treaty but to correct historical elements surrounding its creation.
The Crown has obligations to not only Maori, but the other ethnicities that now make up the New Zealand population. In a functioning democracy, it is critical all citizens have equal rights and responsibilities.
In conclusion I make the following recommendations:-
1. Adopt the Treaty Principles Bill but consider simplifying Principle 2.
2. Facilitate a public referendum on the Bill
3. Put steps in place to form an unbiased group to evaluate the Littlewood Treaty with a view to promoting it to its appropriate place in history
4. Redefine the purpose of the Waitangi Tribunal
Thank you for your time.
Graeme Spencer
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
Graeme Spencer
Graeme Spencer is a staunch New Zealander who believes in racial equality and one law for all.
8 comments:
Graeme's submission should be on the front page of all NZ's newspapers as it contains many facts that counters the myths pushed by Maori sovereigntists and their sycophant media - well done Graeme
Well said Graeme. Your words are mirrored by so may people in their submissions - by both Maori, and the rest of us.
I just ponder whether the Select Committee will give time and justice to all those who have submitted; mine included.
Given the volume of submissions, citizens should start to think what might happen: i) if support for the Bill is far stronger than opposition; and 2) if the cut is roughly 50/50.
No doubt Mr Luxon's team is working on these 2 options.
Of course, if opposition to the Bill ( notably Principle 3 equal citizenship ) is the clear winner, then everyone will already know what to do.
After reading your beautifully written submission/account of the New Zealand situation, intelligent, rational adults would easily decide the way forward.
Unfortunately we are fighting this war against a selfish, inhumane force that is absolutely prepared to destroy, not only democracy but human decency.
Superb analysis.
“Normanby's brief to Hobson was eloquent, clear, explicit and humane, it clearly shows that Britain understood the social situation in New Zealand”.
From the instructions by Lord Normanby it seems he had no idea whether New Zealand needed a treaty or not to secure a cession of sovereignty when he stated, “we acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent state, so far at least as it is possible to make such acknowledgment in favor of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate in concert”.
Chief Justice Prendergast responded to this in the trial between Wi Parata v The Bishop of Wellington that Lord Normanby had simple contradicted himself, by stating, “so far indeed as that instrument (TOW) purported to cede the sovereignty it must be regarded as a ‘simple nullity’. No political body existed capable of making cession of sovereignty.”
Chief Justice Prendergast’s legal opinion nullified the proposition that New Zealand was a sovereign and independent state prior to the Crowns acquisition of sovereignty, therefore, nullified any presumption within Normandy’s instructions that the Maori tribes exercised a sovereignty capable of being ceded by treaty.
Then there is the fact that the Royal Charter/Letters Patent, dated the 30th July 1839, by her Majesty’s Command, Lord Normandy, placed New Zealand under the laws and dependency of New South Wales. New South Wales extended her boundaries to include all the Islands of New Zealand. This was Britain claiming sovereignty.
Well ducumented and said, Graeme. If your submission is not found to be exemplary and correct, then NZ knows it is finished as we have know it. And Luxon can find "nothing good" in the Treaty Principles Bill. HE MUST RESIGN as PM, right now !
The facts and intent are clear and they should be published so everyone knows exactly what the Treaty means
Post a Comment