He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one nation. Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson to each chief after he had signed the Treaty of Waitangi
What it meant at the time
It was 6 February 1840 and the location was an elevated area above the Bay of Islands known as Waitangi. The British government’s envoy, Captain William Hobson, represented the British Crown, and he had called local tribal and settler leaders together to sign a treaty.
This was a treaty mainly about the native peoples of New Zealand, through their tribal leaders, ceding sovereignty to the British government in exchange for
~ having the ownership of their lands, dwellings and property (taonga) protected
~ becoming British citizens.
There was no English version, no statements about partnership or principles or a Tribunal. There was also no mention of Forests and Fisheries in Article Two as part of the property (taonga) of the Natives. The guarantees were extended not only to Natives but also to “all the people of New Zealand”.
Passing sovereignty over to the British government
So was the sovereignty of New Zealand placed in the hands of the most powerful nation on the planet? Absolutely.
There was no way the British were going to agree to joint governorship deals with what Lord Normanby called ... numerous dispersed and petty tribes who possess few political relations to each other. Normanby was Secretary for the Colonies and gave Hobson very detailed instructions on how to proceed.
British Resident, James Busby drafted the Treaty in English for Henry Williams, and his son Edward, to translate into Te Reo. The two missionaries had lived in Northland for 17 years and were experts in the Maori language. For “sovereignty”, they chose the Maori term for governor – kawanatanga – and added tanga to make the word ‘governorship’.
James Busby
Many of the tribal leaders who signed had a working knowledge of English, and from what the chiefs said at Waitangi, especially those who would not sign on 6 February 1840, they were obviously clear on what sovereignty and the treaty wording meant.

Te Tiriti
Ceding sovereignty to the British Crown was the basis of Article the First.
Guaranteeing ownership of property
This guarantee of ownership was the key point in Article the Second. It was extended to land and dwellings, and the Crown was given the “exclusive right” to purchase land that tribes wished to sell.
How about property? There has been great debate over the use of the word taonga in the Maori translation of the Treaty, as today is means “treasures”.
The critical point is not what “taonga” means today, but what it meant to the signatories in 1840.
- Property acquired by the spear. Hongi Hika’s definition of taonga
- .. nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes. Nga Puhi chiefs understanding of taonga
Maori become British citizens
In Article the Third, the people of New Zealand (everyone: Polynesian Natives and European settlers) gained the rights and privileges of British citizens. This was in exchange for the cession of Sovreignty (sic) by tribal leaders to the Queen.
Such rights were not given to the natives in South Africa or Australia until the second half of the 20th century, even though those peoples had lived in their “countries” for tens of thousands of years.
Freeman’s fraudulent Treaty
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the one and only valid Treaty.
However Hobson’s Secretary, James Freeman, took it upon himself to write his own. (Hobson was sick at the time.) It was much longer than Te Tiriti and not an English translation.
His “Treaty” excluded the reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand” and added “Estates, Forests, Fisheries” to the possessions list in the same article.
Freeman sent his copy to the Governor of New South Wales who was Hobson’s superior.
But his treaty was unauthorized and inaccurate so is not valid. No Native leaders had it read to them and consequently none of them signed it. Nevertheless the Waitangi Tribunal likes using parts of “Freeman’s fraud” that favour Maori!
Kawharu makes adjustments
The most recent version of the Treaty of Waitangi is a back translation into Maori by Professor Hugh Kawharu, written in the late 1980s. He gave taonga the new meaning - “treasures”, which is not what it meant in 1840.
He also included other subtle reinterpretations of the original treaty wording. However he had vested interests, because at the time, he was on the Waitangi Tribunal and was also a claimant. This was a classic case of conflicts of interest.
The Tribunal has made a meal of the new meaning of taonga, leading to hundreds of millions of dollars of claims and payouts from the taxpayer to the part-Maori descendants of tribes up and down the country.

Waitangi Day for all New Zealanders
For all New Zealanders, regardless of their ethnicity and mixed ancestry, Te Tiriti o Watangi is the valid treaty as this is the only one that was signed in 1840.
Like the United States we are “nation of immigrants” either literally as arrivals from other parts of the world, or descended from settlers who came from the Pacific, Britain, Europe, America, Asia, Africa and South America. Regardless of when our ancestors arrived, we are all equally important as citizens of New Zealand.
All people of British or European descent and Maori, have mixed ethnic origins, more so that Korean, Chinese, Japanese, Indian and Pacific Island migrants who have arrived over the last century. When considering Who do we think we are? all our ancestors are important, regardless of what we claim is our present ethnicity, if we choose to have one.
However what we do have in common is being Kiwis or New Zealanders, and for all us Waitangi Day is ours.
Roger Childs is a writer and freelance journalist. He is a former history and geography teacher, who wrote or co-authored 10 school textbooks.
5 comments:
You say there was no English version of the Treaty, then rely on the English version to determine what the Treaty means. There is a English version because the only legal basis that exists for the Treaty is legislation such as the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and the legislation relies on the English version. Other than that the Treaty is a legal nullity. Even if it was some kind of contract ( and it isn't) it would be void because of uncertainty.
“You say there was no English version of the Treaty, then rely on the English version to determine what the Treaty means. There is a English version because the only legal basis that exists for the Treaty is legislation such as the Treaty of Waitangi Act, and the legislation relies on the English version”.
The “English version” of the Treaty of Waitangi as translated in papers relative to New Zealand, printed by order of the House of Commons, 1st May, 1841, shall be taken to be the true version of the said treaty, is a fraud. It was known back then that the “English version” of the Treaty of Waitangi was not correctly translated, or did not agree with the native version, as related in this 1847 newspaper court case article here. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/NZ18470508.2.8?form=MG0AV3
(And the official 1869 back translation done from the original proves the point)
It is also a recorded fact that Hobson never made or authorized an “English version” to be signed by the chiefs. The only version Hobson authorized to be signed by the chiefs was in the Maori language and was signed on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi. All others were merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document.
The fraudulent Freeman Formal Royal Style English version as signed, taken to be the true version of the treaty since 1841, has its origins explained here.
https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyDocuments9.html
This is a good summary and it is important that we understand how we got to where we now are. But what is more important, and what I understand Childs to be alluding to, is the situation we presently have and where we go from here. In particular, all races should be treated equally, now and in the future, and there should not be special provisions for Maoris. Any settlements the Government has made to the contrary must be cancelled. That is obviously the case and what I do not understand is why there is a need to say that.
Despite there being two translations and differences between the two TOW texts it is a document, but not a strictly legal document in New Zealand law, but it is considered a constitutional document & founding document of New Zealand.
Global Governments have recognised the divide & conquer ethos and acted to remove race & ethnicity from their Statute books. New Zealand also need to.
It was right of Mr R Childs to use the word 'Article', and very important to understand and adhere to the wisdom of Sir Apirana Ngata. Note: Article 3 is about all citizens and residents (including Māori, Pākehā & other subsequent migrants). We're an increasingly multicultural society so let's move on to reach celebration of our nationhood and unity as we do today.
Would be good to move on but until this Govt recognizes that some agitators do not wish to move on, these problems will never be solved
Post a Comment