Occasionally, it is alleged that the Government failed to uphold ‘Treaty promises’ in the nineteenth century. Here is my response to that allegation…
In 1840, New Zealand was a fledgling nation with two cultures at vastly different stages of development coming together. This made the time politically, financially, and socially difficult.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from Māori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert control over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to protect Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the European buyer and returned to the Māori seller—who, in many cases, later sold the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer was reimbursed.
Ngāi Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales enabled chiefs to sell the land again—this occurred in ten deals over 20 years from 1844, for a total of £14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please everyone; there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since 1840, many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Māori adapt to changing times.
For instance:
• In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Māori men holding land in common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Māori men had the vote, while most settlers did not—clearly, it was the settlers, not the Māori, who were at a disadvantage!
• Sir Āpirana Ngata said: “Māori landowners did not pay land rates until 1894. After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European counterparts until 1910.” He also said: “It was only in the year 1893 that Māori lands were taxed. It was a light tax—half of that payable by the Pākehā. However, only leasehold Māori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Māori land, equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands.”
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not a politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed—it could have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand’s municipal law.
The three Treaty clauses state:
• Article One – The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty (chiefly authority) to the Queen.
• Article Two – The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.
• Article Three – The Queen’s government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Māori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Māori included) the ownership of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British subjects).
Because Māori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Māori then had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, declared that the Treaty applied to all Māori, including those tribes whose chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, they often cite the same issues - land confiscations, suppression of language and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred after warnings and skirmishes - not before. The land was taken to help pay for the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Āpirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
“The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Māori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Māori custom - revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”
Suppression of Language and Culture
Māori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of Māori elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever passed to prohibit Māori from speaking their language. Māori adopted English language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Māori? That is unclear - it was likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Māori concerning laws, regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Māori lobby group. It is not a court authorised to make binding legal decisions - it can only make recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this ‘venerable’ body:
David Rankin (Ngāpuhi elder): “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along…”
Brian Priestley, MBE: “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.”
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for 10 years): “What you’ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games being played with it.”
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: “The Tribunal’s reports increasingly champion or advocate the Māori cause. Māori characters and stories are given more weight than Pākehā ones.”
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill Oliver, have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this racially biased Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists that have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking ‘promises’ - The Crown is innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent ‘Court’.
Who Really Broke the ‘Treaty Promises’?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: “The Crown, the several Governors, and the government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in accord with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number of Māori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:”
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hōne Heke against the government in the north in 1845–46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kīngi over the sale of the Pekapeka block in 1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Māori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning in 1859.
Following his arrival in the Bay of Islands in 1840, William Hobson, the British Consul, issued a proclamation prohibiting private land purchases from Māori unless validated by a Crown commissioner. This was done to assert control over land transactions and address concerns about rampant sales and to protect Maori land sellers from unscrupulous buyers. Hobson also appointed land commissioners to investigate all purchases made before the Treaty of Waitangi was signed. If a transaction was deemed unfair, the land was taken from the European buyer and returned to the Māori seller—who, in many cases, later sold the land a second time. There appears to be no record that the European buyer was reimbursed.
Ngāi Tahu is one example. They had sold much of the South Island before the Treaty was signed, and the Treaty commitment to investigate pre-1840 sales enabled chiefs to sell the land again—this occurred in ten deals over 20 years from 1844, for a total of £14,750.
Humans are a diverse lot. No government or political party can please everyone; there will always be someone or a group who is sidelined. However, since 1840, many statutes have been passed with good intentions to help Māori adapt to changing times.
For instance:
• In 1867, voting rules were altered so that all Māori men holding land in common (i.e., most of them) were enfranchised. The rules were not similarly changed for settlers. For some years, therefore, virtually all Māori men had the vote, while most settlers did not—clearly, it was the settlers, not the Māori, who were at a disadvantage!
• Sir Āpirana Ngata said: “Māori landowners did not pay land rates until 1894. After that, they only paid half the rates levied compared to their European counterparts until 1910.” He also said: “It was only in the year 1893 that Māori lands were taxed. It was a light tax—half of that payable by the Pākehā. However, only leasehold Māori lands were taxable. It was in the year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Māori land, equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands.”
The Treaty
Although called a treaty, it is arguably not a true treaty, as Maori were not a politically organised nation. It was a simple formal transfer of sovereignty document that had arguably served its purpose the moment it was signed—it could have been discarded thereafter. It has no legal standing in international law and, by itself, has no standing as part of New Zealand’s municipal law.
The three Treaty clauses state:
• Article One – The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty (chiefly authority) to the Queen.
• Article Two – The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs, tribes, and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.
• Article Three – The Queen’s government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Māori the status of British subjects.
(H/T David Round, page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty)
So, what promises were inferred in those three clauses?
Article One: No promises.
Article Two: Promises the people of New Zealand (Māori included) the ownership of their physical assets.
Article Three: Promises to protect all New Zealand citizens (British subjects).
Because Māori were granted the rights and privileges of British subjects in Article Three and most tribes accepted that by signing the Treaty, Māori then had responsibilities and obligations to abide by the law.
Note: The Colonial Office in England, shortly after the Treaty was signed, declared that the Treaty applied to all Māori, including those tribes whose chiefs had not signed.
When those who allege the Crown did not uphold its promises are challenged, they often cite the same issues - land confiscations, suppression of language and culture, systemic marginalisation and use the Waitangi Tribunal as validation.
Land Confiscations
Land confiscations were legal and targeted rebelling tribes. They occurred after warnings and skirmishes - not before. The land was taken to help pay for the cost of the wars, discourage further uprising, and to settle Europeans in these areas as a buffer.
Here is what Sir Āpirana Ngata said about the land confiscations:
“The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Māori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation, and land was taken in payment. This, in itself, is a Māori custom - revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”
Suppression of Language and Culture
Māori language was banned only in schools, and this was at the request of Māori elders and statesmen, who wanted children to learn English in order to participate in the changing society. Outside of schools, no laws were ever passed to prohibit Māori from speaking their language. Māori adopted English language and culture of their own volition.
Systemic Marginalisation
Did the Government pass laws that marginalised Māori? That is unclear - it was likely more of a societal issue. However, that marginalisation may well have been preferable to pre-1840 marginalisation, where tribal warfare, slavery, cannibalism, land confiscation, and infanticide were rampant.
Waitangi Tribunal
The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Māori concerning laws, regulations, or actions (or inactions) of the Crown that may have caused harm.
The Act also gave a small group of unelected Tribunal members exclusive authority to interpret the Treaty.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a racially stacked, pro-Māori lobby group. It is not a court authorised to make binding legal decisions - it can only make recommendations to the Government.
What some have said about this ‘venerable’ body:
David Rankin (Ngāpuhi elder): “The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along…”
Brian Priestley, MBE: “It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.”
Dr Michael Bassett (former Cabinet Minister and Waitangi Tribunal member for 10 years): “What you’ve been dealing with for the last 30 years are some very inventive people stretching the wording of the Treaty so far it is falling apart because of the games being played with it.”
Dr Bronwyn Byrnes: “The Tribunal’s reports increasingly champion or advocate the Māori cause. Māori characters and stories are given more weight than Pākehā ones.”
Other historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave, and Bill Oliver, have raised similar concerns.
It is mainly this racially biased Waitangi Tribunal and Maori sovereigntists that have judged that the Crown is guilty of breaking ‘promises’ - The Crown is innocent until proven guilty by a reputable, unbiased, totally independent ‘Court’.
Who Really Broke the ‘Treaty Promises’?
Noted historian John Robinson wrote: “The Crown, the several Governors, and the government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in accord with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number of Māori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion in contradiction of the Treaty.
These included:”
1. The mass murder of settlers by chiefs Te Rauparaha and Te Rangihaeata at Wairau in 1843.
2. Rebellion incited by the same chiefs in Wellington in 1846.
3. War waged by Hōne Heke against the government in the north in 1845–46.
4. Rebellion at Waitara by Wiremu Kīngi over the sale of the Pekapeka block in 1859.
5. The establishment of a rival Māori monarch, rebellion, and war beginning in 1859.
It's the old story: people in the past behaving in accordance with the norms and mores of their own time and place, then being later condemned for not acting according to the norms and mores that came after them.
It is a naive and absolutist approach to history that obfuscates rather than enlightens. ~~ Barend Vlaardingerbroek
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
12 comments:
If only this could be printed and spoken of in the mainstream channels then maybe some sanity from the white guiltists who are cheering for their second class citizenship would prevail.
So, what you're saying is over 4 billion dollars of tax payer money has been extorted from successive governments on the "recommendations " of the tribunal over the last 50years.
And that's just settlement money, a fragment of the huge amount that has been bestowed upon these unknown trace Maori criminals.
Talk about crime of the century, and we just suck it up and say nothing.
Excellent description of what the Treaty actually said.
NO "principles"
NO "partnership"
ALL equal.
NO government promise to keep giving $millions to Maori.
NZME has a new Board, lets us test their promises and have them print this..
These are the succinct truths that should be shared with children in schools and those entering university. All our politicians should also receive this gift, albeit a bit late, since most appear to have imbibed the indoctrination that has superseded what used to be a rich and rewarding education. A bonus would see the Maori seats abolished along with the repeal of the Treaty of Waitangi Act. This would render the Waitangi Tribunal redundant and any claims could be dealt with directly by the government. After tha, a quick dose of the medicine proposed by Doug Longmire and that should mop up the remaining detritus that is soiling this fair land ...
A good summary, Geoff, and while I appreciate it'sd not an exhaustive list, you should have perhaps also mentioned Te Kooti's escapades in Matawhero and Mohaka (1868 & 1869) as arguably the last episode of the 1860's Land Wars where numerous 'innocents' of all ages were slaughtered. Since then we've had all manner of things, like the Tohanga Suppression Act 1907, which was yet another effort to protect Maori from themselves, but today, now turned about-face as just another evil of colonisation. And, notwithstanding all that has transpired; the many repeated efforts to settle past purported wrongs and attempts to lift Maori from the worst of statistics, we still have people the likes of Prof. Paul Moon, claiming that "the Crown broke the Treaty in just about in every conceivable way" - viz. circa 36.40 mins in on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?=o0HGFG9s7rU&lc=UgzpKd9mcfl12oG8du54AaABAg.AGGmINS8HxmAIrZ4wH8Yxp
Never mind that after the signing of the Treaty some Maori actually committed sedition and treason, mass murdered, and, to this day, continue to disproportionately: commit crime; rely on welfare (while contributing least to society); harm/kill their children; and actively promote disorder and racism in our house of Parliament.
Perhaps Prof. Moon might like to provide a list of all the Crown's breaches and let the public decide who really broke the Treaty?
Good point Peter & this is good advice for dealing with treaty revisionists.
Make them spell out the specific instances to back up their very very broad claim “the crown broke the treaty”. Where? When? & in what way?
Great to read a decent publication, unbaiased without the hatred and continual blaming.........
It is stated in this article, “Article One states – The chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty (chiefly authority) to the Queen”.
This plays into the hands of the Maori Activist. To cede sovereignty the Maori had to have a “political body”, but “So far indeed as that instrument (The Treaty of Waitangi) purported to cede sovereignty it must be regarded as a ‘simple nullity’. No political body existed capable of making cession of sovereignty in 1840”. Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast ruling in 1877.
It’s a pity no mention is made of Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 as it ratified the Treaty of Waitangi, separated New Zealand from New South Wales dependency and made New Zealand into a British Colony with a Governor and Constitution that set up New Zealand’s political, legal and justice systems under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed.
Not to mention the Kohimaramara Agreement.
ONZF - what part of 'chiefly authority' do you not understand?
Sir Apirana Ngata > What was it that the Maori Chiefs ceded? This article [Article 1] states, "They do absolutely cede to the Queen of England for ever the Government of their lands". Well, it has been said that the Maori did not have any Government, how can he cede something, he did not have? Let me explain again. The explanation is in the meaning of the words "CHIEFLY AUTHORITY". IT WAS THIS CHIEFLY AUTHORITY HELD BY EACH CHIEF WHO SUBSCRIBED HIS MARK TO THE TREATY OF WAITANGI THAT EACH CHIEF CEDED TO THE COMMON WEAL AND TO GOVERNOR WILLIAM HOBSON, as an offering to Queen Victoria. The sum total of the authorities of the Maori Chiefs ceded to the Queen was the Government of the Maori people.
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.