In recent times, Māori-supremacy activists and sympathetic academics have attempted to revive the 1835 Declaration of Independence (He Whakaputanga) as a constitutional foundation for modern tribal authority in New Zealand. This campaign insists that the Declaration was “authorised” by Britain and remains legally relevant today. In reality, the Declaration was not authorised — but merely acknowledged or recognised — and even at the time carried no meaningful sovereign authority.
He Whakaputanga was a short-lived, fragmented political experiment, drafted and promoted by the British Resident James Busby. It gained signatures largely from northern chiefs (primarily Ngāpuhi) and rapidly fell apart. Within two years its signatories were again at war with one another, including the killing of Chief Titore. No functioning national government emerged, and the Declaration had no practical legal force within New Zealand or internationally.
These simple facts are acknowledged by leading mainstream historians — including those widely respected within pro-Treaty circles.
► Origins: Busby’s Improvised Document
James Busby, lacking military or administrative authority, was appointed British Resident in 1833 to help promote order in the Bay of Islands. Lacking resources or influence to enforce anything, he devised a symbolic statement intended to create a loose Māori “confederation,” partly to discourage French adventurism.
The 1835 Declaration was therefore a diplomatic fiction: an attempt to manufacture unity among tribes who remained independent, fragmented, and — often — at war.
Britain did not “authorise” the document. Rather, it acknowledged it as a gesture of goodwill while declining to recognise any Māori nation-state.
► Scholars’ Views: Limited and Non-functional
Even prominent Treaty-sympathetic historians reject the idea that He Whakaputanga established Māori national sovereignty.
Claudia Orange:
“Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori… would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state. There was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress.”
Orange notes its primary significance was that it familiarised northern chiefs with British legal language — a stepping stone to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Michael King:
“The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand.”
King further observed that some of the United Tribes were at war with each other within a year of signing.
Paul Moon:
“The Declaration represented a regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance.”
Moon has also criticised how the Waitangi Tribunal has attempted to elevate its standing:
“…The Declaration had no international status, and was regarded by British officials at the time as ‘a silly as well as an unauthorised act’… the Tribunal has ignored this evidence.”
► Contemporary and Later Assessments
Historically, the Declaration has been dismissed by commentators across the political spectrum:
All broadly agree: it created no functioning government, and it conferred no sovereignty recognised in practice.
► Collapse and Irrelevance
These simple facts are acknowledged by leading mainstream historians — including those widely respected within pro-Treaty circles.
► Origins: Busby’s Improvised Document
James Busby, lacking military or administrative authority, was appointed British Resident in 1833 to help promote order in the Bay of Islands. Lacking resources or influence to enforce anything, he devised a symbolic statement intended to create a loose Māori “confederation,” partly to discourage French adventurism.
The 1835 Declaration was therefore a diplomatic fiction: an attempt to manufacture unity among tribes who remained independent, fragmented, and — often — at war.
Britain did not “authorise” the document. Rather, it acknowledged it as a gesture of goodwill while declining to recognise any Māori nation-state.
► Scholars’ Views: Limited and Non-functional
Even prominent Treaty-sympathetic historians reject the idea that He Whakaputanga established Māori national sovereignty.
Claudia Orange:
“Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori… would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state. There was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress.”
Orange notes its primary significance was that it familiarised northern chiefs with British legal language — a stepping stone to the Treaty of Waitangi.
Michael King:
“The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand.”
King further observed that some of the United Tribes were at war with each other within a year of signing.
Paul Moon:
“The Declaration represented a regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance.”
Moon has also criticised how the Waitangi Tribunal has attempted to elevate its standing:
“…The Declaration had no international status, and was regarded by British officials at the time as ‘a silly as well as an unauthorised act’… the Tribunal has ignored this evidence.”
► Contemporary and Later Assessments
Historically, the Declaration has been dismissed by commentators across the political spectrum:
- Pember Reeves (1898): “a bloodless puerility”
- Governor Gipps (1840 era): “a paper pellet”
- British Colonial Office official: “silly and unauthorised”
- Michael King (2003): “a second and equally contrived ceremony”
- Paul Moon (2006): “little more than pebble”
All broadly agree: it created no functioning government, and it conferred no sovereignty recognised in practice.
► Collapse and Irrelevance
The so-called “United Tribes” never met as a governing body, passed no laws, and exercised no authority beyond the personal mana of individual rangatira.
The later outbreak of warfare among the signatories demonstrated their independence from each other — the opposite of the unity claimed by the Declaration.
Thus, even if the Declaration had briefly asserted national authority, it collapsed almost immediately.
► Superseded by the Treaty of Waitangi
Most of the same northern chiefs — or their immediate heirs — later signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, explicitly ceding sovereignty to the British Crown. Captain William Hobson, acting under Crown instructions, ensured that the Treaty extinguished the claims associated with He Whakaputanga.
The Treaty therefore became the operative constitutional instrument governing New Zealand.
To argue that the Declaration survived the Treaty is to ignore both logic and historical record.
Even the Waitangi Tribunal has acknowledged that, regardless of its claims, Māori tribes continued to operate independently and without collective authority.
► Why Is He Whakaputanga Being Revived?
The modern revival of the Declaration serves political purposes. If interpreted as an ongoing constitutional authority, it provides a foundation for:
The document itself was a non-event, lacking force at the time and lacking continuity after 1840. The attempt to resurrect it today serves political activism, not historical accuracy.
► What He Whakaputanga Actually Was
Conclusion
The later outbreak of warfare among the signatories demonstrated their independence from each other — the opposite of the unity claimed by the Declaration.
Thus, even if the Declaration had briefly asserted national authority, it collapsed almost immediately.
► Superseded by the Treaty of Waitangi
Most of the same northern chiefs — or their immediate heirs — later signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, explicitly ceding sovereignty to the British Crown. Captain William Hobson, acting under Crown instructions, ensured that the Treaty extinguished the claims associated with He Whakaputanga.
The Treaty therefore became the operative constitutional instrument governing New Zealand.
To argue that the Declaration survived the Treaty is to ignore both logic and historical record.
Even the Waitangi Tribunal has acknowledged that, regardless of its claims, Māori tribes continued to operate independently and without collective authority.
► Why Is He Whakaputanga Being Revived?
The modern revival of the Declaration serves political purposes. If interpreted as an ongoing constitutional authority, it provides a foundation for:
- Claims of pre-existing sovereignty
- Assertions that the Treaty did not transfer sovereignty
- Arguments for co-governance or tribal control of the state
The document itself was a non-event, lacking force at the time and lacking continuity after 1840. The attempt to resurrect it today serves political activism, not historical accuracy.
► What He Whakaputanga Actually Was
- A symbolic declaration drafted by Busby
- Signed by a limited number of northern chiefs
- Recognised (not authorised) by Britain
- Never implemented
- Rapidly undermined by internal tribal conflict
- Replaced by the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840
Conclusion
He Whakaputanga was a brief diplomatic gesture—a British resident's attempt to discourage a potential French takeover and to encourage stability among northern tribes, not the founding proclamation of a Māori nation. Scholars, officials, and historical context all affirm that it never created national sovereignty, never resulted in functioning government, and was superseded by the Treaty of Waitangi.
The only reason it is being politically resurrected today is to support separatist narratives that seek to undermine the constitutional unity of New Zealand.
It was a paper tiger in 1835 - It remains one today.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
It was a paper tiger in 1835 - It remains one today.
Geoff Parker is a passionate advocate for equal rights and a colour blind society.
1 comment:
Unfortunately, these 'paper tigers' have a habit of entering debates and not only 'muddy the waters', but have a habit of extending grievances and arguments to the extent that time, money and breath are wasted. What is needed is a parliamentary declaration/bill regarding the nullity of the document.
Post a Comment