Certain members of the Waitangi Tribunal are claiming that the Māori chiefs did not cede sovereignty … by alleging that it was not the intent of the British to have them do so. And, by misinterpreting the Māori text in the Treaty as meaning they had agreed to self-determination; or to govern in partnership with the Crown.
This take on the meaning of the treaty cannot be allowed to go unchallenged ... because it will lead to unjustified racial division. An example being that Te Pati Māori (the Separatist Party) are using the myth that sovereignty wasn’t surrendered to push for a separate Māori Parliament.
But here’s the kicker … for starters, they’ve already said, quote: “Our Māori Parliament will levy a 2% commission on ALL property sold or leased in Aotearoa”.
To counteract any fabrication, here is a concise summation … that no matter who might claim Maori did not cede sovereignty, or the reasons they might come up with as so-called proof … one thing none of them will ever be able to honestly dispute, is all the evidence presented here that the chiefs definitely did cede sovereignty.
FACT: Evidence of British intent for the Māori chiefs to give up sovereignty can be seen in documents housed in British Parliamentary Papers and Colonial Office archives (e.g., CO 209 series).
Short Relevant Excerpt: ‘. . . .signaling the Crown’s pivot towards treaty-based sovereignty as a means to pre-empt French claims and protect Maori. . . .’
FURTHER FACT: Part of the instruction regarding the Treaty from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Normanby, to Governor Hobson was to: “Negotiate terms with the natives for the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority.”
And, to: “Walk away if full sovereignty cannot be ceded; as without it, Britain will have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to New Zealand.”
Despite the above evidence, some argue that the British did not wish to have Maori cede sovereignty at all. They insist vehemently that British sovereignty was to only apply to European settlers … some of whom were lawless at the time.
This scenario had been considered in earlier proceedings … but was scrapped as not being practical. Sovereignty by one, encompassing all, was the only viable option.
And let’s be realistic about the silly claim by radicals … if the intent was for sovereignty to apply only to European settlers, then that sentiment would surely have been in the treaty preamble or agreement, or recorded somewhere, or mentioned in a speech by someone.
For more documented evidence of British intent to have the Maori chiefs cede sovereignty … see below.
TREATY PREAMBLE
Source: Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, Museum of New Zealand.
Short Relevant Excerpt: ‘. . . .for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands’ . . . .‘shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.’
Article the First
“The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation of Individual Chiefs respectfully exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereign thereof.”
Thus, there can be no argument as to whether the intent of the British was to have the chiefs cede sovereignty.
Of course, to get around this, the tricksters will claim that the chiefs didn’t understand the meaning of sovereignty – so they weren’t aware that they would be under British Governance Authority.
To prove most chiefs knew very well what ceding sovereignty to the British Crown meant, I’ll quote just a couple of them from Waitangi in 1840 during discussions as to whether they should sign the Treaty.
Chief of Ngatkawa, Te Kemara, said: “Were all to be equality, then perhaps I’d say “Yes” but for the Governor to be up, and me to be down low, a worm, a crawler – No.”
Another chief, Tareha added: “We will not be ruled over.”
(Ref. William Colenso’s Journals)
However, after much debate, most of the chiefs saw the advantage of signing the Treaty, especially because it gave them the security that they’d been wanting for quite some time. Details of their concerns can be seen in a letter written to King William by 13 chiefs in 1831, pleading for protection from the French; and asking for control of European lawlessness, as well as wanting a stop put to their own self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare.
It should be acknowledged that, due to these concerns, the British had put a proposal to Māori in 1835 to create a Declaration of Independence. But, only a few chiefs signed. And the so-called Confederation of United Tribes was abandoned without a meeting, due to internal conflicts among Tribes.
So, in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was offered as the only definitive way to sort matters.
Regarding the terms of the treaty being ‘conditional’ on Māori ceding sovereignty … Governor Hobson stated explicitly to the chiefs: “You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty… But as the law of England gives no civil power to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.”
For more proof that sovereignty was ceded, I’ll quote Rev John Warren: “I was present when the treaty was signed. My impression was that the natives perfectly understood that, by signing it, they became British subjects. Many natives were in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when placing the British Lion between themselves and the French eagle.”
(Ref. ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’ by T. Lindsay Buick)
Another point is that after the Treaty had been signed, Hobson proclaimed: “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people).
So, ask yourself … WHY would he have said that?
Of significance, is that in a book by Dr Bain Attwood, he quotes correspondence in 1843 between Lord Stanley and the Attorney General in NZ, William Swanson … where it was confirmed that: “All of New Zealand and all persons inhabiting its territory lay within the domain of the British Crown.”
Also of significance is that in 1858 members of the Ngāpuhi tribe were quoted as saying: “We have a Queen … Queen Victoria. Which is what we agreed to in the Treaty.”
And in 1860 the leading chief of the North, Tamati Nene said: “I know no sovereign but the Queen and I shall know no other.”
Then in 1901, Wairarapa chief, Tamahau, was reported in the New Zealand Times as saying, quote: “The British Queen is our Queen.”
In 1940 Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs said, quote: "The Treaty handed over the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever."
Despite all the above evidence pointing to Māori having ceded sovereignty, some turn a blind eye to it … and focus on just one twisted aspect of the treaty, i.e. the misinterpretation of the Māori text that the chiefs were guaranteed the right to self-govern.
It needs to be kept in mind that Article 1. deals with sovereignty, and then Article 2. as a secondary progression from 1. focuses on property rights.
The defining point being that Article 1. in the English Draft (from which the Treaty in Māori was constructed) states that the chiefs will cede sovereignty, which means Māori will be governed by the British Crown.
So, in Article 1. of the official Treaty Document, the word sovereignty was translated as “kawanatanga” (governorship). But, even though that first Clause was not about property at all, it’s now deviously misinterpreted as meaning governance over Maori land only. Not over Māori personally!! You couldn’t make this up. And yet they have.
And it gets worse: To back-up the shameless twisting, it’s also claimed that “chieftainship” in Article 2. meant chiefs had the right of governorship over their Tribes.
Thus, another ridiculous contradiction, because what Article 2. (which focuses on property rights) really refers to is that chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) was about protecting Māori ownership of their land. Not self-governance.
You only have to read Article 2. in the treaty to realise that it was all about Maori “rights” to their property ownership. Because it goes on to say that the Chiefs must grant to the Queen the exclusive right to purchase their land, if they wish to sell.
Further to the above … any assumption that Maori were granted the right to self-determination is contradicted in Article 3. which clearly states that Maori will have “equal” rights. The wording of which can’t be twisted as has been in Articles 1. and 2.
Thus, Article 3. makes a mockery of that sham … and proves beyond doubt that all New Zealanders were to be one people governed equally by the British Crown.
And here’s the clincher: If Maori had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then why would they have been given the right to vote when a “condition” of the ‘New Zealand Constitution Act’ was that only Subjects of the British Crown could vote!
Te Papa Museum clarifies what the treaty meant, quote: Kei a Kuini Wikitria te mana kawanatanga, kei nga rangitira te mana rangatiratanga … (Queen Victoria holds authority over the country and the chiefs hold right of possession).
That this was understood and accepted, was confirmed beyond doubt at the largest ever meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 where they unanimously agreed they had consented to become subjects of the British Crown.
Talking about producing indisputable evidence that it had been accepted by most of the Maori chiefs that sovereignty was ceded, you’d have to wonder how “Denialists” could wriggle their way out of what is clearly written on an historic headstone:
Tamati Waka Nene
Died 1871
'Chief of Ngapuhi
the first to welcome
the Queen’s Sovereignty
in New Zealand'
Of course, the question will be asked as to why Māori would allow a minority of Europeans to have ultimate “power” over them, in their own country. Well, in truth, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, the Chiefess of the greatest Empire in the World at the time … because they wanted to be part of that powerful regime, so as to share in its “success” and “security”.
When challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here, certain people invariably counter-challenge you to read Ned Fletcher’s book about the Treaty, and the conclusion that cession of sovereignty by Maori did not happen.
And yet, there is a ridiculous contradiction in the book where he writes: “The Colonial Office, being cognisant of the humanitarian concerns, decided that a cession of sovereignty from Maori was a necessary precondition to establishing a Colony.”
Thus, that ‘stipulation’ is a clear indication of British intent. But despite this, Fletcher went all out in his book to convince people that the Treaty was not about ceding of sovereignty.
Well, if that’s the case, then what was causing such angst among some of the Chiefs when trying to decide whether to sign the Treaty … if it wasn’t about ceding sovereignty (as spelled out in the Treaty preamble).
Take note: Historian, Dr Bain Attwood, has described Ned Fletcher’s book as, quote: “Mythic rather than scholarly”.
And in case you think Attwood doesn’t have the credence to make such an assessment, he is the author of “Empire and the Making of Native Title” which was the joint winner of the New Zealand Historical Association’s 2021 W.H. Oliver Prize for the best book on any aspect of New Zealand history.
Kerry Butler is rated an amateur historian who specialises in exposing the truth to prevent losing control of our country.
19 comments:
Virtually all Waitangi Tribunal reports and recent "history" books cherry pick their facts to follow a predetermined agenda. If you want object accounts of NZ history you need to read books published before 1980.
Regardless of what was intended in 1840, Maori have for almost 190 years interbreed with non-Maori, voted in Parliament, received welfare, health care, education, justice etc. If they were separate they would only be citizens of their tribal area, and dependant on them for welfare. There cannot be a partnership or Maori Parliament because Maori have never been a unified people.
>" ... if the intent was for sovereignty to apply only to European settlers"
Sovereignty by definition refers to territory, not people. There may not be a single soul living in an area that a national govt exercises sovereignty over.
Barend, I don't follow your comment. Further explanation would be helpful.
Another evidence based argument. Thank you.
Kerry, I hope you've sent a copy to Chris Hipkins and also Moana - both of whom have that warped belief that sovereignty wasn't ceded. To think one of these nincompoops was a former Prime Minister, it's not hard to understand the division within this country.
In Fiji King Seru Epenisa Cakobau and 12 other high chiefs signed the Deed of Cession on October 10, 1874, ceding sovereignty. It meant they voluntarily surrendered full governing power and political control of Fiji to Great Britain, making Fiji a British Crown Colony. That power governs people not just land. A different case with Tonga, which had a ''treaty of friendship'' and governed itself internally with the UK overseeing foreign affairs, for example.
The Island of Palmas Case 1928 clarified the modern definition of sovereignty by introducing the idea of 'active occupation' which means exercising sovereign rights over a territory, but permanent occupation thereof is not required. A perfect example of sovereignty being exercised over lands with a permanent population of zero is the Antarctic Treaty 1959. There are also uninhabited remote islands that are acknowledged as being the sovereign territory of a nation-state e.g. Heard and MacDonald Islands in the southern Indian Ocean over which Australia exercises sovereignty.
The Las Palmas case was well before the ToW but international law in 1840 was already focused on territory rather than populace with regard to the exercise of sovereignty.
Kohimarama Conference 1860:-
Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor, and this Queen our Queen. Let us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people! When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is. through the teaching of that Word that we are able to meet together this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no Sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha. Mr. McLean, this is all I have to say. People of the Runanga, 1 have finished.
If you employed a rat catcher he will always find more rats to catch, or he’s out of a job . And so to the Waitangi Tribunal who only get paid when they are “adjudicating” something, hence they will always find more things to adjudicate. Simple logic really.
I wish Hobson had walked away as we would not now be subjected to Hipkins' nonsensical blathering.
Clearly it had to be an all or nothing situation back in 1840 - different rules based on vague tribal borders was never viable.
Not quite all or nothing as the North and South Islands were initially treated as separate legal entities, Hobson claiming British sovereignty over the NI by cession and over the SI by discovery (as the SI was still 'terra nullius'),
For those wanting an in-depth book about the Treaty and its signing then see https://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/TreatyBook/Precis.htm. It is a very long read, but can be done chapter-by-chapter. It is the most detailed writing about the Treaty that can be found anywhere
The 1812 Treaty of GHENT between UK and USA may be of interest.
Of interest to treaty boffins, perhaps, but not of any relevance to this discussion. The Treaty of Ghent was concluded to end the war between the US and UK and return all territories/borders to the 'status quo ante bellum' (the way they were before hostilities broke out). It was concluded with the ratification of the treaty by both sides in 1815 (NB the signatory stage had been concluded in 1814 but a treaty is not in force until after ratification). In what way does this treaty parallel the ToW?
Some of you seem to be getting off track.
Giving examples of a Treaty Agreement and/or sovereignty scenarios in other countries around the World does not really have much relevance to the situation that occurred on the occasion of what is being discussed in this article.
All you need to understand is that the Maori chiefs surrendered any so-called sovereignty that they may have possessed … in return for the benefits and security of being governed by the British Crown ... as equal citizens.
End of.
Perhaps the biggest explanation for the confusion is that we are presented with a translation of the Maori text made by a Maori member of the Waitangi Tribunal. Whilst I would not accuse Sir Hugh of 'skull-duggery', has there ever been an independent, verified, translation of Te Tiriti? Have a look at Martin Doutre's work on the history of the Treaty and his discussion of the differences between the 'Littlewood' version and the 'official' version.
So many people are writing articles like this and achieving nothing.
The activists have it in the bag after 50 years of whining and gaining traction because no-one says no to them.
Strong man needs to snatch the bag and spill the contents onto the ground.
Then build a unifying movement that we can all get behind.
Something that focuses on families, education and goals for the future would do it. And successful businesses. No more corporate welfare.
Publisher above needs to get on wavelength with legal thinking with regard to the importance of precedence, which is as important in international law as it is in domestic law. And it is critically important to apply that principle in the context of contemporaneous practice when dealing with a historical event. Anon 1235 certainly had it wrong when invoking the Treaty of Ghent but historical cases involving the definition of sovereignty are highly relevant.
Anonymous at 5:33pm: I thought Sir Apirana Ngata's back translation of Te Tiriti into English was generally accepted as accurate, until the more recent revisionists got to work.
What a pity Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill was stymied by Luxon. This stupidity appeared to be based almost entirely on Luxon's fear of allowing Seymour to gain any political support, though it may also have involved some pig-headedness about what had been agreed to in the coalition negotiations. It certainly was not based on sensible thinking or consideration of the country's best interests, as highlighted by Luxon's statement that there was nothing in the Bill he liked - without any coherent explanation. (Luxon's more recent claim that strategic voting was stupid was also without sensible explanation or consideration of the country's welfare as opposed to his own hoped-for power base. What a shame National has him at the top.)
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.