Tag Archives: maori

By William Chambers

Activists within the Waitangi Tribunal are claiming that the Māori chiefs did not cede sovereignty … by falsely alleging that it was not the intent of the British to have them do so.  And, by deviously misinterpreting the Māori text in the Treaty as meaning they had agreed to self-determination; or to govern in partnership with the Crown.

This fraudulent take on the meaning of the treaty has the potential to result in very serious consequences if allowed to go unchallenged. 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.” !*#@=!*!

So, did the Māori chiefs cede sovereignty to the British Crown?

Cede means relinquish.  Sovereignty is supreme authority, i.e. power to govern.

To counteract all the devious fabrication, here is a concise summation … that no matter who might claim that 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 ceded 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, activists 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 )

It should come as no surprise that when kicking up a fuss about not wanting to relinquish sovereignty, many chiefs were using the opportunity to frivolously tell the British to go home, in a cunning attempt to get their land back … much of which, they’d rashly given away or sold too cheaply.

With the irony being that the tactic worked … because to ensure the treaty was signed, the Governor promised to write off a lot of those property transactions as being ‘null and void’.

You need to have good think about that, because this one aspect alone, should be all the proof needed to settle any argument as to the “true” intent of the treaty being the cession of sovereignty.  And if not, then WHY would the Governor go to such an extreme measure as to cancel property transactions, and/or reduce the amount of land involved, with no compensation for the affected European settlers? 

After getting away with that, most of the chiefs gladly signed the treaty, which 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?

And think about it … if the Chiefs really believed they had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then surely someone amongst them would have disputed that unmistakable “statement” there and then.

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, revolutionists (and the naïve folk they brainwash) 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 is 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”) which believe it or not, is 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.

But, there’s a ridiculous contradiction at play, 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.  This was to ensure that Maori wouldn’t get ripped-off by unscrupulous buyers.

Those in responsible positions of influence, including Chris Hipkins … who push the false dogma, are being deceitful, if not treasonous.  Which would become evident if challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here.

Mind you, such people will ignore any proof … and say they stand firmly by the belief that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty because it’s what Hugh Kawharu came up with, when in 1986 he back-translated the Māori text in the Treaty Document.

Yeah well, keep in mind that it’s alleged by many that Kawharu was recognised as an Activist within the Waitangi Tribunal.

Politicians back then should have had the gumption to stand up to such glaringly obvious (irrational) child-like trickery.

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).

In the 1987 “Lands Case” Court of Appeal, Justice Cook clarified what the Treaty really meant, i.e. quote: “The Queen would govern, and Māori would become her Subjects”. 

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’

NOTE:  University Law lecturer, Dr David Round has said, quote: “Assertions that Māori did not agree to the surrender of their sovereignty at Waitangi is a patent nonsense, a modern invention, and a lie.”

And yet, activists, including all those within the Waitangi Tribunal, twist any evidence contrary to their fraudulent stance.  However, there is one thing that cannot be disputed … and that is, if in their minds the chiefs really believed that they had agreed to self-determination, then they would’ve run their own affairs right from the outset … rather than be “controlled” by the British.  Because at the time, Maori outnumbered them by a considerable margin.

Of course, delusional zealots will question 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”.

Mind you, a defining reason centred around Māori facing the fact that they needed to place themselves under British governance, as being the only way to put a stop to their self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare, especially since the introduction of muskets, that started with Hongi Hika bringing 300 of them to NZ from Australia.  With which, his lot went on the rampage against other Tribes … leading eventually to approx. one third of Māori (over 43,000) being slaughtered in clashes involving modern weapons.

Thus, the ceding of sovereignty not only explains why most intertribal warfare stopped, but also the culture of cannibalism and slavery … due to such practices being outlawed once Māori placed themselves under British sovereign authority.

Of course, it’ll be claimed that the civilising of Māori really came about due to the influence of Missionaries.  Whilst they undoubtedly played a part, it’s clear that it was not until Māori became Subjects of the British Crown that Universal rules regarding human rights were able to be enforced.

So, how can anyone still insist that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty?

Incidentally: The whole matter can be settled by asking WHY in pre-treaty discussions, or the treaty Preamble, or the treaty “Agreement” was there absolutely no clear indication of what the chiefs were actually signing about (which was causing such angst) if it wasn’t ceding sovereignty (as spelled out in the Treaty Preamble).

You might also ask why Parliamentary seats were set up specifically for Maori.  And why Maori men achieved ‘universal suffrage’ 12 years before European men.

And here’s the clincher:  If Maori had not ceded sovereignty and become Subjects of the British Crown, then why would they have been given the right to vote when a “condition” of the ‘New Zealand Constitution Act’ was that only British Subjects could vote?!

NOTE:  If the argument is that Maori were able to vote because Article 3. granted equal “rights” and “privileges” … then just remember that hinged on the rights of citizenship … which could only come about by ceding sovereignty.  End of story.

And yet, the rabid denialists, with their back against the wall of a very deep hole they’ve dug themselves into, still won’t accept any of it, because there is either the lure of a gravy train carrying a pot of gold, or in the case of certain Professors, a matter of their professional ego being at stake.  So, when challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here, they wriggle and squirm every which way.  They’re as slippery as eels.

And rather than admit defeat, they as a last resort, invariably counter-challenge you to read Ned Fletcher’s book about the Treaty, and his conclusion that cession of sovereignty by Maori did not happen.  So, by desperately clutching at that straw, they’re able to crawl out of the hole, and smugly reclaim their moral high ground.

But, like a lot of the nonsensical information they rely on, Ned Fletcher’s book could appear to be based on speculative assumptions made by various people over the course of history, and through twisting of facts to suit an agenda, while at the same time completely ignoring clear evidence contrary to his illogical belief.

And by writing such a huge book, when trying too hard to prove his point, he’s tended to trip himself up, e.g. there is a ridiculous contradiction when he writes that the Colonial Office, being cognisant of the humanitarian concerns, decided that a cession of sovereignty from Māori was a necessary precondition to establishing a colony.

Thus, that ‘stipulation’ is a clear indication of British intent.  So how silly can you be, if including it in a book written specifically to prove that the Treaty was not about Maori relinquishing sovereignty!  For goodness’ sake … it must have taken a lot of twisting and kidding to come to that supposition.  Hence, the book could be envisaged as ideological fantasy.

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.

Despite Bain Attwood’s honest appraisal of Ned Fletcher’s book, certain unscrupulous people choose to stand by it … simply because it tells them what they want to hear.

CONCLUSION:  For anyone, especially the Waitangi Tribunal, to claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty is shameful.  In other words, downright dishonest and deceitful (fraudulent).

A former senior Labour Minister, Richard Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal … but, after becoming aware of the falsehoods being promoted, such as sovereignty having not been ceded, he resigned on principle.

Prebble described the Tribunal as, quote: “A rogue and self-perpetuating industry of grievance; re-writing history specifically to suit a radical agenda.”