MASARYK UNIVERSITY IN BRNO
Faculty of Arts
Department of English and American Studies
English Language and Literature
Te Tiriti o Waitangi Treaty of Waitangi – New Zealand’s founding document Baccalaureate Thesis Supervisor: PhDr. Jitka Vlčková, Ph.D. Pavla Kramářová Brno 2006
I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, using only the sources listed in the bibliography.
2
I would like to thank my supervisor PhDr. Jitka Vlčková, Ph.D. for her kind and valuable advice.
3 Contents
1. Introduction……………………………………………………………………………. 5
2. The early Māori Pākehā contact………………………………………………………. 7
3. The need for intervention……………………………………………………………… 9
4. James Busby and the Declaration of Independence………………………………….. 10
5. On the way to the Treaty……………………………………………………………... 12
6. The drafting and signing of the Treaty………………………………………………..15
7. The contents of the Treaty and the differences between the texts…………………… 18
• Te Kāwanatanga
• Te Rangatiratanga
8. The aftermath………………………………………………………………………… 25
9. Discontent and wars………………………………………………………………….. 28
10. From neglect to recognition………………………………………………………….. 30
11. The principles of the Treaty………………………………………………………….. 33
12. The preservation of documents and Waitangi Day…………………………………... 35
13. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 37
Bibliography...…………………………………………………………………………….39
Appendix A. The Treaty sheet ……………………………………………………...... 43
Appendix B. The Māori text .……………………………………………………...... 44
Appendix C. The English text ………………………………………………………….. 45
Appendix D. A Modern English translation of the Māori text…………………………. 47
4 1. Introduction
The Treaty of Waitangi, dubbed Magna Carta of the aborigines of New Zealand, is an agreement concluded between representatives of the British Crown and chiefs of the Māori iwi and hapū ; Māori tribes and subtribes. The Treaty bears the name of the place in the Bay of
Islands, Waitangi, which means weeping or noisy waters (“The Colonisation”), where it was first signed on 6 February 1840. This covenant was a necessary consequence and unravelling of the uncontrolled coexistence of the tangata whenua , people of the land (Shaw 96), and white settlers or Pākehā1, as the Māori used to call their new neighbours.
The Treaty of Waitangi, in Māori Te Tiriti o Waitangi , represents an important document in New Zealand history and is generally considered to be its founding document. It defined a new relationship between the Māori and the British Crown that had developed since the end of the 18 th century. In this document the Māori gave the Crown the rights and powers to govern their land and to settle it with British citizens. In return, the Māori were confirmed and guaranteed possession of their lands and they were accorded the Queen’s protection and the rights of British subjects. Since the signing the Treaty and its contents caused a lot of tension between the two races and was a source of prolonged controversy and misunderstanding.
This thesis deals not only with the Treaty itself but also with the situation that preceded and that followed the creation of the document. In the introductory chapter I set out to picture the arrival of the first explorers and a subsequent flow of settlers who made a preliminary contact with the native people and what this contact looked like. This situational frame is further developed in chapter “The need for intervention” to show which way the initial cohabitation progressed till it finished up in the advent of James Busby and the
Declaration of Independence. The era preceding “the treaty’s coming on the scene” is closed
1 Pākehā is a term used to designate a white person, a New Zealander of Anglo/European origin, or a Non Māori or foreigner (“Pākehā”).
5 with a description of the immediate causes and motivations that led to the drawing and signing of the Treaty. Then I proceed to the Treaty itself. I concentrate on the process of forging and accepting the Treaty text and I devote one chapter to a detailed analysis of the text in which I comment on the contents, its structure, meaning and interpretation. This is followed by the depiction of its consequences and influence on Māori Pākehā relationship.
One chapter deals with the various forms of Māori discontent and resistance and the following one with the process from the continuous neglect to a final treaty’s recognition. What role the
Treaty plays today is also of my interest, to a limited extent, in reference to the Treaty
Principles. The story of the documents preservation and of Waitangi Day concludes this bachelor thesis. In appendixes you can find the picture of the Treaty and look in the texts of both versions, Māori and English, together with Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu’s modern
English translation of the Māori text provided with footnotes.
6 2. The early Māori Pākehā contact
The first European to catch sight of Aotearoa 2, or Tiritiri o te Moana3, to use two ancient Māori names for New Zealand, was in 1642 a Dutch East India Company explorer
Abel Janszoon Tasman (Sinclair, Oxford 21). Tasman just sailed up the west coast and named the land Staten Island which was afterwards renamed New Zealand, after the province of the same name in his country (Clyde 6). It was only some thirty years later, after Captain James
Cook’s voyage to the Islands in 1769 70, that the white people came to inhabit New Zealand.
Shaw states in his book (11) that Cook and his crew were the first Europeans seen by the
Māori of the Bay of Islands. They made a number of friendly contacts with natives and having concluded the sail around the coasts of both the North and South Islands, Cook claimed the land for the British monarchy in the name of King George III and then continued on to
Australia (Turner et al. 15). As Sinclair writes it was a routine procedure at that time and
Britain neither confirmed nor pursued its claims immediately, but Cook’s visit, Sinclair maintains, raised the possibility for further British intrusion and ultimately dominance
(Oxford 21). Marion du Fresne, a Frenchman who visited the Bay in 1772 and was killed there by a local tribe, a result of a series of misunderstandings, claimed the country for his sovereign as well but neither his government took any immediate interest in the land (Shaw
18).
New Zealand’s first settlers were sealers, whalers and traders, temporary European settlers who came at the end of the 18 th century (Turner et al. 15 16). During the early 19 th century European settlers were arriving in greater numbers and their increasing presence led
2 Aotearoa is the most widely known and accepted Māori name for New Zealand, most often translated as “The land of the long white cloud”. It is a compound of Ao =cloud, tea =white and roa =long (“Aotearoa”). 3 Tiritiri o te Moana means The Gift of the Sea. According to the Māori traditions Maui, a supernatural being and an excellent fisherman, caught a massive fish and pulled it up which today forms the North Island of New Zealand (Sinclair, A History 13).
7 to the introduction of different livestock, crops, literacy, religious ideas, weapons 4, disease and prostitution. By 1805 the Bay of Islands had become a major whaling port where both races intermingled (Shaw 18). However, the racial relationship was not always cordial.
Pākehā were welcomed if they proved useful for their goods and skills and for enhancing the mana 5 of Māori chiefs. The Māori were willing to accept Europeans on condition that the mutual contact would be beneficial to them and they would do no harm. Otherwise the Māori would not hesitate to drive them out or destroy their settlement (Sinclair, Oxford 24). There were cases when the Māori instead of being paid for the goods they had delivered on the ships were killed or flogged. Such insults were avenged and the relationships soon deteriorated. The uneasy situation was partly calmed down in 1814 with the arrival of the missionaries of the
Church Missionary Society whose most prominent figure was Reverend Samuel Marsden
(Shaw 19 20).
In the mid 1820’s commercial activities quickly extended to timber, flax, shore whaling, ship building and general trading which resulted in the creation of first groups of settlers living permanently in New Zealand (“Questions and Answers”). They were dependent on Māori cheap work force and, above all, upon Māori support for their survival; they were helpful in cleaning bush and supplying food. Although the Māori were sometimes treated badly by whalers, a significant number of them were employed on board sealing and whaling ships (Shaw 18). On the other hand, Pākehā settlements, important sources of firearms, represented necessary outlets for Māori products. A kind of not only economic interdependence was in operation there.
By the 1830’s New Zealand had absorbed several boatloads of immigrants, each with different impact on Māori society. For example European clothing was worn and European food eaten. Sinclair also mentions that hair was cut shorter, that shaking hands became an 4 It was especially muskets which aggravated the fighting and killing in inter tribal wars (“The New Zealand Frontier”). 5 Mana means prestige, influence and power of Maori tribal authorities (Sinclair, Origins 13).
8 accepted greeting and that the “how do you do” phrase and other English words were entering
Māori vocabulary (Oxford 35). Some traders had taken permanent residence on the coast and in 1834 there were already one thousand permanent European settlers in the Bay of Islands.
3. The need for intervention
The European population was growing rapidly and the period from 1820 to 1840 was a time of dynamic change for the Māori. In 1839 there were already about 2 000 permanent settlers, 1 400 on North Island and 600 on South Island (“The New Zealand Frontier”).
Kororāreka, today Russell, in the Bay of Islands district became the largest European settlement.
In the 1830s British policy towards New Zealand was mainly determined in London but the colonial governors of New South Wales in Australia played an important role. They were interested in the activities of British settlers and endeavoured to impose some sort of authority over New Zealand (“The Formation”). Land speculations, a deterioration in Māori
Pākehā relations and growing lawlessness from settlers with incidents such as the murders of a Māori chief and his family in the South Island (“Questions and Answers”), resulted in petitions for British intervention (Turner et al. 16). In October 1831 thirteen Māori chiefs, backed by the missionary Samuel Marsden, sent a petition to King William IV seeking his formal protection, requesting that he become a “friend and the guardian of these islands”
(Shaw 30). They feared that the French, whose vessel La Favourite was moored in the Bay, would claim New Zealand for France and would avenge the death of Marion du Fresne (Shaw
30).
At first the Crown was reluctant to intervene officially. The Government supported the trade with New Zealand but, on the other hand, it was not too keen on further colonising it
(Turner et al. 16). Yet the conviction that the British Crown was responsible for the acts of its
9 subjects, especially those involved in tribal warfare, and for the protection of the Māori was gaining on prominence and with the continuation of an unauthorised settlement of the country by Europeans the need to establish law and order finally forced the government in 1832 to appoint James Busby as the British Resident at the Bay of Islands, a post equivalent to a consular officer (“The Formation”).
4. James Busby and the Declaration of Independence
James Busby reached New Zealand in May 1833 and on missionaries’ and the Māori’s advice set up a Residency at Waitangi (Sinclair, Oxford 39). He was supposed to act as a negotiator between the Māori and Europeans and to deal with the growing number of crimes and arguments over land (“Background”). Over the next six years he functioned as a sort of facilitator but the fact that he had no forces, no arms and no means to impose his authority made his efforts to keep law and order and to protect the settlers difficult (Turner et al. 16).
Busby was a civilian and therefore not entitled to troops. He could not be appointed a magistrate because New Zealand was an independent territory over which Britain had no jurisdiction (Sinclair, Oxford 39). Busby was powerless and for that reason he came to be dubbed “the man of war without guns” (Sinclair, A History 51).
One of his tasks was to persuade the Māori of the necessity of an independent government and of the recognition of their authority by the British Crown. In March 1834 he convened a meeting where he invited northern chiefs to select a national flag (“Background”).
This was necessary for the ships to be registered and recognised according to maritime law and therefore to have duty free entry to Australia. Without the flag Māori ships were in danger of being seized in foreign ports or being attacked by pirates (“Questions and
Answers”). The registration of the flag, known as The Flag of the Independent Tribes of New
Zealand, was viewed according to Māori understanding as an acknowledgement of mana of
10 New Zealand chiefs and as a symbol of Māori national independence (Sinclair, Oxford 40).
Busby hoped that the flag meeting would lead to a Confederation of Chiefs but his intentions were not fulfilled.
Nevertheless, this was not enough to prevent other nations from encroachment upon
Māori sovereignty. Baron Charles de Thierry, a Frenchman, claimed that he had bought a large amount of land in the Hokianga district (“Questions and Answers”) and planned to establish a sovereign and independent state there. Moreover, he declared himself the
“Sovereign Chief” of New Zealand (“Background”). These de Thierry’s intentions caused growing concern to local chiefs, in Māori Rangatira , and Busby saw it as a good opportunity to accomplish another of his tasks; to set up “a settled form of government” among the Māori people (“The Declaration”). What he envisaged to do was make the country “a dependency of the British Empire” (“The Declaration”).
In October 1835 Busby held a second meeting where he persuaded several northern
Chiefs to sign a Declaration of Independence (“Short Story”) which declared New Zealand an independent state (“Questions and Answers”). The Declaration of the Independence of New
Zealand, written in Māori language and titled He Wakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu
Tirene , was initially signed at Waitangi on 28 October 1835 by thirty four Rangatira who formed a Confederation of the United Tribes of Aotearoa. In addition, the Rangatira made an agreement to meet annually in the autumn at Waitangi to frame laws for maintaining peace and order in their country. The intention was to create a nation state, an attempt to depart from the prevailing tribal orientation and to introduce a confederate approach to governance 6
(Durie 2).
The Declaration stated that all sovereign power and authority, tino rangatiratanga , in the land would reside in the hereditary chiefs and tribal leaders. The chiefs asked King
6 Among other things it proposed Māori legislature and a Parliament made up of Chiefs (Durie 3).
11 William IV, in return for the friendship and protection that the Māori were to give British subjects, to be the parent of their infant state and its protector from all attempts upon its independence (“Questions and Answers”). Busby sent the Declaration to England where it was formally acknowledged; the Crown accepted its role of protector and the independence of the country. The signing continued till 1839 when a total number of signatories reached fifty two. The document was then published and later on it became for the Māori one of the means of asserting their autonomous rights throughout the 19 th century up to the present (Sinclair,
Oxford 42).
5. On the way to the Treaty
The Declaration of Independence represented in Busby’s view the best guarantee against a takeover by other foreign powers (Shaw 52). He thought that it would inhibit other agreements between Māori chiefs and other countries of whose growing interest he was aware. It should be pointed out that the Declaration was also significant in another way; it is believed that it prepared the Māori to accept or, in other words, made them less resistant to further British intervention in their country (Shaw 53).
In 1837 Busby sent a report to the Secretary of State for Colonies to inform them about the increasing land purchases by French and American citizens. The strongest interests in the area were certainly those of the British but American and French activities were gaining strength. The Americans had many trade interests in the Pacific at that time and from 1839 onwards they maintained their own consular representative in the Bay of Islands. The French, on the other hand, set up a Catholic mission in the Hokianga and they paid regular visits to their missionaries and traders (“Questions and Answers”).
Although the British were reluctant to acquire sovereignty, they did not want other
European nations to annex the country (“Short Story”). But there were other reasons for the
12 increasing pressure on Britain for some direct action in New Zealand. Among others, there were the missionary societies that began to press for official intervention and, of greater importance, the New Zealand Company with its plans to establish large British settlement. Its programme of “systematic colonisation” of the country (“Short Story”) led to speculative large scale purchases of Māori lands of dubious legality. New South Wales capitalists took part in land speculation as well, buying up large areas to secure titles later, especially by the end of the 1830s when British intervention seemed more likely (“The Lead up”). These land purchase problems increased the British Government concerns; they realised that the land transactions could result in serious confrontation and violence. European settlers needed the protection and the friendship of the tribes (“Background”) and with the NZ Company’s determination to send more settlers to New Zealand it became obvious that the British
Government could no longer ignore the situation (“Short Story”).
Settlers, traders and missionaries were sending petitions to the King asking for more effective government to deal with lawlessness. Busby himself, often criticized for ineffectiveness in dealing with the misbehaviour of settlers, mainly because of limited powers and no troops, wrote to the Colonial Office that what New Zealand needed was a British
Protectorate (“Questions and Answers”). Finally the British Government changed its opinion in favour of the colonisation and decided to intervene officially, primarily with the aim of protecting its trade and economic interests (“Questions and Answers”).
In 1838 James Busby was replaced with Captain William Hobson who had been appointed as a British Consul and who was to act later as a Lieutenant Governor over any territory which might be acquired for Great Britain (Sinclair, A History 72). His main responsibility was to secure British sovereignty over the country. But there was a major obstacle; the Declaration of Independence. Its signing and the British recognition of the Māori rangatiratanga meant that if New Zealand was to become a British Colony and its
13 sovereignty was to be transferred to the British Crown, Hobson would have to negotiate a formal treaty with the Māori Chiefs (“Background”). The instructions Hobson received were drafted in mid 1839 by Lord Normanby, the Colonial Secretary. Since British policy of dealing with the indigenous people in its other colonies was a subject of strong criticism, Lord
Normanby tried to avoid making the same mistakes in New Zealand (“Background”). He advised Hobson that:
All dealings with the Aborigines for their Lands must be conducted on the
same principles of sincerity, justice, and good faith as must govern your
transactions with them for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereignty in the
Islands. Nor is this all. They must not be permitted to enter into any Contracts
in which they might be the ignorant and unintentional authors of injuries to
themselves. You will not, for example, purchase from them any Territory the
retention of which by them would be essential, or highly conducive, to their
own comfort, safety or subsistence. The acquisition of Land by the Crown for
the future Settlement of British Subjects must be confined to such Districts as
the Natives can alienate without distress or serious inconvenience to
themselves. To secure the observance of this rule will be one of the first duties
of their official protector. (“Read the Treaty”)
Furthermore, the British Government realised that keeping the Māori and Pākehā apart, protecting them in isolation in reserves, should be avoided. This practice was known from North America, South Africa and Australia where it proved ineffective and where such reserves were finally swept away by expanding white settlement. They aimed to adopt a different approach; they wanted the Māori to amalgamate 7 with settlers (“British Policy”).
7 The “amalgamation” of the races, the general aim of the humanitarians, involved little recognition of any inherent value in Māori culture, and, despite idealistic trappings, it meant no more than the Europeanization of the Maoris (Sinclair, Origins 80).
14 6. The Drafting and Signing of the Treaty
Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840 and announced the investigation of all land purchases by Land Claims Commission formed the same year (“Short
Story”). No pre Treaty land sales were to be recognized unless approved of by the Crown and any further private land purchases from the Māori would be considered illegal and invalid
(“The Colonisation”). At the same time Hobson printed invitations to several hundred Māori to the meeting at Busby’s house at Waitangi set on 5 February. Since he had not been given any draft text, he spent the days in between drawing up the treaty. He made some rough notes with the help of his Secretary J. S. Freeman and then took it to James Busby who recommended certain changes to the text. After several revisions done on 3 and 4 February the Treaty appeared, consisting of three clauses, an explanatory preamble and a short attestation clause at the end (“Signing the Treaty”). This text was then given to Reverend
Henry Williams, head of the Church Missionary Society, who translated it into Māori with the assistance of his son Edward, a fluent Māori speaker They laboured together with Busby long into the night of 4 February over the wording (Shaw 57), a difficult task as we can assume from what Henry Williams wrote in his paper “Early Recollections”:
In this translation it was necessary to avoid all expressions of the English for
which there was no expressive term in the Mäori [sic], preserving entire the
spirit and tenor of the treaty, which, though severely tested, has never been
disturbed, notwithstanding that many in power have endeavoured to do so.
(“The Trail – The Treaty”)
The treaty in Māori was ready the next day, on 5 February, for a hui 8 where Williams was supposed to read the text and explain it to the Chiefs (“The Trail – The Treaty”). The meeting was held in a spacious tent erected on the lawn in front of Busby’s house, now called
8 Hui means a meeting or gathering; political as well as social (Oliver and Williams 191).
15 the Treaty House. It was surrounded by a number of smaller tents for those Māori whose rank might have excluded them from a place in the larger marquee. There were assembled about
500 Māori with the principal Native chiefs in the foreground and the whites, residents and settlers around the sides of the tent. Hobson announced to the assemblage that he had been sent to New Zealand to act as Governor which had to be approved of by the Chiefs. He then read the Treaty in English, followed by Henry Williams who did the same in Māori. Hobson did not want anyone to sign the treaty till they fully understood its text and the chiefs were invited to express their views or to ask for further clarification of its points. Busby explained to the hesitating Natives that the Governor did not want to take their land; his aim was to guarantee and secure their continued possession of land they had not sold yet and to return all land that had been improperly acquired (Shaw 60).
Some chiefs wished Hobson to stay and some insisted on his leaving (“The Trail –
The Authentic”). The following debate continued late into the night with many arguments in favour of and against the Treaty. Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said that it was too late to tell the British to go. He addressed the opposing chiefs:
Had you spoken thus in the old time, when the traders and grog sellers came
had you turned them away, then you could well say to the Governor, “Go
back,” and it would have been correct, straight; and I would also have said
with you, “Go back;” yes, we together as one man, one voice. But now, as
things are, no, no, no.” Turning to His Excellency, he resumed, “O Governor!
sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for
us a farther, a judge, a peacemaker. Yes, it is good, it is straight. Sit thou
here; dwell in our midst. Remain; do not go away…. Stay thou, our friend, our
father, our Governor. (Sinclair and Harrex 33)
16 His speech was crucial in swaying the opinion of the gathering. The Māori were given three days to think it over but the next morning they announced to Hobson that they were resolved to sign the Treaty and were anxious to set off home (one of the reasons was that their food supply was running short). Hobson was willing to accept the signatures of any chiefs who were present at the meeting and who were prepared to sign it but first he urged Henry
Williams to read the text once again to the gathering, this time from the parchment, as the one read the day before was on paper (“The Trail – The Authentic”).
James Busby then brought a piece of paper with listed names of Māori Chiefs according to which they were called separately to come forward and sign the document (“The
Trail – The Authentic”). Thus Hone Heke, the chief of the Ngapuhi tribe, became the first to sign the Treaty. He told the surrounding crowd that he fully approved of the text and that they needed protection of the Queen. He was followed by other chiefs and at this second day of meeting forty three Rangatira put their marks or moko , the tattooed design on each face, below the text. This being done, the Governor shook each chief by the hand saying “He iwi tahi tātou”, “We are now one people” (Shaw 63). A few tribal leaders who had not been present on the first day of the meeting arrived during the signing but no chief made any objection that he did not fully understand the contents of the document. Hobson refused to take any responsibility for the misunderstanding; he did his best to provide as much explanation as was possible. It was again Hone Heke who said: “The Native mind could not comprehend these things: they must trust to the advice of their missionaries” (“The Trail –
The Authentic”). Finally William Hobson and several English residents added their signatures and the meeting was dissolved. Two days later, on Saturday 8 February, H.M.S. Herald ran up all her flags and a Royal salute was fired in honour of the new British Colony of New Zealand
(Shaw 63). The document was then sent around Northland for the additional signatures (“Te
Tiriti”).
17 In practice the Treaty of Waitangi is not a single sheet of paper. Hobson provided several copies which were circulated throughout the country. Till nowadays nine documents have altogether survived; seven on paper and two on parchment (“Te Tiriti”).9 By the end of
1840, 539 chiefs had signed the Treaty including few women whose mana was acknowledged by the members of missions (Sinclair, Oxford 45). Thirty nine chiefs out of the total number put their marks on the English version. Some tribes did not sign because they were not given the opportunity to do so; they were not canvassed by the missionaries and officials.
Nevertheless, as was proclaimed by the Colonial Office, the Treaty was applied even to those regions where it had not been signed because the British Government regarded those Māori who signed the Treaty to have acted as the representatives of the whole Māoridom as a nation
(“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”).
7. The contents of the Treaty and the differences between the texts
The Treaty of Waitangi consists of a preamble, three clauses called Articles, and a final statement (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”). There are two versions, one in English and one in Māori language. It was presumed that these two versions have the same meaning but, as the subsequent events proved, there are significant differences in between them. This is a result of the fact that the Māori version is not a literal translation of the English text (“The
Treaty of Waitangi: for people”). When Henry Williams translated the Māori text back into
English, which later on was taken to serve as an official version of the Treaty and which
Hobson then sent to Governor of New South Wales Mr. Gipps, the Reverend remarked on the despatch: “I certify that the above is as literal a translation of the Treaty of Waitangi as the
9 The Treaty copies include Waitangi Treaty Copy, Manukau Kawhia, Waikato Manukau (the only one in English), East Coast, Tauranga, Bay of Plenty (Fedarb), Herald Bunbury, Henry Williams and Printed Treaty copy (“Signatories”).
18 idiom of the language will admit of” (“Read the Treaty”). This short note was intended to draw attention to the fact that a word for word translation was impossible.
The preamble refers to creating good order and harmonious relations between settlers and the Māori (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”). The meanings of both versions are clear and identical. In the English text is stated that Queen Victoria in her concern to protect the rights and property of the Māori and to maintain peace and order between the Māori and encroaching British settlers appointed William Hobson to negotiate with Native people the establishment of government to keep an eye on these tasks. The Māori version states that the
Queen of England promised to provide a government and to secure tribal rangatiratanga and land ownership as long as the Māori wished to retain it (“English Text”).
To deal with Article I and II it is necessary to explain two important Māori terms, te kāwanatanga and te rangatiratanga , whose wrong use and interchange caused the subsequent misunderstanding over the Treaty.
Te Kāwanatanga
This word was not originally part of a Māori lexicon. It is a transliteration of governance and was first used by missionaries in their translations of the Bible (Durie 2). The word itself consists of the words Kāwana , a transliteration of an English word governor , and the suffix tanga which fulfils the same function as the suffix –ship in English. Thus the word for word translation of the word Kāwanatanga would be something like governorship
(“Kawanatanga”).
Te Rangatiratanga
The Māori word Rangatiratanga comes from the word rangatira and a previously mentioned suffix –tanga (“Tino Rangatiratanga”). The meaning of the first is chief . The compound Rangatiratanga stands for chieftainship, but it can have different connotations such as responsibility, authority or sovereignty. This word is often used in syntagma with a
19 word tino , functioning as superlative in the sense of very, total, or absolute (“Tino
Rangatiratanga”).
The phrase tino rangatiratanga had already been used to translate the concept of sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence signed in 1835 by the Māori rangatira , which stated that all sovereign power and authority in the land rested in the hands of hereditary chiefs (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”). The same term was used five years later in the text of the Treaty and this term is very important in the Māori interpretation of the document.
Among the 539 chiefs who signed the Treaty, there were some who had also signed the
Declaration of Independence and thus knew what the term referred to (“The Treaty of
Waitangi: for people”). As opposed to kāwanatanga which always had for the Māori the connotation of a limited power given to the Crown, tino rangatiratanga stands for absolute sovereignty (“Tino Rangatiratanga”).
One significant difference between the English and Māori version is in Article the
First, Ko Te Tuatahi (“Read the Treaty”). In the English text the Māori pledged to “cede to
Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” that the Chiefs possessed over their lands (”English text”). This gave the British Crown the power to make and enforce laws, and the necessary and long awaited authority over settlers in Aotearoa (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”).
In the Māori version of the Treaty what the chiefs actually gave away was “te kāwanatanga katoa ”, katoa = complete (“English Text”). As I have already explained before, the word kāwanatanga is a transliteration of governance (Durie 2). So under this term the
Māori agreed to sign away the complete governance or government over their land (“The
Treaty Text”). However, when Reverend Henry Williams translated the English draft of
Captain Hobson into Māori language, this word was used to cover the meaning of
20 sovereignty. Nowadays many Māori think that the word mana or tino rangatiratanga would have served better to approximate the concept of sovereignty (“Kawanatanga”).
Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, the author of the modern English translation of the
Māori text, explains in the footnotes to his translation (see Appendix D, note 6) that Māori leaders could not have had any understanding of the word government in the sense of sovereignty. They had not had any experience on which they would base their understanding of the word (“Modern English Translation”). We have to realise that so far they had never been governed by any form of authority so they could not have fully understood the implication of this term. What is more, at the time of the singing of the Treaty there were about one hundred times more Māori than Pākehā and thus it seems unacceptable that about two hundred thousand Māori would willingly cede their sovereignty to two thousand settlers
(“Tino Rangatiratanga”).
During the discussion preceding the signings the attention was drawn to the protection and guarantees offered by the Queen (“Questions and Answers”). Hobson and missionaries who were to explain the contents to the Natives stressed mainly its benefits; that settlers would have to abide by the British law, that the long criticised lawlessness would be redressed and new markets would be created for profit of all. They are to be blamed that they deliberately did not fully explain the intention of the British government to acquire sovereignty. Their motive was straightforward; they knew that the Māori would never agree with its contents (“Questions and Answers”). Historians suppose that if the word mana or rangatiratanga had been used instead of kāwanatanga , the Māori chiefs would have never given their consent to the Treaty (“Kawanatanga”). Furthermore, the text which was discussed and then signed by the majority of the chiefs was the Māori text, not the English version, and
21 according to that text what they granted to the British Crown was limited power. That power was kāwanatanga (“Tino Rangatiratanga”).10
The Second Article was unambiguous and created no confusion. The Queen confirmed and guaranteed to “the tribes, families, chiefs and individuals the full exclusive and undisputed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties”
(Sinclair, Origins 28) while she claimed for itself the right of Preemption. To follow the exact words: “Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption” over the lands they wished to alienate (Appendix C). This exclusive right of land purchase reserved for the
Crown, a common practice in foreign policy applied to the British colonies, was a very significant provision because it was the land transactions that were the causes of much trouble between the Māori and Pākehā (“The Lead up”). Thereafter, no land could have been bought directly from the Māori by any British resident. Instead, all land purchases were mediated through a delegate of the Crown appointed for that purpose. If a Māori wished to sell his land, he had to offer the land first and foremost to the Crown. The land acquired by the Crown became the territory to which the British governorship, kāwanatanga , was applied and then this land could be further resold to individual settlers. The rest of the land, that one in Māori possession, would remain under their customs and law (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”).
Ko Te Tuarua , the Second Article, in a Māori version guarantees te tino rangatiratanga to the Māori people, which meant “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their wenua , lands, kainga , villages, and taonga katoa , all their property/treasures” (“English text”). There is a slight difference between the two texts. The
Māori word taonga has a wider connotation as opposed to its English equivalent. It does not
10 I want to note that the discussion ran in Māori with Rev. Henry Williams functioning as the interpreter and as William Colenso, an Anglican missionary and printer, observed in his memories Rev. Williams did not translate all that was said, probably implying that important information might have been withheld (“The Trail – The Authentic”).
22 designate only material things but refers to such concepts as language and culture (“Questions and Answers”). As to the right of Preemption, the Māori interpreted the provision in a different way. The word hokonga meant that the Crown “was allowed to enter into buying, selling or trading of land” (“Questions and Answers”). It did not state the exclusive right of the Crown to the land. If the Crown declined the offer to buy land, according to Māori interpretation of the text, they were allowed to propose the purchase to other private buyers
(“The Meaning”). These word nuances may be criticised as a meaningless quibble but, as history manifested, the two different people who were brought closer by this Treaty had completely different expectations and readings of the text based on their distinctive culture, history, experience, tradition and last but not least language. So, in compliance with the
British law, this doctrine of preemption meant that the land could be sold either to the Crown or not at all, and this fact was not properly explained to the Māori. One of the reasons could be that those who were to give the explanation and to collect the signatures did not fully understand its implication or simply, and intentionally, withheld this crucial information
(“The Reasons for Signing”).
It is also important to know how the Māori perceived the ownership of land and to realise that they could have viewed the land transactions differently from Europeans
(“Treaty”, Wikipedia ). Nopera Panakareao, a chief at Kaitaia, explained the Treaty to his tribe as follows: “Only the shadow of the land passes to the Queen. The substance stays with us, the Māori people” (“The Meaning”). In general, Māori rangatira would think of themselves as kaitiaki , guardians, of their land and would only grant permission to its use for a particular period of time. This traditional custom misled many of them. They were convinced that they were selling this permission, not actually the land. It was only permanent alienation in their view (“Treaty”, Wikipedia ).
23 The last clause, the Third Article, Ko Te Tuatoru , promised to the Māori people the protection and the same rights and privileges, tikanga , the British subjects enjoyed (“The
Treaty Text”). Thus they were to have the same status as British citizens. But it ignored the fact that British subjects were not normally subject to a preemption clause and wisely the
Treaty did not mention the obligations of British subjects (Oliver and Williams 52). The
Māori text has the same meaning and is considered to be a literal translation.
The last part of the written document forms the final statement acknowledging the understanding of its contents (“English Text”) followed by the signatures of Captain Hobson,
Māori tribal leaders and one or more European witnesses (“Te Tiriti”).
In addition to these three basic articles, there exists a fourth, unwritten, article and it is even claimed that some Māori signed a version with four articles (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”). Unwritten in the sense that it is not a part of the official Treaty text. At the meeting, while the contents had been widely discussed, the French Roman Catholic Bishop
Pompallier approached Captain Hobson with a request “that the natives might be informed that all who should join the Catholic, Roman, religion should have the protection of the
British Government” (“The Trail – The Treaty”). Hobson agreed and expressed his regret that his wish had not been pronounced earlier that it could have been included in the draft. It was to be announced to the assembled crowd, before they would proceed to signing, but because of its great importance Henry Williams preferred to write it down on a piece of paper including that the same protection should be accorded to everyone of any creed. The text run:
“E mea ana te Kawana, ko nga whakapono katoa, o Ingarani, o nga Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori hoki, e tiakina ngatahitia e ia. The Governor says the several faiths [beliefs] of
England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also the Maori custom, shall be alike protected by him” (“The Trail – The Authentic”). Thus the freedom of belief in New Zealand was acknowledged.
24 All these differences are very important and they have been hotly debated till nowadays. The debate over the Treaty is believed to have divided the society and to have caused a lot of tension between two races. Thus, a different approach was adopted. It is emphasized that what actually matters is the spirit of the Treaty which should override all these ambiguities. Other reaction was the introduction of the Principles of the Treaty which are widely used to bridge the differences between the texts (more information in the respective chapter below).
8. The aftermath
Long before all the signatures were collected, Hobson proclaimed on 21 May 1840 the
British sovereignty over the whole of the North Island on the grounds of cession and over the
South Island on the grounds of discovery (“Final Formalities”). The capital was established at
Kororāreka in the Bay of Islands but a year later Hobson moved it further south, to Auckland
(Turner et al. 17).
All these formal actions were, apart from other things, prompted and precipitated by the uncontrolled activities of The New Zealand Company that planned to buy vast areas of
Māori land in both the South and North Island (“Final Formalities”). It had already, without permission of the British government, sent emigrants to Port Nicholson who were to establish a new settlement of Wellington (“Final Formalities”) and wanted to set up their own government (“The Colonisation”). They were making their own laws which in Hobson’s view was a treasonable act and thus he intervened to prevent the creation of (sort of) an independent colony and to make the incomers realize that they were Queen’s subjects as well and had to behave in the accordance with the British law (Sinclair, History 72).
Thomas Bunbury, who had been commissioned to gather further signatures in the
South Island, made two other proclamations of sovereignty (“Questions and Answers”). On 5
25 June 1840 over Stewart Island, where no Māori were found, by virtue of Cook’s discovery and, after some of the South Island rangatira signed the Treaty of Waitangi, the sovereignty was also proclaimed over the South Island on 17 June 1840 by right of cession; once again because Bunbury was not informed of Hobson’s claim. New Zealand became part of New
South Wales colony whose authority was extended to it but a year later, in 1841, New
Zealand was declared a separate and independent British colony (“Final Formalities”).
The Māori expected after the signing of the Treaty that they would share authority in the country with the Crown, that they would exercise their sovereignty alongside the British governorship (“Questions and Answers”). They thought that their mana , confirmed in the
Article II, would be further enhanced but their expectations were not to be fulfilled (Sinclair,
Oxford 47). From the beginning, since the ink on the paper dried, the Māori tino rangatiratanga has been usurped, gradually, as the number of incoming Pākehā was increasing. At first the British tried to be on good terms with the Māori, primarily because the new residents needed the assistance of the Natives to cope with a harsh environment,11 and they followed the provisions stated in the treaty. At that time the white settlers were still outnumbered by the Māori and they were aware that it was for their benefit to deal with them evenly. However, with a rapidly growing number of immigrants, the need for more land came to press all of them (“Aftermath”).
In 1842 Hobson, who had suffered a stroke and had been seriously ill from March
1840, died in office (Oliver and Williams 89 ). Captain Robert FitzRoy, Hobson’s successor as a Governor, was willing to let the Māori people practise their customs to a limited extent but that was not to last long (“Early Crown Policy”). FitzRoy spent in office only two years.
Criticised for his pro Māori policy FitzRoy was replaced in 1845 by Sir George Grey, an advocate of a rapid Māori assimilation. As Sinclair writes, Grey intended to subject the Māori
11 The Māori were helping the new settlers with food and other necessities of life (“Aftermath”).
26 with a minimum use of force (Oxford 78). Grey was against the toleration of districts where
Māori customs had the force of law and within which the authority of the colonial government did not operate. He wanted to substitute them with a “civilised” legal code (“Waitangi
Aftermath”).
The Māori people were also to feel little by little the impact of the second article; the
Crown’s right of preemption. They soon realised that they could not sell the land as they wished and the problems concerning land purchases, such as not consulting all of the Māori landowners, a purchase from the wrong people or selling the same piece of land three times, were causing much tension in a newly born colony (“Aftermath”). Another source of disputes was the issue of an unoccupied land. The need of inflowing Europeans to buy land on which to settle resulted in taking over the land uninhabited by the Māori which was classified as a wasteland (“Questions and Answers”). This was against the proclamation that the Māori held title to all land in New Zealand. Besides, Hobson was instructed to buy only lands not occupied by the Māori and not these “the retention of which by them would be essential or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or subsistence” (“Questions and Answers”).
The price the Māori were paid for their land was substantially lower than that at which the
Crown was offering it to private buyers and the Māori were aware of that discrepancy. Their initial willingness to sell land began to weaken. The dubious purchases led to a widespread discontent and rebellions which the government punished by land confiscation. In 1844 the
Treaty was proclaimed injudicious and a tax on all “uncultivated” land was proposed with the confiscation as a penalty for not paying the tax (“Early Crown Policy”). The discontent with
British incursion into territory under the authority of the Māori aggravated and finally led to
New Zealand Wars.
27 9. Discontent and wars
Hone Heke, the first Māori chief who signed the Treaty, was also among the first to show his discontent with the then present situation. Heke was told by American and French traders that the British flag flying at Kororareka signified slavery for all indigenous people of
Aotearoa (“First Māori War”). The pole, a gift to the first British Resident James Busby, became a target of his anger. He chopped it down and then repeated the attack on the pole three times. The last time the flagpole was left lying on the ground as a symbol of his victory till the Māori themselves erected a new one, thirteen years later (“First Māori War”), and the town of Kororareka was burnt down. Heke was determined to put an end to British authority in the Bay of Islands, its introduction of custom duties and other regulations which were held responsible for declining prosperity (Oliver and Williams 178), and he assembled a large force south of Kororareka (Shaw 67). The armed conflict broke out in 1845 and ended in
January 1846 when peace was negotiated with a free pardon granted to Heke and his followers. His rebellion is today referred to as the First Māori War or the Flagstaff War (“First
Māori War”).
Despite the existence of tensions and conflicts of interest, the two races co existed peacefully enough for some years after the sporadic fighting of the mid 1840s (Sinclair and
Harrex 35). But the relentless and insatiable desire of the Europeans for more and more Māori land and a widespread conviction among Pākehā that the Māori still held more land than they could use prolonged warfare (Sinclair and Harrex 38). Furthermore, the settlers began to demand that individual Māori should be permitted to sell land; that tribal ownership should be individualised (Sinclair and Harrex 38).12
During the 1850s the Māori began to turn against land selling (Sinclair, Oxford 87).
They were fearful for their land and for their declining influence. Some tribal chiefs in the
12 This was later on enacted by The Native Lands Act of 1862 (“Legislative Violations”).
28 Waikato region conceived the idea of a Māori King who would hold their lands and people together at those difficult times. Thus, a loose land holding movement grew up which in 1858 merged into The Māori King Movement. Kingitanga , the Māori term, resisted land sales and
Pākehā settlement in the King country,13 the central part of the Island so called to the present day, right up until the 20 th century but it was not opposed to the Crown’s sovereignty on the
Crown’s lands. Its primary purpose in opposing land sales was to protect Māori independence
(Sinclair, Oxford 87 88) but George Grey viewed the movement as treasonable and as a direct challenge to the authority of the Crown (“The Slide to War”). The first Māori King became the paramount Waikato chief Te Wherowhero named the King Potatau I. The movement’s support was always widespread and by 1863 it had encompassed the majority of the Māori
(Sinclair, Oxford 87 88).
As it became more obvious that the British expected the Māori to be subject to British law and authority, pressures between them grew and they finally escalated into what is today collectively known as the Māori Wars (“Aftermath”). The fighting took place between 1860 and 1865 in many parts of the country such as Taranaki,14 the East Coast and Waikato,15 the heartland of the Kingitanga (“The Slide to War”). The British were not able to destroy the
King Movement but they did manage to defeat it and seriously weaken it. As a result, Māori unity was reduced and their collaboration with the government increased. After the wars the government decided to confiscate huge parcels of Māori land; a kind of punishment for the rebels. This led to increased outrage, especially when those who had been neutral and those who had fought on the Crown’s side, the so called Kupapa or friendly Māori, were taken their lands. It was the worst injustice ever perpetrated by a New Zealand government (Sinclair, A
History 143). The Māori would say “that the missionaries had taught them to look up to heaven while the Government stole the land from under their feet” (Sinclair and Harrex 34). 13 King country spread from the Upper Waikato to the Upper Wanganui (Sinclair, Oxford 93). 14 The Taranaki war lasted from 1860 till 1861 (“A Quick Guide”). 15 The Waikato war lasted from 1863 till 1864 (“A Quick Guide”).
29 The Government confiscated over a million acres of land in the Waikato and it also proposed to confiscate about a million acres along the Taranaki coast (Sinclair and Harrex 42
44). The case in Taranaki was even more controversial because the local tribes had never signed the Treaty and thus expected to be excepted from its provisions. They believed, and a lot of others, that by not signing the Treaty they had protected their tribes (Durie 177).
Governor Grey, whose aim was to permanently “cripple” Māori independence by confiscating the best land of the key resisting tribes and allocating it to the military settlers, those fighting in wars (Sinclair, Oxford 94), refused to accept the existence of a rival authority, the Māori
King, and the sporadic fighting went on for nearly another ten years, until the wars came to a halt in 1872 (Sinclair and Harrex 40). Altogether, more than three million acres were confiscated and by the early 20 th century, with a large scale land purchase programme proposed by Grey in 1845 and reinforced in 1870s, the Crown had acquired some three quarters of the North Island. In South Island, most of which had already been lost by 1860s, the Māori possessed less than 1 per cent of land. In 1920 it was only 4,787,686 acres that remained in Māori ownership (“Legislative Violations”).
10. From neglect to recognition
All the time Māori leaders looked to the Treaty for protection (“Short Story”). They sent petitions and voyaged to England demanding intervention into Treaty breaches but these attempts were to no avail. They were not able to achieve the ratification of the Treaty. 16 Since the signing, the Treaty had been described as “a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying ignorant savages for the moment” (“Early Crown Policy”) who had no rights and who would nevertheless finally fade away by a law of nature or by a law of progress (Sinclair,
Oxford 88). Most Pākehā shared the opinion that the Māori were inferior to them. Not only
16 It was never ratified by Britain until 1975 (“Treaty”, Wikipedia ).
30 did the Europeans regard Natives as unregenerate savages, but they doubted whether they were capable of improvement, of elevation. A covenant between the Crown and these savages could on no account be interpreted as an agreement between sovereign states and thus, in terms of international law, the Treaty had little status (“Waitangi Aftermath”). In 1877 it was ruled in the courts “a simple nullity” 17 since treaties with primitive barbarians lacked legal validity (Durie 181) and in 1890, during the celebration of New Zealand’s 50 th anniversary, the Treaty was not mention at all (“Aftermath”).
During the following years the Māori tried to get the Crown to honour the Treaty, which means for the Māori the return of lands, waters and other resources that were taken illegally or, in the case the return was not possible, an adequate compensation for the loss of that land. Honouring the Treaty also means that the Māori would have control and authority over their affaires and a genuine say in decisions affecting all residents in New Zealand
(“Aftermath”). They have petitioned not only the Queen but also the Governor General. They have worked through the courts, Parliament, protests, fighting and the occupation of the traditional lands allegedly stolen by the Crown in an attempt to make the Treaty statutory and make other people listen to their claims. King Tawhiao, the son and successor of the first
Māori King Potatau I, wrote to the Governor that “no matter how you may be addressed you will not regard nor reciprocate” (“Amalgamation Policies”). This sentiment was shared by many chiefs at that time. The Māori also tried to find their own ways. In 1892 the first Māori
Parliament, Te Kotahitanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi , was convened but it was never recognised by the official New Zealand Parliament. Having no power, the Māori Parliament was finally dissolved in the year of 1907 (Sinclair, Oxford 236). But things were to change.
At that time, at the end of the 19 th century, a new sort of Māori leaders were emerging who willingly co operated with the Government and the Europeans in trying to improve the
17 This decision was reached in case Wi Parata v. Bishop of Wellington (Durie 180).
31 lot of their people (Sinclair and Harrex 58).18 These leaders, former students of Te Aute
College, formed in 1909 the Young Māori Party. Their first success in addressing Māori historical grievances was achieved in the first part of the 20th century when compensation was paid for some lakes. One of the first tribes whose claims were upheld was Ngai Tahu who between 1844 and 1857 had sold off almost the whole South Island. Their claims were based on an assumption that there existed discrepancies between Māori and Pākehā conceptions of the land sales. According to Sinclair it was verbal agreement which mattered to the Māori, not scratching on paper Pākehā chose to make as souvenirs. Ngai Tahu believed they had agreed to sell far less land than they had been taken off and they were right (Oxford 82 83).
After 1940, when the centenary of the signing was commemorated, the Treaty returned to the public attention with greater expectations of honouring this founding document. During the late 1960s and early 1970s New Zealand experienced a growing protest movement and activism, culminating in 1975 by hikoi , a protest land march, of 30,000 participants led by Whina Cooper (“The Treaty Debated”). They walked from Te Hapua, not far from the northern most point of NZ, to Parliament under the slogan “Not One More Acre of Māori Land” (“A Quick Guide”) to present a Memorial of Rights to the Prime Minister, petitioning the government to cease unjust alienation of Māori land (Durie 124). But it was not until the same year that the Treaty, having been forgotten and overlooked for more than one hundred years, was officially recognized in law. In 1975 the Parliament passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act establishing the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate Māori claims against the
British Crown dating from 1975. The Waitangi Tribunal, Te Rōpu Whakamana i te Tiriti o
Waitangi , enabled the Māori to seek redress on non statutory Treaty grievances (Durie 184).
One of its assets was that it revealed a historical backdrop which had been largely hidden from the eyes of ordinary New Zealanders. Most of them were surprised to know that the
18 Among new political leaders were Māori Irish James Carroll, a Cabinet Minister; Apirana Ngata, a lawyer; Maui Pomare and Peter Buck, both doctors (Sinclair and Harrex 58 60).
32 Crown actually had Treaty obligations (Durie 175). In 1985 the Act was amended to extend the jurisdiction of the Tribunal back from 1975 to the original signing of the Treaty in 1840.
Consequently, the Tribunal was flooded with claims and the number of its members had to be extended to up to sixteen to cope with them (Sinclair, Oxford 351).
The claims are registered and inquired into and after consideration the Tribunal issues a report on whether these claims are well founded and the claimants suffered prejudice as a result of the Treaty’s breach (“Treaty Settlements”). Then it may make recommendations as to how redress these grievances, but it has no further involvement in the settlement process. It is up to the Government whether it will settle a claim or not; so Māori Treaty rights still depend on the goodwill of the Government. Financial reparations were made to a number of
Māori tribes whose lands were found to have been unjustly confiscated. By February 2006 there had already been 20 settlements of historical claims,19 those relating to things the
Crown did or failed to do before 1992, totalling approximately $700 million (“Treaty”,
Wikipedia ). Among other things, the Tribunal recommended the return of land at Orakei,
Bastion Point, 20 to Ngāti Whātua which was approved of without too much difficulty by the
Government and the public. However, when large resources are at stake and there is any attempt by the Māori “to roll back the tide of colonialism”, there is bitter resistance and litigation (Sinclair, Oxford 351).
11. The principles of the Treaty
As was already stated, one of the main sources of confusion in the Treaty is the difference between the English and Māori versions. That is one reason why in 1975 the principles of the Treaty were introduced to enable both of the versions to be addressed and why the use of these principles has been favoured rather than a strict adherence to the words
19 In addition to historical claims there exist contemporary and conceptual claims (Durie 185). 20 Bastion Point was occupied by the Māori in protest for 506 days in 1977 (“The Treaty Debated”).
33 of the Treaty (Durie 209). The principles, core underlying concepts, interpret the Treaty as a whole, its meaning, intention, and spirit to further the understandings of the text. The list of principles is not definitive since the Treaty is regarded as a “living” document which must grow and develop with time; to illustrate some of them I want to list a set of the principles, taken from Durie´s book Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self determination on page 204, that were announced in 1989 by the Labour Government.
It identified five principles:
• the Principle of Government (Kāwanatanga Principle): is taken from Article the First and states that the government has the right to govern and to make laws. This sovereignty is qualified by a requirement to accord Māori interests specified in Article the Second an appropriate priority.
• the Principle of Self Management (Rangatiratanga Principle): confirms that iwi (tribes) should have the right to organise as iwi and, under the law, control the resources they own.
• the Principle of Equality: states that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. The basis for legal equality is English Common Law.
• the Principle of Reasonable Cooperation: obliges government and the iwi to accord each other cooperation on major issues of common concern.
• the Principle of Redress: states the government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances. The reconciliation is expected to result.
After the 1990 election, the National Government decided to rewrite these principles to accommodate new policies. The kāwanatanga principle was amended to indicate that the government govern for the common good and the rangatiratanga principle was extended to reflect self management within the scope of the law (Durie 204 05). Nevertheless the Māori maintain that in attempts to rewrite the Treaty in the form of principles the recognition of the right of te tino rangatiratanga was again strongly denied (“Tino Rangatiratanga”), which
34 have led to the continued subordination of them, and they have rather ignored and forgotten these principles.
12. The preservation of documents and Waitangi Day
The Treaty sheets narrowly escaped destruction in 1841when the Government Offices in Auckland were completely destroyed by fire (“Te Tiriti”). Subsequently the documents were fastened together and deposited in the Colonial Secretary’s Office in Auckland. In
1864/65 they were transferred to Wellington when the capital moved there and few years later the facsimiles of the original were made. Had not been seen for about half a century, the documents were discovered in 1908 by Dr Thomas Hocken in the basement of Government
Buildings. The edges of two parchment sheets were gnawed by rats and the surface damaged by water so the actions were taken to restore and preserve the texts. The first public display of the documents since 1840 took place in Waitangi, in 1940, in the course of the centenary celebrations of their signing. In 1961 they were displayed to the public in the Alexander
Turnbull Library. Finally, a climate controlled facility was constructed at Archives New
Zealand in Wellington to enable permanent display, in the Constitution Room, where the
Treaty of Waitangi remains today (“Preserving the Treaty documents”).
As has already been written before 6 February 1940 marked the centennial anniversary of the signing of the Treaty. The centenary commemorated at Waitangi served as an occasion for manifestation of a national unity which was the primary aim of Lord Bledisloe, the
Governor General at that time, when he gifted the Treaty house and grounds at Waitangi to the nation eight years earlier. Bledisloe hoped it would become a national memorial, a symbol of a unique relationship between the Māori and Pākehā that had been initiated by the Treaty
(“Waitangi Day”). In 1960, the sixth of February, named Waitangi Day, a day of thanksgiving, became a public holiday and fourteen years later a national holiday. This act
35 was seen by Māori activists as a first step towards legislative recognition of the Treaty. Since then the day has been celebrated with different success; many times it became the focus of
Māori protest and it happened that the celebrations were cancelled or moved to other cities.
Still the date is a significant milestone in New Zealand history to be remembered and celebrated by future generations (“Waitangi Day”).
36 13. Conclusion
In the centre of my interest there was the Treaty of Waitangi, an important document representing an agreement concluded between two different parties; the indigenous people and colonising people of New Zealand. I concentrated on and tried to portray the situation before the appearance of the Treaty. The course of cohabitation of two races without set limits and rules led to the necessity of providing a means of control. The final result of that need was a treaty; drawn by the British, accepted by the Māori. It gives the impression that these two parties did not cooperate in laying the foundations of a new nation, and in part, this can be justified by the fact that the Māori were not invited to participate in the process of drafting the text and were just presented with a fait accompli. Asking their advice and help in translating the English text into Te Reo Māori , the Māori language, could have spared the subsequent discords stemming from the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the text. But this is a mere speculation; Māori chiefs themselves were not concerned with closely analysing the clauses of the Treaty and instead talked about whether Hobson should stay and the land they had lost. I compared the Māori and English version of the Treaty and draw attention to their differences. Then I traced the development in the country after the signing of the Treaty till present times.
For sure, the Treaty of Waitangi recognized the prior occupation of Aotearoa by the
Māori and allowed the Crown to set up the government to establish laws. But many people still hold that the Treaty gives the Māori certain rights, such as the right of sovereignty. In fact this right could have not been given to the Māori in the Treaty since they exercised it long before the arrival of Europeans and, furthermore, this right had already been recognised in the
Declaration of Independence in 1835. On the contrary, the Europeans were given certain rights, those included in the term kāwanatanga. The legal right of Pākehā to live in New
Zealand would disappear if the Treaty disappeared itself. Thus the Treaty represents the only
37 legal basis for the presence of Pākehā in New Zealand (“The Treaty of Waitangi: for people”).
The ongoing dispute about what actually the Māori ceded under the terms of the Treaty demonstrated itself in many ways: wars, parliamentary activity, non violent resistance, sit ins, protest marches; these demonstrations have kept the Treaty the question and the issue of debate in New Zealand society till nowadays.
38 Bibliography
“Aftermath.” Christchurch City Libraries . 3 Feb. 2006
“Amalgamation Policies and Māori Responses.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004–2006.
17 Jan. 2006
“Aotearoa.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 1 Apr. 2006.
3 Feb. 2006
“Background.” Christchurch City Libraries . 3 Feb. 2006
“British Policy and the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006. 17 Jan. 2006
Clyde, Constance. New Zealand: Country and People: An Account of the Country and Its
People . Auckland: Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd., 1925.
“The Colonisation of New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi.” New Zealand in History .
28 Mar. 2006. 15 Jan. 2006
“The Declaration of Independence.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006. 17 Jan. 2006
Durie, Mason. Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self determination .
Auckland: Oxford UP, 1998.
“Early Crown Policy.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“English text.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“Final Formalities.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
39 “First Māori War.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 30 Mar. 2006. 15 Jan. 2006
“The Formation of British Policy.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006. 17 Jan. 2006
“Kawanatanga.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 12 Mar. 2006.
3 Feb. 2006
“The Lead up to the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
“Legislative Violations of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
6 Apr. 2006
“The Meaning of the Treaty.” Christchurch City Libraries . 3 Feb. 2006
“Modern English Translation of the Māori text.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
“The New Zealand Frontier in the 1830s.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
Oliver, W.H., and B.R.Williams, eds. The Oxford History of New Zealand . Wellington:
Oxford UP, 1981.
“Pākehā.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 21 May 2006.
3 Feb. 2006
“Preserving the Treaty documents.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/journey/parchments.php>.
“Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site .
2 Feb. 2006
40 “A Quick Guide and Brief History of the Treaty of Waitangi.” Maori Independence Site .
2 Feb. 2006
“Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“The Reasons for Signing and not Signing.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
Shaw, Peter. Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992.
“Short Story.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
“Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi.” New Zealand’s History Online .
15 Jan. 2006
“Signing the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
Sinclair, Keith. A History of New Zealand . Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969.
. The Origins of the Maori Wars . Auckland: Auckland UP, 1961.
, ed. The Oxford Illustrated History of New Zealand . Oxford: Oxford UP, 1990.
Sinclair, Keith, and Wendy Harrex. Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand .
Wellington: Oxford UP, 1978 .
“The Slide to War.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Archives New Zealand . 17. Jan. 2006
“Tino Rangatiratanga.” Joint Methodist Presbyterian Public Questions Committee . July 1993.
18 Jan. 2006
“The Trail Of Waitangi The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of
41 Waitangi.” 15 Jan. 2006
“The Trail Of Waitangi The Treaty (iii) Signing the Treaty of ... .”
15 Jan. 2006
“The Treaty Debated.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“Treaty of Waitangi.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 5 Apr. 2006.
3 Feb. 2006
“The Treaty of Waitangi (for people who don’t know a lot about it).”
15 Jan. 2006
“Treaty Settlements.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17. Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/settlements/summary.php?i=10>.
“The Treaty Text.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
Turner, Peter. et al. New Zealand . Hong Kong: Colorcraft Ltd., 1996.
“Waitangi Aftermath.” Te Ara The Encyclopedia of New Zealand . 11 July 2005.
17 Jan. 2006
“Waitangi Day – A History.” New Zealand’s History Online .
15 Jan. 2006
42 Appendix A The Treaty sheet 21
21 “The Treaty Sheet,” The Treaty of Waitangi , 2004 – 2006, 15. Jan. 2006
43 Appendix B The Māori text 22 KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira Maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga motu na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.
Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.
Na kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei amua atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.
Ko te tuatahi Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
Ko te Tuarua Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona. Ko te Tuatoru Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani. (signed) William Normální Consul and Lieutenant Governor.
Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.
Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki. 22 “English text,” The Treaty of Waitangi , 2004 – 2006, 15. Jan.2006
44 Appendix C The English text 23 Preamble HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorised to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorise me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter 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 or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof. Article the Second Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Preemption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.
Article the Third In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects. (signed) William Hobson, Lieutenant Governor. 23 “English text,” The Treaty of Waitangi , 2004 – 2006, 15. Jan.2006
45 Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified. Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty.
46 Appendix D A Modern English translation of the Māori text 24 T Translation by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu (used with permission) provided with footnotes Preamble Victoria, the Queen of England, in her concern to protect the chiefs and the subtribes of New Zealand and in her desire to preserve their chieftainship (1) and their lands to them and to maintain peace (2) and good order considers it just to appoint an administrator (3) one who will negotiate with the people of New Zealand to the end that their chiefs will agree to the Queen's Government being established over all parts of this land and (adjoining) islands (4) and also because there are many of her subjects already living on this land and others yet to come.
So the Queen desires to establish a government so that no evil will come to Māori and European living in a state of lawlessness.
So the Queen has appointed me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor for all parts of New Zealand (both those) shortly to be received by the Queen and (those) to be received hereafter and presents (5) to the chiefs of the Confederation chiefs of the subtribes of New Zealand and other chiefs these laws set out here.
(1 )"Chieftainship" : this concept has to be understood in the context of Māori social and political organisation as at 1840. The accepted approximation today is "trusteeship". (2) "Peace" : Māori "Rongo", seemingly a missionary usage (rongo to hear i.e. hear the "Word" the "message" of peace and goodwill, etc). (3) Literally "Chief" ("Rangatira") here is of course ambiguous. Clearly a European could not be a Māori, but the word could well have implied a trustee like role rather than that of a mere "functionary". Māori speeches at Waitangi in 1840 refer to Hobson being or becoming a "father" for the Māori people. Certainly this attitude has been held towards the person of the Crown down to the present day hence the continued expectations and commitments entailed in the Treaty. (4 )"Islands" i.e. coastal, not of the Pacific. (5) Literally "making " i.e. "offering" or "saying" but not "inviting to concur". Article the First The Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government (6) over their land. (6 )"Government" : "kawanatanga". There could be no possibility of the Māori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of "sovereignty" i.e. any understanding on the basis of experience or cultural precedent. Article the Second The Queen of England agrees to protect the chiefs, the subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise (7) of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures (8) . But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell (9) land to the Queen at a price agreed to by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent. 24 “Modern English Translation of the Māori text,” The Treaty of Waitangi , 2004 – 2006, 17 Jan. 2006
47 (7 )"Unqualified exercise" of the chieftainship would emphasise to a chief the Queen's intention to give them complete control according to their customs. "Tino" has the connotation of "quintessential". (8) "Treasures" : "taonga". As submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Māori language have made clear, "taonga" refers to all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non material heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies), etc. (9) Māori "hokonga" , literally "sale and purchase". Hoko means to buy or sell. Article the Third For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand and will give them the same rights and duties (10) of citizenship as the people of England (11) . (10) "Rights and duties" : "tikanga" while "tika" means right, correct, (e.g. "e tika hoki" means that is right), "tikanga" most commonly refers to custom(s), for example of the marae; and custom(s) clearly includes the notion of duty and obligation. (11) There is, however, a more profound problem about "tikanga" . There is a real sense here of the Queen "protecting" (i.e. allowing the preservation of) the Māori people's tikanga (i.e. customs) since no Māori could have had any understanding whatever of British tikanga (i.e. rights and duties of British subjects.) This, then, reinforces the guarantees in Article 2.
(signed) William Hobson Consul and Lieutenant Governor.
So we, the Chiefs of the Confederation and of the subtribes of New Zealand meeting here at Waitangi having seen the shape of these words which we accept and agree to record our names and our marks. Thus was done at Waitangi on the sixth of February in the year of our Lord 1840.
48