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
Introduction…………………………………………………………………………... 5
The early Māori-Pākeha contact……………………………………………………... 7
The need for intervention…………………………………………………………….. 9
James Busby and the Declaration of Independence………………………………….. 10
On the way to the Treaty……………………………………………………………... 12
The Drafting and Signing of the Treaty……………………………………………… 14
The contents of the Treaty and the differences between the texts…………………… 17
• Te Kāwanatanga
• Te Rāngatiratanga
The aftermath………………………………………………………………………… 24
Discontent and Wars…………………………………………………………………. 26
From neglect to recognition………………………………………………………….. 28
The Principles of the Treaty………………………………………………………….. 32
The preservation of documents and Waitangi Day…………………………………... 33
Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………… 35
Appendix A. The Treaty sheet ……………………………………………………... 37
Appendix B. The text in Māori……………………………………………………... 38
Appendix C. The Draft in English………………………………………………….. 39
Appendix D Modern English translation of the Māori text………………………... 41
Bibliography...………………………………………………………………………...43
4 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 Māori iwi and hapū
(tribes and subtribes). The Treaty bears the name of the place in the Bay of Islands, Waitangi
(weeping or noisy waters) 1 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)2 and white settlers or Pākeha 3, as the Maori used to call their new neighbours.
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 the chapter The need for intervention to show what 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” will be closed with a description of the immediate causes and motivations that led to the drawing and signing of the Treaty. Then I will 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 Maori-Pākeha relationship. One chapter deals with the various forms of
Maori 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
1 “The colonisation of New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi.” New Zealand in History . 28 March 2006. 15 Jan. 2006
2 also Shaw, P.: Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 10 3 Shaw, P.: Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 96 Pakeha is a term used to designate a white person, a New Zealander of Anglo/European origin, or a Non-Maori or foreigner.
5 preservation and of Waitangi Day concludes this bachelor thesis. In appendixes you can see the picture of the Treaty and look in the texts of both versions, Maori and English, together with Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu’s modern English translation of the Maori text provided with footnotes.
6 The early Maori-Pākeha contact
The first European to catch sight of Aotearoa 4, or Tiritiri o te Moana 5, to use two ancient Maori names for New Zealand, was in 1642 a Dutch East India Company explorer
Abel Janszoon Tasman who just sailed up the west coast and named the land Staten Island, later on renamed New Zealand after the province of the same name in his country. 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. Cook was the first European seen by Maori of the
Bay of Islands. He made a number of friendly contacts with them and having concluded his sail around the coasts of both the North and South Islands, he claimed the land for the British
Crown in the name of King George III. and continued on to Australia. It was a routine procedure and Britain neither confirmed nor pursued its claims immediately, but Cook’s visit raised the possibility for further British intrusion and ultimately dominance. Marion du
Fresne, a Frenchman who visited the Bay in 1772 and was killed there by the local tribe (as a result of a series of blunders), claimed the country for his sovereign as well but neither his government took any immediate interest in the land.
New Zealand’s first settlers were sealers, whalers and traders, temporary settlers who came at the end of the 18 th century, mostly from New South Wales, Australia. During the early 19 th century European settlers were arriving in greater numbers whose increasing presence led to the introduction of different livestock, crops, literacy, religious ideas, weapons
(especially muskets which aggravated the fighting and killing in inter-tribal wars), disease and prostitution. By 1805 the Bay of Islands had become a major whaling port. However, the
4 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.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 1 Apr. 2006. 3 Feb. 2006
7 racial relationship was not always cordial. Pākeha were welcomed if they proved useful for their goods and skills and for enhancing the mana (prestige, authority, power) of Maori chiefs.
The Maori were willing to accept Europeans on condition that the mutual contact would be beneficial to them and they would do no harm. Otherwise Maori would not hesitate to drive them out or destroy their settlement. There were cases when Maori, 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 situation was partly calmed down by the arrival of the missionaries of the Church Missionary Society in 1814 (the most prominent figure being Reverend Samuel Marsden).
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. They were dependent on Maori cheap work force and, most of all, upon Maori support for their survival (cleaning bush, supplying food).
Although Maori were sometimes treated badly by whalers, a significant number of them were employed on board sealing and whaling ships. On the other hand, Pakeha settlements represented necessary outlets for Maori products and they were important sources of firearms.
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 Maori society (for example European clothing was worn and European food eaten). Some traders had taken permanent residence on the coast and in 1839 there were about 2 000 permanent settlers, 1 400 on North Island and 600 on South Island. The largest European settlement was
Kororāreka (today Russell) in the Bay of Islands.
8 The need for intervention
The European population was growing rapidly and the period from 1820 to 1840 was a time of dynamic change for Maori. By 1834 there were already one thousand permanent
European settlers in the Bay. At that time the British policy towards New Zealand was determined from London but the colonial governors of New South Wales played an important role. They were interested in the activities of British settlers and endeavoured to impose some sort of authority over New Zealand. Growing lawlessness from settlers, land speculations and deterioration in Maori-Pakeha relations (the murders of a Maori chief and his family in the
South Island) resulted in petitions for British intervention. In October 1831 thirteen Maori chiefs backed by the missionary Samuel Marsden 6 sent a petition to King William IV. seeking his formal protection, requesting that he become a “friend and the guardian of these islands”. 7
Moreover they feared that the French, whose vessel La Favourite was moored in the Bay, would claim New Zealand for France.
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.
Yet, the conviction that the Crown is responsible for the acts of its subjects (especially those involved in tribal warfare) and for the protection of Maori was gaining on prominence and with the continuation of the 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.
6 It was Samuel Marsden who later on supported the Maori conviction that the Crown had maternal interest in
7their protection. Shaw, P.: “To King William the Gracious Chief of England”. In Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 30
9 James Busby and the Declaration of Independence
James Busby reached New Zealand in May 1833 and on missionaries’ and Maori advice set up a Residency at Waitangi. He was supposed to act as a negotiator between Maori and Europeans and to deal with the growing number of crimes and arguments over land. Over the next six years he functioned as a sort of facilitator but having no forces, no arms and no means to impose his authority made his efforts to protect the settlers and keep law and order difficult. 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. Busby was powerless and for that reason he came to be dubbed “the man of war without guns” 8.
One of his tasks was to persuade the Maori of the necessity of an independent government and of the recognition of their authority by the British Government. In March
1834 he convened a meeting where he invited northern chiefs to select a national flag. This was necessary for the ships to be registered and recognised according to maritime law and therefore has duty-free entry to Australia. Without the flag they were in danger of being seized in foreign ports and being attacked by pirates. The registration of the flag, known as
The Flag of the Independent Tribes of New Zealand, was apprehended, according to the
Maori understanding, as an acknowledgement of mana of New Zealand chiefs and a symbol of Maori national independence. 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
Maori sovereignty. Baron Charles de Thierry, a Frenchman, claimed that he had bought a large amount of land in the Hokianga district and planned to establish a sovereign and independent state there. Moreover he declared himself the “Sovereign Chief” of New
8 Sinclair, K.: A History of New Zealand. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969. p. 51
10 Zealand. This de Thierry’s intention 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 9. What he envisaged to do was to make the country a dependency of the British Empire. In October 1835 Busby held a second meeting where he persuaded several northern Chiefs to sign a Declaration of Independence which declare the country an independent state. The Declaration of the Independence of New
Zealand written in Maori Language, 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 and agreed to meet at Waitangi annually in the autumn to frame laws for maintaining peace and order in the 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 (among others it proposed Maori legislature, a Parliament made up of Chiefs). 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 William IV, in return for the friendship and protection that
Maori were to give British subjects, to be the parent of their infant state and its protector from all attempts upon its independence. 10 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 52. The document was then published and for Maori it became one of the means of asserting their autonomous rights throughout the 19 th century till nowadays.
9 “The Declaration of Independence (1835): The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
10 17 Jan. 2006
11 On the way to the Treaty
The Declaration in Busby’s view was the best guarantee against a takeover by other foreign powers; further, he thought it would inhibit other agreements between the Maori 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 Maori to accept, or, in other words, made them less resistant to further British intervention in their country.
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. Certainly the strongest interests in the area were those of 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 paid regular visits to their missionaries and traders.
Although the British were reluctant to acquire sovereignty, they did not want other nations to annex the country. But this was not the only cause for the increasing pressure on
Britain for some direct action in New Zealand. Among others it was 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 led to speculative large-scale purchases of Maori 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.) These land purchase problems increased the British
Government concern; they realised that the land transactions could result in serious confrontation and violence. European settlers needed the protection and the friendship of the
12 tribes and with the NZ Company’s determination to send more settlers to New Zealand it was obvious that the British Government could no longer ignore the situation.
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. 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.
In 1838 James Busby was replaced with Captain William Hobson, appointed as a
British Consul, who was to act later on as a Lieutenant Governor. His responsibility was to secure British sovereignty over the country. But there was one obstacle; the Declaration. Its signing and the British recognition of the Maori rangatiratanga meant that if New Zealand was to become a British Colony and its sovereignty transferred to the British Crown, Hobson would have to negotiate a formal treaty with the Maori Chiefs. His instructions were drafted in mid-1839 by Lord Normanby, the Colonial Secretary, and since the British policy of dealing with the indigenous people in the other British colonies was a subject of strong criticism, he did not want to make the same mistakes in New Zealand; thus 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
13 inconvenience to themselves. To secure the observance of this rule will be one of the first duties of their official protector.” 11
Furthermore the British Government realised that keeping Maori and Pakeha 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 Maori to amalgamate 12 with settlers.
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); no land claims would be recognized unless approved by the Crown and any further private land purchases from the Maori would be considered illegal and invalid. At the same time he printed invitations to several hundred Maori to the meeting at Busby’s house at Waitangi, set on 5 February. Because he was not given any draft text, he spent the days in between drawing up a treaty. He made some rough notes for the treaty with the help of his Secretary J. S.
Freeman and then took it to James Busby who recommended certain changes. 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 (see Appendices A, B). This text was then given to Reverend Henry Williams, head of Church Missionary Society, who translated it into Maori with the assistance of his son Edward, a fluent Maori speaker. They laboured together with Busby long into the night of 4 February over the wording, a difficult
11 “Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006. 15 Jan. 2006
12 The “amalgamation” of the races, the general aim of the humanitarians, involved little recognition of any inherent value in Maori culture, and, despite idealistic trappings, it meant no more than the Europeanization of the Maoris. In Sinclair, K.: The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1961. p. 80
14 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 Māori, 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.”13
The text in Maori was ready the next day, on 5 February, for a hui (a meeting or gathering; political as well as social)14 where Williams was supposed to read and explain it to the Chiefs. The meeting was held in a spacious tent erected on the lawn in front of Busby’s house (now called the Treaty House). It was surrounded by a number of smaller tents for those Maori whose rank might exclude them from a place in the larger marquee. There were assembled about 500 Maori 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
Maori. 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 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 return all land that had been improperly acquired.
Some chiefs wished Hobson to stay and some insisted on his leaving. 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:
13 14 “The Trail Of Waitangi - The Treaty.” 15 Jan. 2006
15 “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 midst. Remain; do not go away…… Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.” 15
His speech was crucial in swaying the opinion of the gathering. The Maori 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 and 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 that read the day before was on paper).
James Busby brought a paper with listed names of Maori Chiefs according to which they were called separately to come forward and sign the document. 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, that they needed protection of the Queen. He was followed by other chiefs and at this second day of meeting 43 rangatira put their marks or moko (the tattooed design on each face) below the treaty. This being done, the Governor shook each chief by the hand saying "He iwi tahi tātou" ("We are now one people")16 . A few tribal leaders, who were not 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
15 Sinclair, K., Harrex. W.: Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand . Wellington: Oxford
16University press, 1978. p. 33 Shaw, P.: Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992. p. 63
16 could not comprehend these things: they must trust to the advice of their missionaries.” 17
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. The document was then sent around Northland for the additional signatures.
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. 18 By the end of 1840 539 chiefs signed the Treaty, including few women whose mana was confirmed by the members of missions. 39 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 was not actually signed because the British Government thought of those Maori who signed the Treaty to have acted as the representatives of the whole Maoridom as a nation.
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. There are two versions, one in English and one in Maori 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
Maori version is not a literal translation of the English text. When Henry Williams translated
17 “The Trail Of Waitangi: The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 15 Jan. 2006
18 The Treaty copies: 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 to the Treaty of Waitangi”. New Zealand’s history online . 15 Jan. 2006
17 the Maori 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 idiom of the language will admit of.” 19 . This short note was intended to draw attention to the fact that a word-for-word translation was impossible.
The preamble did not cause any confusion. The meanings of both are clear and identical. In the English text it is stated that the Queen Victoria in her concern to protect the rights and property of Maori and to maintain peace and order between Maori and encroaching
British settlers appointed William Hobson to negotiate with Native people the establishment of government to keep an eye on these tasks. The Maori version says that the Queen promised to provide a government and to secure tribal rangatiratanga (explained later on) and land ownership as long as Maori wished to retain it.
To deal with Article I and II it is necessary to explain two important Maori terms whose wrong use and interchange caused the subsequent misunderstanding over the Treaty.
Te Kāwanatanga
This word was not originally part of a Maori lexicon. It is a transliteration of governance or government and was first used by missionaries in their translations of the
Bible 20 . 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 Kāwanatanga would mean something like governorship, government.
Te Rangatiratanga
19 Public Record office, London, CO 209/7, 13-15 “Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
20 15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/background.php> Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1998. p.2
18 Maori word Rangatiratanga comes from the word rangatira and a previously mentioned suffix –tanga. The meaning of the first is chief . The compound Rangatiratanga stands for chieftainship, but it can have different connotations such as responsibility or sovereignty. This word is often used in syntagma with a word tino , functioning as superlative in the sense of very, total, or absolute 21 .
The phrase tino rangatiratanga had already been used to translate the concept of sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence signed in 1835 (see above) by the Maori rangatira, which stated that all sovereign power and authority in the land rested in the hands of hereditary chiefs. The same term was used five years later in the Treaty and is very important in the Maori 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. As opposed to kāwanatanga which always had for Maori the connotation of a limited power given to the Crown, tino rangatiratanga stands for absolute sovereignty.
The major difference between English and Maori version is in Article the First ( Ko Te
Tuatahi ). In the English text Maori pledged to “cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty” 22 that the Chiefs possessed over their lands. This gave the British Crown the power to make and enforce laws, and the necessary and long-awaited authority over settlers in Aotearoa.
In the Maori version of the Treaty what the chiefs actually gave away was “te kāwanatanga katoa (katoa = complete)”. As I have already explained before, this word has for the Maori people the denotation of government. So under this term they agreed to sign away “the complete government” over their land. However, when Reverend Henry Williams translated the English draft of Captain Hobson into Maori language, this word was used to cover the meaning of sovereignty. Nowadays many Maori think that the word mana (prestige,
21 “Tino Rangatiratanga.” Joint Methodist-Presbyterian Public Questions Committee. July 1993
22 18 Jan. 2006
19 authority) or tino rangatiratanga would serve better to approximate the concept of sovereignty. Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu, the author of the modern English translation of the
Maori text, explains in the footnotes to his translation (see Appendix C) that Maori leaders could not have comprehended the word government in the sense of sovereignty. They had not had any experience on which they would base their understanding of the word. We have to realise that they had never been governed by any form of authority before so they could not fully understand the implication of this term. What is more, at the time of the singing of the
Treaty there were about forty times more Maori than Pakeha and thus it seems unacceptable that about one hundred thousand Maori would willingly cede their sovereignty to two thousand settlers. During the discussion preceding the signings the attention was drawn to the protection and guarantees offered by the Queen. Hobson and missionaries who were to explain the contents to the Natives stressed 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 Maori would never agree with its contents. Historians suppose that if the word mana or rangatiratanga had been used instead of kāwanatanga , the
Maori chiefs would have never given their consent to the Treaty. Furthermore, the text which was discussed and then signed by the majority of the chiefs was the Maori text, not the
English version, and according to that text what they granted to the British Crown was a limited power. That power was kāwanatanga . (I want to note that the discussion ran in Maori with Rev. Henry Williams functioning as the interpreter and as William Colenso, an Anglican missionary and printer, observed in his memories, Mr. Williams did not translate all that was said, implying that important information might have been withheld.
20 Article the Second was unambiguous and created no confusion. The English text confirms and guarantees to Maori people “the full exclusive and undisputed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties”23 while the Crown 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). 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 Maori and Pakeha. Hereafter no land could have been bought directly from Maori by any British resident. Instead, all land purchases were mediated through a delegate of the Crown appointed for that purpose. If a Maori 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 in
Maori possession, would remain under their customs and law.
Ko Te Tuarua ( Article the Second), in a Maori version, guarantees te tino rangatiratanga to Maori people, which meant “the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their wenua (lands), kainga (villages), and taonga katoa (all their property/treasures)”.24
There is a slight difference between the two texts. The Maori word taonga has a wider connotation as opposed to its English equivalent. It does not designate only material things but refers to such concepts as language and culture. As to the right of Preemption, Maori 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.” 25 It did not state the exclusive right of
23 Sinclair, K.: The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1961. p. 28 24 “English text: Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
25 15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/index.php> “Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site . 2 Feb. 2006
21 the Crown to the land. If the Crown declined the offer to buy land, according to a Maori interpretation of the treaty text, they were allowed to propose the purchase to other private buyers. These word nuances may be criticised as a meaningless quibble but, as history manifested, the two different people which 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 Maori. One of the reasons could be that those who were to give the explanation and collect the signatures did not fully understand its implication or simply, and intentionally, withheld this crucial information.
It is also important to know how Maori perceived the ownership of land, it is maintained that they could have viewed the land transactions differently from Europeans.
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 Maori people.” 26 In general, Maori 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 they were selling this permission, not actually the land. It was only permanent alienation in their view.
The last clause, Article the Third, Ko Te Tuatoru , promised to Maori people the protection and the same rights and privileges (tikanga ) the British subjects enjoyed. 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. The Maori text has the same meaning and is considered to be a literal translation.
26 “The Meaning of the Treaty: Treaty of Waitangi — Tiriti o Waitangi.” Christchurch City Libraries . 3 Feb. 2006.
22 The last part of the written document forms the final statement acknowledging the understanding of the contents followed by the signatures of Captain Hobson and Maori tribal leaders and one or more white witnesses.
In addition to these three basic articles, there exists a fourth, unwritten, article (it is even claimed that some Maori signed a version with four articles). 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.” 27 Hobson agreed and at the same time 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
28 Maori custom (usage), shall be alike protected by him.”) . Thus the freedom of practice in
New Zealand was acknowledged.
All these differences are very important and have been hotly debated till nowadays.
The debate is believed to have divided the society and 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 widely used to bridge these differences between the texts (for more information see the respective chapter below).
27 28 “The Trail Of Waitangi - The Treaty.” 15 Jan. 2006
23 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. The capital was established at Kororāreka in the
Bay of Islands (today Russell) but a year later Hobson moved it further south, to Auckland.
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
Maori land in both the South and North Island. It had already, without permission of the
British government, sent emigrants to Port Nicholson who were to establish a new settlement of Wellington and wanted to set up their own government. They were making their own laws which in Hobson’s eyes was a treasonable act and so he intervened to prevent the creation of
(sort of) an independent colony and made the incomers realize that they were Queen’s subjects as well and had to behave in the accordance with the British law.
Thomas Bunbury who had been commissioned to gather further signatures in the
South Island made two other proclamations of sovereignty. On 5 June 1840 over Stewart
Island (where no Maori 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 on
17 June 1840 over the South Island 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 few months later, in November 1840, New Zealand was declared a separate and independent British colony.
Maori 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. They thought that their mana , confirmed in the Article II, would be further enhanced but their expectations were not to be fulfilled. From the beginning, since the ink on
24 the paper dried, the Maori tino rangatiratanga has been usurped. Gradually, as the number of incoming Pakeha was increasing. At first the British tried to be on good terms with the Maori, primarily because the new residents needed the assistance of the Natives to cope with a harsh environment (Maori were supplying them with food), and they followed the provisions stated in the treaty. At that time the white settlers were still outnumbered by the Maori 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 most of them. In 1842
Hobson, who had suffered a stroke and seemed to be on the way of slow recovery, died. His successor, Captain Robert FitzRoy, was willing to let Maori people, to a limited extent, practise their customs but that was not to last for long. FitzRoy spent in office two years but, being criticised for his pro-Maori policy, he was replaced in 1845 by Sir George Grey, an advocate of a rapid Maori assimilation. He intended to subject the Maori with a minimum use of force. Grey was against the toleration of districts where Maori 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.
Maori 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 the Maori 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. 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 Maori (classified as a wasteland). This was against the proclamation that the Maori held title to all land in New Zealand (further, Hobson was instructed to buy only lands not occupied by Maori and not these “the retention of which by them would be essential or highly conducive, to their own comfort, safety or
25 subsistence. 29 ). The price the Maori were paid for their land was substantially lower than that at which the Crown was offering it to private buyers and Maori were aware of that. 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 fallow land proposed, with the confiscation as a penalty for not paying the tax. The discontent with the British incursion into territory under the authority of Maori aggravated and finally led to New Zealand Wars.
Discontent and Wars
Hone Heke, the first Maori chief who signed the Treaty, was also among the first who showed his discontent with the then present situation. Heke was told by Americans and
French traders that the British flag flying at Kororareka signified slavery for the whole of indigenous people. The pole, a gift to the first British Resident James Busby, became a target of his angry. He chopped it down and then repeated the attack on the pole for about three times, the last time the flagpole was left lying on the ground (it was left there, a symbol of his victory, till the Maori themselves erected a new one, thirteen years later) and the town of
Kororareka was burnt down. Heke was determined to put an end to British authority in the
Bay and assembled a large force south of Kororareka. 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 referred to as the First Maori War or Flagstaff 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 but the relentless and insatiable desire of the Europeans for more and more Maori land prolonged warfare. (Furthermore they began to demand that individual Maori should be permitted to sell land; that tribal ownership should
29 “Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site . 2 Feb. 2006
26 be individualised. This was later on enacted by The Native Lands Act of 1865.) There was a widespread conviction among Pakeha that Maori still held more land than they could use.
During the 1850s many Maori turned against land selling. They were fearful for their land and their declining influence. Some tribal chiefs in the Waikato region conceived the idea of a Maori King who would hold their lands and people together at those difficult times.
Thus a loose land holding movement grew up which merged in 1858 into The Maori King
Movement. Kingitanga , the Maori term, resisted land sales and Pakeha settlement in the King country, spreading from the Upper Waikato to the Upper Wanganui 30 ( the central part of the
Island so called to the present day ), right up until the 20 th century but they were not opposed to the Crown’s sovereignty on the Crown’s lands. Its primary purpose in opposing land sales was to protect their independence but George Grey viewed the movement as treasonable and a direct challenge to the authority of the Crown. The first Maori 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 Maori.
As it became more obvious that the British expected Maori to be subjects to British law and authority, pressures between the Maori and settlers finally escalated into what is today collectively known as the Maori Wars. They took place between 1860 and 1865 in many parts of the country, such as in Taranaki (the Taranaki war of 1860-61), around the East
Coast, and in Waikato (the Waikato war of 1863-64), the heartland of the Kingitanga. The
British were unable to destroy the King Movement but they defeated and seriously weakened it. This reduced Maori unity and increased collaboration with the government. After the wars the government decided to confiscate huge parcels of Maori land; a kind of punishment for the rebels. This led to increased outrage, especially since those who were neutral and those who fought on the Crown’s side (the so called Kupapa , friendly Maori) were taken their
30 Sinclair, K.: The Oxford Illustrated history of New Zealand . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. p. 93
27 lands. It was the worst injustice ever perpetrated by a New Zealand government. The Maori said, this formulation I particularly liked, “that the missionaries had taught them to look up to heaven while the Government stole the land from under their feet”.31
Over a million acres of land in the Waikato and about a million acres of land along the
Taranaki coast were confiscated by the Government. The Taranaki case was even more controversial because the local tribes never signed the Treaty and thus expected to be excepted from its provisions; they believed, and many more, that by not signing The treaty they had protected their tribe. Governor Grey, whose aim was to permanently “cripple” Maori independence by confiscating the best land of the key resisting tribes and allocating it to the military settlers (those fighting in wars), refused to accept the existence of a rival authority, the Maori King, and the sporadic fighting went on for nearly another ten years, until the wars came to a halt in 1872. Altogether, more than three million acres was confiscated and by the early 20 th century, together 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, Maori possessed less than 1
32 per cent of land ). In 1920 it was only 4,787,686 acres that remained in Maori ownership .
From neglect to recognition
All the time Maori leaders looked to the Treaty for protection; 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 (it was never ratified by
Britain until 1975, more information will follow). Since the signing, the Treaty had been described as “a praiseworthy device for amusing and pacifying ignorant savages for the
31 Sinclair, K., Harrex. W.: Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand . Wellington: Oxford
32University press, 1978. p. 34 “Legislative Violations of the Treaty of Waitangi.” 6 Apr. 2006
28 moment” 33 who had no rights and who would nevertheless finally fade away by a law of nature or by a law of progress. Most of the Pakeha shared the opinion that the Maori were inferior to them; not only 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. In 1877 it was ruled in the courts “a simple nullity” since treaties with primitive barbarians lacked legal validity (case Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington) 34 and in 1890, during the celebration of New
Zealand’s 50 th anniversary, the Treaty was not mention at all.
For the next years Maori tried to get the Crown to honour the Treaty, which meant for
Maori people 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 Maori would have control and authority over their affaires and a genuine say in decisions affecting all residents in New Zealand. They have petitioned not only the Queen but also the Governor-General, they have worked through the courts, Parliament, protests, fighting and occupying 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 Maori King Potatau I, wrote to the
Governor that “no matter how you may be addressed you will not regard nor reciprocate”. 35
This sentiment was shared by many chiefs at that time. Maori also tried to find their own ways; in 1892 the first Maori Parliament, Te Kotahitanga o Te Tiriti o Waitangi , was convened but it was never recognised by the official New Zealand Parliament and having no
33 “Early Crown Policy: The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
34 17 Jan. 2006
29 power, the Maori Parliament was finally dissolved in the year of 1907. But things were to change.
At this time, the end of the 19C, a new sort of Maori leaders was emerging who willingly co-operated with the Government and the Europeans in trying to improve the lot of their people (such as Maori-Irish James Carroll, a Cabinet Minister; Apirana Ngata, a lawyer;
Maui Pomare and Peter Buck, both doctors etc.). These leaders formed the Young Maori
Party. Their first success in addressing Maori historical grievances was achieved in the first part of the 20 th century when compensation was paid for some lakes. One of the first tribes whose claims were upheld was Ngai Tahu who between 1844-57 had sold off almost the whole South Island. Their claims were based on an assumption that there existed discrepancies between Maori and Pakeha conception of the land sales. It was verbal agreement which mattered to Maori, not scratching on paper Pakeha chose to make as souvenirs. Ngai Tahu believed they had agreed to sell far less land than they were taken off and they were in the right.
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 of the nation. 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. They walked from Te Hapua, not far from the northern-most point of NZ, to Parliament under the slogan “Not One More Acre of Maori
Land” to present a Memorial of Rights to the Prime Minister, petitioning the government to cease unjust alienation of Maori land. 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 Maori claims against the British Crown dating from 1975.
30 The Waitangi Tribunal, Te Rōpu Whakamana i te Tiriti o Waitangi , enabled Maori to seek redress on non-statutory Treaty grievances (previously the Treaty could not be considered unless it was part of municipal law). 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 Crown actually had Treaty obligations. 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.
These claims are registered and inquired into and after consideration, the Tribunal issues a report on whether the claims are well-founded and the claimants suffered “serious harm” as a result of the Treaty’s breach. 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; thus, Maori Treaty rights still depend on the goodwill of the Government. Financial reparations were made to a number of Maori tribes whose lands were found to have been unjustly confiscated. By February 2006, there had already been 20 settlements of historical claims; those relating to things the Crown did or failed to do before 1992 (in addition to contemporary, or conceptual claims)36 , totalling approximately $700 million 37 . Among other things, the Tribunal recommended the return of land at Orakei (Bastion Point occupied in protest by Maori in 1977 for 506 days) 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 Maori “to roll back the tide of colonialism” 38 , there is bitter resistance and litigation.
36 Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination. Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 185 37 “Treaty of Waitangi.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 5 Apr. 2006
38 3 Feb. 2006
31 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 Maori 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 of the Treaty. The principles, these 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 Maori 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.
32 After the 1990 election, the National Government decided to rewrite these principles to accommodate the 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 39 . Notwithstanding, the Maori maintained that the recognition of te tino rangatiratanga was strongly denied which have led to the continued subordination of them and they have rather ignored and forgotten these principles.
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. 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.
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
39 Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination . Auckland: Oxford University Press, 1998, p. 204-205
33 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 Maori and Pakeha that had been initiated by the treaty. 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 was seen by Maori 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
Maori protest and it happened that the celebrations were cancelled or moved to other cities.
Still the date is a significant marker in New Zealand history to be remembered and celebrated by future generations.
34 Conclusion
In the centre of my interest 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 Maori. 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 Maori 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 Maori (the Maori language) could have spared the subsequent discords stemming from the misunderstanding and misinterpretation of the text. But this is a mere speculation; Maori 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 tried to make a comparison of the Maori and English version of the Treaty and draw attention to their differences.
For sure, the Treaty of Waitangi recognized the prior occupation of Aotearoa by Maori and allowed the Crown to set up the government to establish laws. But many people still hold that the Treaty gives Maori people certain rights, such as the right of sovereignty. In fact this right could have not been given to Maori 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 Pakeha to live in New
Zealand would disappear if the Treaty disappeared itself. Thus the Treaty represents the only legal basis for the presence of Pakeha in New Zealand. The ongoing dispute about what
35 actually Maori 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.
36 Appendix A
37 Appendix B The text in Maori
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 Hobson 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.
38 Appendix C Te Draft in English
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.
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
39 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.
40 Appendix D Modern English translation of the Māori text 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.
(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".
41 (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.
42 Bibliography
The books :
Sinclair, K.: Dějiny Nového Zélandu . Praha: NLN, Nakladatelství Lidové noviny, 2003
Sinclair, K.: The Oxford Illustrated history of New Zealand . Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1990
Sinclair, K.: A History of New Zealand. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1969
Olivier, W.H., Williams, B.R.: The Oxford History of New Zealand . Wellington: Oxford
University Press, 1981
Shaw, P.: Waitangi . Napier: Cosmos, 1992
Sinclair, K.: The Origins of the Maori Wars. Auckland: Auckland University Press, 1961
Sinclair, K., Harrex. W.: Looking Back: A Photographic History of New Zealand . Wellington:
Oxford University press, 1978
Clyde, C.: New Zealand: Country and People: an account of the country and its people .
Auckland: Whitcombe & Tombs Ltd., 1925
Durie, M.H.: Te mana, te kāwanatanga = The politics of Māori self-determination . Auckland:
Oxford University Press, 1998
Turner, P. et al.: New Zealand. Hong Kong: Colorcraft Ltd., 1996
Kolig, E., Mückler, H. (eds): Politics of Indigeneity in the South Pacific . Hamburg: LIT, 2002
Tichá, J.: Pacific letters . Praha: Akropolis, 2001
The websites:
“The Story of the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006
“Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/treaty/background.php>
43 “The colonisation of New Zealand: The Treaty of Waitangi.” New Zealand in History . 28
March 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“Treaty Settlements.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
17 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/settlements/>
“The Journey.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
15 Jan. 2006 < http://www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz/journey/>
“Treaty of Waitangi — Tiriti o Waitangi.” Christchurch City Libraries .
3 Feb. 2006.
“First Maori War.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 30 March 2006.
15 Jan. 2006
“Treaty of Waitangi.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia . 5 Apr. 2006
3 Feb. 2006
“Treaty of Waitangi-Questions and Answers.” Maori Independence Site .
2 Feb. 2006
“A Quick Guide and Brief History of the Treaty of Waitangi”. Maori Independence Site .\
2 Feb. 2006
“Waitangi, Treaty of.” Te Ara - The Encyclopedia of New Zealand . 11 Jul. 2005
17 Jan. 2006
“The Treaty of Waitangi.”
15 Jan. 2006
“Aotearoa.” Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. 1 Apr. 2006
3 Feb. 2006
“Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
11 Jan. 2006
44 “Read the Treaty.” The Treaty of Waitangi . 2004 – 2006.
11 Jan. 2006
“Treaty of Waitangi - Te Tiriti o Waitangi.” Archives New Zealand.
17 Jan. 2006
“Tino Rangatiratanga.” Joint Methodist-Presbyterian Public Questions Committee. July 1993
18 Jan. 2006
“Waitangi Day - A History.” New Zealand’s history online .
17 Jan. 2006
“Signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi”. New Zealand’s history online .
15 Jan. 2006
“The Trail of Waitangi - The Treaty.”
15 Jan. 2006
“The Trail Of Waitangi: The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of
Waitangi.”
15 Jan. 2006
“Legislative Violations of the Treaty of Waitangi.”
6 Apr. 2006
45