In yesterday’s blog I revealed how I had a recently elected councilor (Bill) feeding me information about the Maori radicalization of his council.
Bill. told me a two day ‘seminar’ was held recently, taken by Maori radicals, spouting lies and misinformation about NZ’s history to all the councilors. The idea behind this?
If councilors could be brainwashed by revisionist history – groomed – they would be putty in the hands of the elite Maori.
That is to say, the councilors would implement anything and everything elite Maori wanted in council.
In today’s blog, I share one of the handouts given to all of the councilors in one of the sessions. You can read the hand out HERE
I’d like you to go through this handout carefully, and make comment please.
Julian, the ‘disclaimer is now back.
Explaining Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
The Parts of the Treaty
Preamble – the introductory part of an Agreement or Deed, stating its purpose, aims, and justification.
While the first part of the Treaty of Waitangi is referred to as the Preamble, it is a lot more than that; it is the ‘essence’ of the Treaty. While it did introduce the reasons for a Treaty it also told the chiefs that Captain William Hobson would form a legal government and would become Lieutenant Governor of New Zealand if they agreed to give up their individual governments to the Queen. Since 1975 the Preamble has been removed from most Treaty publications, including the public display panels at Te Papa, our national museum to allow Maori to deny the fact, their ancestors gave up/ceded all parts of New Zealand to the Queen in 1840. Legally the Treaty consists of the whole document, including the Preamble and not just the Laws that are being used today to give advantage and privilege to Maori over their fellow New Zealand Citizens. The Preamble is ‘legally’ part of the whole Treaty document, which gave sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain with Maori becoming British Subjects.
The 3 clauses that followed the Preamble are called “Laws” in the Tiriti o Waitangi – not Articles.
The 3 Laws were the laws that must be obeyed if the Chiefs agreed to sign the Treaty of Waitangi and gave up their governments to the Queen. The Laws made no mention of fisheries, forests, treasures, principles, or a partnership, just the laws that must be obeyed by Maori if the chiefs agreed to give up/cede their governments to the Queen. The Laws are part of the whole Treaty document, which must be obeyed if the chiefs their governments to Queen Victoria as stated in the Preamble.
Below is the Tiriti o Waitangi translated by the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward, from Governor Hobson’s final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi dated the 4 February 1840 and the “official” translation back into English (in blue) made for the Legislative Council by Mr. T E Young of the Native Department in 1869.
Te Tiriti O Waitangi
(First sentence)
KO WIKITORIA, te Kuini o Ingarni, I tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani I tana hiahia hoki tohungia ki a ratou rangatiatanga, me a ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratoa me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tiki kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaeti e nga Rangatira maori te Kawantanga o te Kuni ki nga wahikatoa o te Wenua nei me nga Motuna te mea hoki he tokomaha o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wena, a e haere mai nei.-
Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maori of New Zealand – that the Maori of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.
Note. This first sentence in the Preamble gave the introduction and the reason for the Treaty.
(Second sentence)
No ko te Kuni 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.
Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maori and the Europeans who are living without law.
Note. After thirteen Northern chiefs wrote to the King in 1831 asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from themselves but also from the French, Britain sent a Resident, James Busby to keep peace between the Maori and Europeans as they were living without laws.
In 1835 Busby tried to get the chiefs to form their own government with the introduction of the ‘Declaration of Independence’ to bring law and order to “all the people of New Zealand” but with the ever-present inter-tribal tension and fighting, it was abandoned within 12 months without one meeting taking place, therefore was never ratified. It became evident the chiefs did not have the ability or will to form a united government to bring law and order to a country in turmoil. The Northern tribes had slaughtered an estimated 60,000 unarmed Southern tribes (half the Maori population) who were arming themselves to travel North for utu – revenge. As Maori now had muskets, old scores were also being settled up and down the county with atrocious acts of cruelty to each other. Cannibalism was also widespread prior to the treaty; therefore the 2000 Europeans living in New Zealand in 1840 would hardly have been a real threat to 60,000 armed, Maori cannibals. See “This Horrid Practise” by Dr Paul Moon.
There are three very important points in this sentence.
(1). The Tiriti refers to Maori as “tangata maori” not aborigines, natives, tangata whenua or indigenous, therefore it did not recognise them as the first inhabitants of New Zealand.
(2). The British Government had realised that without law and order the Maori race would soon become extinct. See Lord Normanby’s instructions to Hobson before he left England.
(3). The Tiriti o Waitangi recognised “tangata maori” as a distinct race of people when the Treaty was signed on the 6th of February 1840. Since then, Maori have intermarried of their own free will with other races until today they are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. This is confirmed by the many Acts of Parliament to define Maori as their ancestry became further and further diluted. Most Maori today have more of the ancestry of those that they say created the alleged injustices, therefore should not be able to claim for something their ancestor’s helped create.
(Third sentence)
Na kua pai te Kuni kai tukua a hau a Wirimu Hopihona he Kapitana I te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amua ki te Kuini e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira uta enei ture ka korerotia nei.
Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal navy, to be Governor to all places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; and he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs, the laws spoken here.
Tukua – to send – give up – let go – to cede. From the chief’s speeches on the 5th of February 1840, they fully understood they were giving up/ceding all places of New Zealand to the Queen. Rev William’s 1844 Dictionary – to give up – to let go.
Note. This part of the Treaty is its ‘essence’ – If the chief’s agreed to give up/cede all places of New Zealand to the Queen, New Zealand would become British Colony under English Law. Most Government published Treaty texts today have the Preamble omitted, including the public viewing panels at Te Papa our national museum. The Preamble is the essence of the Treaty and explained the reason for a treaty and that all parts of New Zealand must be given up/ceded to the Queen so Britain could form a legal Government to bring law and order to, “all the people of New Zealand”. The Preamble is legally part of the Tiriti o Waitangi. Without the Preamble, the Laws relate to nothing. The 3 Laws were the laws that must be obeyed if the chief’s decided to sign the treaty and give up their governments to Her Majesty the Queen forever. Governor Hobson claimed British sovereignty over New Zealand on the 21st of May 1840. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on the 2nd of October 1840 and New Zealand became a British Colony.
If the chief’s agreed to give up all places of New Zealand to the Queen, then these are the laws that must be obeyed. To understand the Laws, we must consult the Preamble above.
First Law
“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 aka tona atu-te-Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.
The chiefs of the Assembly, and all the chiefs also who have not joined in that Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England forever all the Government of their land.”
Note. The Chiefs must give up entirely to the Queen, the Government of all their land forever. New Zealand had been placed under the Dependency of New South Wales by the Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 30th of July 1839.
Second Law
(First sentence)
“Ko te Kaini o Ingaranui ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki hapu ki tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua kainga me o taonga katoa.
The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, their settlements and all their property”.
Taonga – property – personal property. Sir Hugh Kawharu’s introduced “Treasures” to give Maori advantage over all other New Zealanders in his, “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text”. This was never the original translation of Taonga. Hongi Hika’s translation given for Samuel Lees Maori Dictionary in 1820, was, “Taken by the spear”.
Note. The Second Law guaranteed the chiefs, the tribes (Maori) and “all the people of New Zealand” (the settlers/Pakeha) the possession of their lands, their settlements and all their property once the Treaty was signed. When Captain William Hobson stopped off in Sydney on his way to New Zealand in 1839, Governor Sir George Gipps informed him the chiefs had already sold large tracks of land in the North Island and Europeans held contracts to virtually all the South Island, therefore, the settlers, whalers and speculators had to be included in the Second Law of the Tiriti o Waitangi as they now had a large stake holding in New Zealand. In most cases the chiefs were very upset when the Europeans did not take up their contracts as they lost their protection from other tribes, the trade to gain European goods and the mana of having a “Pakeha” amongst them. Many of these contracts are still held in the New South Wales Supreme Court.
The American Consul, James Clendon, would have made sure “all the people of New Zealand” were mentioned in the Second Law when he, Hobson and Busby wrote the final draft at his house on 4 February as many American’s owned large tracks of land as well as on shore and island whaling stations before the Treaty was signed. The Second Law related to, “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed living in New Zealand and those yet to come. Since the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, “all the people of New Zealand” have been completely ignored, paving the way for “A Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. This is not surprising, since under the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, only Maori have the right to be heard by the apartheid Tribunal. The Tiriti o Waitangi gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed.
Whatever Maori were guaranteed in the Treaty, “all the people of New Zealand” were guaranteed the same. The same rights to their land, their settlements and all their property (taonga). This was confirmed in the Third Law.
(Second sentence).
Otiia ko nga Rangatiatanga o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga oera wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenue-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hook e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hook mona.
But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.
Note. This was to stop the speculators from taking advantage of Maori and to identify the rightful owners under Maori custom so documented legal titles could then be issued and subsequent sales could be legally documented and transferred. This gave Maori legal ownership and protection of their lands without the need to constantly defend it, the first time ever for Maori. It also eliminated multiple payments for the same piece of land that had occurred earlier because of conflicting ownership claims.
All sales made before the treaty was signed, had to be approved by the Land Courts after the Treaty was signed and, in most cases, reduced to 2560 acres (4 square miles). Many Europeans lost their entire pre-treaty purchases if they could not prove their purchase or afford the court fees. Land purchases, which were not defended or could not be proven, were in most case returned to the chiefs as happened with the South Island and in some cases, repurchased many times over by the Crown.
Third Law
“Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani hga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani
This arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England”.
Note. The Third Law confirmed there would be one law, the same law/rights for “all the people of New Zealand”. English Law, a law based on the Magna Carta and the Law of Nature. In reference to the Third Law, the Maori activists, the Government and the Waitangi Tribunal have changed the word “same” to “equal”. The word “equal,” paves the way for “two laws of equal quality” within our legal system. Our Tiriti contains the word same, a word which cannot be equated to separatism, apartheid or partnership, just one flag and one law for “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
(Signed) William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant- Governor.
The Consent
Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o nu Tirana ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou holi ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetai e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu. Ka meatia tenia ki Waitangi I te ono o nga ra o Pepueri I te tua kotahi mano, e waru e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.
Now, We, the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks. This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of our Lord.
Note. On the 5th of February 1840, the day before the Treaty was signed, Governor Hobson had read the final English draft dated the 4 February 1840 while the Rev Henry Williams read his translation, the Tiriti o Waitangi to a gathering of about 1000 Maori and Pakeha. It was then discussed between Hobson, the Missionaries, and the chiefs for the next 5 hours. Another meeting was scheduled for the 7 February to give the chiefs time to discuss the treaty amongst themselves. The chiefs then retired to Te Tii Marae where they continued to discuss the Tiriti amongst themselves and the Missionaries well into the night coming to the conclusion, that it was to their advantage and must be signed immediately. Hobson was summoned the next morning, 6 February 1840. Before the signing began, Rev Colenso voiced his opinion that some of the chiefs did not understand what they were signing. To this Hone Hika jumped up and dispelled Colenso’s concerns by being the first of 52 chiefs to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi dated 6 February 1840. In total, over 500 Chiefs signed this “original document” – Te Tiriti o Waitangi dated 6 February 1840. An English version of the Treaty was never signed on 6 February 1840, just the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language dated 6 February 1840. “All signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”, Governor William Hobson instructions to those gathering further signatures.
As each chief signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” to which the whole gathering, both Maori and Pakeha gave three hearty cheers. Our one and only founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and its one and only Principle, “He iwi tahi tatou” was set in concrete. There is only one Treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi and it consists of the whole Tiriti document and not just the 3 Laws that are being used today to give advantage and privilege to Maori only.
The Treaty of Waitangi had achieved its purpose and was filed away.
By the 21 April 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi had achieved its purpose and was filed away. Maori had given up their governments to Queen Victoria and had become British Subjects. Britain claimed Sovereignty by Proclamation in the London Gazette on the 2 October 1840 under the Dependency of New South Wales. The Treaty was files away in a shed where it was later damaged by rats and fire.
As can be seen from the above, the Tiriti o Waitangi was a very simple, well written and executed document under very difficult circumstances. It legally allowed Britain to form a legal government under one flag and one law for “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed.
“The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. If you think these things are wrong, then blame you ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Sir Apirana Ngata. Minister of Native Affairs, M.A., LI.B., Lit.D., 1922.
For further information, “New Zealand in Crisis”, by Ross Baker, ONZF.
“The Littlewood Treaty -The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi Found”, by Martin by Doutré.
Once the Treaty of Waitangi had achieved its purpose and Britain had claimed Sovereignty over New Zealand by Proclamation on 2 October 1840, Queen Victoria issued a Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840 that separated New Zealand from New South Wales and made New Zealand into a British Colony on 3 May 1840 with a Governor and Constitution that set up New Zealand’s political, legal and justice systems under one law and one flag, irrespective of race colour or creed
There is no other document in our history that comes anywhere near to a Founding Document and first Constitution than Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840.
New Zealand true Founding Document and first Constitution.
Entirely accept that a preamble and/or postamble that sets the context for an agreement, particularly between very different cultures with different languages, may be critical to the interpretation of the key clauses of the agreement, as it appears to be in this case.
This should be compulsory reading for every Councillor, Politician and anyone in the Public Service because so many decisions are being made from a made-up so-called Treaty – or part thereof as the Preamble and Conclusion are missing from their information. It is imperative the Treaty is filed away as it’s no longer relevant to today. We should all be treated the same with no special treatment given on race. It should be on need only. There are no Maori today, only people with a mix of ethnicity and many are also related to the colonists, so how can these people be due anything when they are part of the very people they claim owe them?
Matiu Waitai Rata and the treasonous German/Samoan David Russell Lange very deliberately introduced the flowery imaginative description of Freeman as the “English version of the treaty” to cause confusion of the ignorant and give a lever to racist Maori Supremacists.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi is in Maori, the written language was a koha, a gift from the British. The only true transcript in English is the ‘Littlewood Treaty’.
All of the ‘confusion’ stems from the creation of the ‘Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975’.
Matiu Rata and David Lange set up a quango that will forever cause ruption and problem until demolished.
So in Article 1 does the ‘Littlewood Treaty’ cede ‘Government’ or Sovereignty?
My copy says ‘Sovereignty?
Incorrect English draft used, i.e. Freeman’s.
An “Expression” in English of the text in Te Reo is made up bias BS.
The only “non bias” back translation from the original Maori treaty is by Mr T E Young, Native Department, 1869
Busy’s 1835 attempt to declare NZ independent under the sovereignty of the United Tribes of NZ only enticed 34 chiefs to sign before it was abandoned within 12 months without one meeting taking place due to the continuing inter-tribal fighting.
It was obvious tanga Maori could not form a united government, and therefore they were unable to claim sovereignty over all the islands of NZ. (Ref – ONZF)
The correct final draft which was translated into Maori, was found in 1989 and for clarity is called ‘the Littlewood Treaty’. It mirrors as exactly as is possible the Maori Treaty which is the only one which matters. So there is no need to keep on re-transcribing the Maori Treaty because the Littlewood Treaty is the final draft which was translated into Maori. The way the Treaty has been totally re-written today means the Treaty of Waitangi is no longer relevant and should be filed away because it achieved it’s aim long long ago. It was never our founding document because we were still under the dependency of NSW when it was signed.
Exactly Helen.
Neither the 1835 Declaration of Independence of NZ nor the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi are our founding documents as stated by “them”.
Our true founding document and first constitution was Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840.
This document gave New Zealand the right to become a British Colony with its own Governor and its own Government with one flag and one law for all, irrespective of race, colour or creed. (Ref – ONZF)
What strikes me as most illogical are the rules of precedence. In particular precedence of verbal over written and te reo Maori over English, the latter apparently irrespective of whether the Maori was a poor translation from English. Indeed I would suggest that the combination of these rules, or interpretations of what is being claimed as “international law” together make a nonsense of any attempt to extract precise meaning from either Maori or English wording, particularly where there are no directly equivalent meanings and particularly where an “oral culture” is signing up to a written document.
What is absolutely clear is that no partnership arrangement was intended on the English side (if only because that would not have been legal). So if that is how the agreement is being interpreted on the Maori side, then because that is such a fundamental difference in understanding, it is a good enough reason for the entire agreement (any agreement) to be voided.
Conclusion – Those that claim the ToW as a partnership agreement, when that clearly could not have been the intent, are effectively calling for the entire ToW to be torn up.
Tiriti o Waitangi was not a “partnership” deal it was never resented as such nor ever considered as such until the 1970’s when communist “educated” scum such as Matiu Rata,
Ranginui Walker and David Lange decided to use Freeman’s emotive and flowery language re-write of Tiriti o Waitangi as the basis for the creation of the the Treaty of Waitangi Act of 1975.
This is very well documented and therefore should be used as the basis of rescinding the Act and restoring Tiriti o Waitangi to its rightful place as the start of the nation that is New Zealand.
Without Tiriti o Waitangi the Royal Charter of Queen Victoria dated 16 November 1840 would never have come into being.
I would argue that Tiriti o Waitangi IS the founding document of New Zealand in spirit and that agreement in spirit MUST come before legal man-made mumbo -jumbo.
We have to agree to disagree Barry T.
In 1877 Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast ruled the TOW “a simple nullity’.
NZ had been declared British sovereignty under the “Law of Nations” six months before the first signature appeared on the TOW. (Ref – ONZF)
His ruling still stands to this day.
To expand on my last posting, New Zealand had been claimed by Britain under the “Law of Nations” and placed under the laws and dependency of New South Wales.
Governor Gripps was Governor of Australia and New Zealand and Captain Hobson his Lieutenant when British Sovereignty was established by the Royal Charter/Letters Patent under the Great Seal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland dated 30th July 1839.
Hobson arrived in New Zealand on the 29th January 1840.
On the 30th January 1840 at Waitangi he issued two Proclamations:
1. He was to become Lt. Governor to New Zealand and New Zealand would become a dependency of New South Wales under Governor Gripps and
2. No existing land titles in New Zealand would be recognised as valid unless confirmed by the Colonial Government.
Ref- Chief Justice Prendergast ruled the Treaty of Waitangi “a simple nullity” by One New Zealand Foundation.
You can all digest and debate the technicalities of the so called Treaty until the cows come home.
It is a simple document which recognises only one sovereign leader or ruler – that being Queen Victoria. The rest is all window dressing. This discussion can and will go on ad infinitum unless common sense prevails and the supposedly intelligent and scholarly amongst us cease and desist from the practise of stating the bloody obvious and debating superfluous technicalities.
These long winded and convoluted explanations are exactly why we have so much confusion created by the legal fraternity engaging in constant litigation met head on with more mitigation. It is the oldest trick in the book, being played out to perfection, whilst we all chase the deliberate distractions designed to divide and conquer.
The facts are simple and obvious as follows,
The treaty is a old and simplistic document manipulated by a modern race of people who have no resemblance to to the original signatories and or the conditions at the time of signing in 1840. There were no supermarkets, or social welfare systems back then. So Maori would have to fend for themselves and survive the constant attacks by rival tribes. therefore under contractural law the conditions have changed and the persons now causing the change in light of all modern benefits afforded to them, owe executionary consideration to the affected party – that’s us (84% of the population) by the way !
So the Maori are now the ones making the bold claims and demands without any real basis in fact – other than they are supposedly Maori. They conveniently overlook the obvious facts that caused the need for the so called Treaty in the first place.
In essence it is impossible to enter into a binding contract or Treaty with multiple signatories. litigants or claimants, who couldn’t agree on how to organise a piss up in a brewery.
Maori are now adept politically and utilise every method at their disposal to avoid honouring their side of the deal. A contract cuts both ways and simply can’t be upheld when the splinter group is purely vexatious and has no desire to allow the feud to end, for to do so would end the steady flow of compensation based on continual grievance.
Make no mistake this is all about continual grievance with no intention of settlement. That is not a contract – that is in effect a ransom note.
Time for a challenge to the SNAs as a way into challenge the whole fairy story
Under land law the councils are trying to commit a fraud on landowners
GOVERNMENT or SOVEREIGNTY TRANSFERRED IN ARTICLE ONE OF THE TREATY?
The Treaty of Waitangi (6th February 1840) was NOT about ‘Government’ (governance), that came later with the Royal Charter (16th November 1840) and the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852.
The Treaty of Waitangi was PRIMARILY ABOUT TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY from the chiefs (chiefly authority) to Queen Victoria (sovereign authority).
* Sovereignty – supreme power or authority.
* Government – the political system by which a country or community is administered and regulated (making laws, legislative authority).
********************0
MAORI HAD NO ‘GOVERNMENT’ TO CEDE, they were a collection of warring tribes, the nearest to ‘Government’ they came was Busby’s 1835 Declaration of Independence which never got of the ground, no laws were enacted, no meetings in congress eventuated and the chiefs were back at war with each other within months of signing it. Further it was signed mostly by one tribe (mostly all related), and all located north of Thames – hardly nationwide.
On the other hand the chiefs who signed the Treaty did have ‘chiefly authority’ which could be classed as tribal ‘Sovereignty’, and it was this that was ceded by those that signed.
************************0
The word ‘Kawanatanga’ was used in both the 1835 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE and in ARTICLE 1 OF THE SIGNED MAORI LANGUAGE 1840 TOW.
The 1835 DOI was about establishing an independent state and setting up a Maori Government to make laws etc – so ‘Kawanatanga’ used in this instance, correctly mean’t ‘Government’.
However, the 1840 TOW was primarily about the transfer of Sovereignty (little to do with ‘Government/governance’), so the correct translation of ‘Kawanatanga’ in this document can only be ‘Sovereignty’ – All evidence (Littlewood draft, chiefs speeches at Waitangi, Normanby’s brief to Hobson, Hobson’s statements, John Warren’s statement, Kohimarama chiefs speeches) pertinent to the treaty confirms this.
*************************0
TINO RANGATIRATANGA = FULL POSSESSION
In the TOW, Article 1, THE CHIEFS CEDED SOVEREIGNTY (KAWANATANGA) completely and for ever and they knew it. (Read Colenso’s record)
It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2, THEY SOMEHOW RETAINED IT.
Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty.
The only tenable meaning is “FULL POSSESSION”.
Moreover it was assured to ALL the people of NZ.
By Bruce Moon
*****************************0
KAWANATANGA – RANGITIRATANGA
The word “kawanatanga” was used to translate “sovereignty” and “rangitiratanga” to mean “possession”, as Mike Butler carefully wrote in his book.
It is true that “rangatira” has always meant chief but the word we are talking about is “rangitiratanga” .
There is widespread confusion on these terms but if you look up “ownership” in an English/Maori dictionary, there it is — “rangitiratanga”.
Just look at articles 1 and 2 of the treaty in English and Maori as reproduced in his book.
Here they are here, carefully cut and pasted so that readers can see clearly what is meant, with the words carefully uppercased:
Article 1:
Article first
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire SOVREIGNTY [sic] of their country.
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.
Article second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to ALL the people of New Zealand, the POSSESSION of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
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
Both”kawanatanga” and “rangitiratanga” were coined by missionaries to convey concepts outside of the Maori experience.
True, the translation was done in one night, but as you can see, there was not a great deal to translate.
Williams father and son were fluent in Maori, and the Maori vocabulary of 1840 was a fraction of what it is today, after many words were transliterated from English.
I know it may be shocking to someone used to the warped Waitangi Tribunal assertions as to what the treaty means, but there it is in black and white.
“Kawanatanga” was used to translate “sovereignty” and “rangitiratanga” to mean “possession”.
The meaning of the treaty is clear in the English text because the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori.
What is more, it is clear from missionary William Colenso’s account of the debate on February 5, 1840, that the chiefs clearly understood this meaning and some had difficulty agreeing, but at the end of the day they figured the benefits outweighed the costs and they signed up to the new deal.
Yes, it is a minefield but it hasn’t always been that way. It’s only become confusing since the 1980s when claimant/Waitangi Tribunal member Hugh Kawharu redefined these key words in the treaty — “kawanatanga” and “rangitiratanga” to create a treaty that was purported to grant to the governor the right to govern settlers while letting the chiefs carry on being chiefs.
That is clearly nonsense, did not happen, and was not what the chiefs signed up to because they really did not want other chiefs carrying on as they did because too many people were being killed.
If they did not understand what they were signing and STILL THOUGHT THEY WERE CHIEFS THEN WHY DID CANNIBALISM END AND THE CHIEFS FREE THEIR MAORI SLAVES?
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/rangitiratanga-kawanatanga
***************************0
WHEN TWO DOCUMENTS CONFLICT
“CONTRA PROFERENTEM”, a self-serving argument used by treatyists, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.
THE UNFORTUNATE REALITY FOR TREATYISTS IS THAT THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN TE TIRITI.
The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.
So if the “contra proferentem” doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/contra-proferentem
*****************************0
INTERNATIONAL LAW DOES NOT COME INTO THE ARGUMENT
Although named a Treaty, the TOW was not a true treaty it was a simple transfer of sovereignty agreement.
David Round (Law lecturer at Canterbury university) says the TOW has no legal standing in international law
In international law the TOW is nullity. It has no legal standing as a treaty in international law.
The reason is that treaties can be made only between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840…..(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round – law lecturer Canterbury uni)
Agreed Orm th Viking, but it has gone on for over 47 years since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was enacted and will go on for another 47 years until it is filed away as it was in 1840 and we use Queen Victoria’ 1840 Royal Charter as out true Founding Document and first Constitution.
Agreed Orm the Viking, but it has gone on for 47 years now since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was enacted and will go on for another 47 years unless we use Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent date 16 November 1840 as our true Founding Document and first Constitution.
Couldn’t agree more!!ORM
I have read almost every thing every printed about out treaty of Waitangi including actual articles written by people who lived in New Zealand during 1835 to 1860 As a fourth generation Kiwi paid my share of tax for the last 70 years and now I am over it .TOTALLY
The time has come to put up or shut up.
The people who live in this wonderful Country who are not fully aware or understand what this Part Maori Elite Rort/take over is about do not deserve fresh Air. This is not not Demoracy but Tribalisim!
We are now run by White and Brown Trash ,the most Evil Political leader this country has ever experienced .
Churchall said Jaw Jaw is better than War War !
How in the hell can you talk when the Evil wont Listen??
The best defence has alway been ATTACK!!
Thank you John, this backs up my previous declined post/comment that the 1840 TOW was about ‘Sovereignty’ and not ‘Government’/Governance as some naively promote.
FYI see SOVEREIGNTY, not ‘Government’ as Ross Baker asserts > Busby February 4, 1840, draft (the Littlewood treaty)
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
Article first
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.
https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/the-littlewood-treaty