OPINION
Ross Baker
One New Zealand Foundation Inc
www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
While we continue to argue over whether Maori had sovereignty in 1840, has anyone ever stopped to ask, “Did Maori really have sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840”?
British resident James Busby’s 1835 Declaration of Independence definitely did not give Maori sovereignty over New Zealand, as he could only entice 34 northern chiefs to sign before it was abandoned. Article 3 of the declaration stated, “The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order,” but the chiefs never met, no laws were framed and no peace or goodwill eventuated. It was obvious Maori would remain just hundreds of small cannibal tribes, constantly at war with each other [who would] never meet in congress. They would remain under individual tribal control, as there was no political body capable of claiming sovereignty over New Zealand in 1835.
Lord Normandy, when he made mention of sovereignty in James Stephen’s instructions for the Treaty of Waitangi in 1839, contradicted himself when he stated, “We acknowledge New Zealand as a sovereign and independent State, so far at least as it is possible to make such acknowledgment in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate in concert.” In other words, they could not be a sovereign independent state.
Britain could not have placed New Zealand under the dependency of New South Wales by Royal Charter/Letters Patent in 1839 if Maori had sovereignty over New Zealand.
As James Busby had tried to get the chiefs to claim sovereignty over New Zealand in his ‘failed’ Declaration of Independence and was now drafting the Treaty of Waitangi, as Lt Governor Hobson had become ill, he was determined to put the word sovereignty in Article 1 of this final draft (The Littlewood Treaty).
Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward had been in New Zealand for many years and knew there was no way the chiefs could claim sovereignty over New Zealand as they were “numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes”, who possessed “few political relations to each other”, were incompetent to act, or even to deliberate in Congress and were constantly at war with each other. They, therefore, changed sovereignty to government (kawanatanga) in Article 1 of the Tiriti o Waitangi, but this Article should have read, “The chiefs gave up their tribal control to the Queen Victoria,” as they did not even have any form of government in 1840.
The word kawanatanga was used for government in the Declaration of Independence based on the words kawanga, translated as governor, and tangata, translated as people: governor’s people or government. Every back translation of the Tiriti o Waitangi since it was signed in 1840 has the word kawanatanga translated as government, never sovereignty, for the simple reason Maori did not have sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840 to give up. The word kingitanga was used for sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence.
Sovereignty/kingitanga was never mentioned in the Tiriti o Waitangi or by any of the chiefs during the debate with Lt Governor Hobson and Rev Henry Williams on 5 February 1840 or late into the night with the missionaries at Te Tii Marae before it was signed on 6 February 1840. See copy of the translation of the First Article for the Legislative Council in 1869 below.
The chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860 never mentioned they had sovereignty in 1840, they only “pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen’s sovereignty, and of the unions of the two races”.
In 1877 Chief Justice Sir James Prendergast ruled, “So far indeed as that instrument [The Treaty of Waitangi] purported to cede the sovereignty it must be regarded as a ‘simple nullity’. No political body existed capable of making cession of sovereignty.” It is interesting to note, this ruling by Chief Justice Prendergast has never been challenged, just ignored!
This was also endorsed by historian Claudia Orange when she wrote, “Maori, who saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation, would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state as there was no political structure upon which to base a united congress.”
Historian Michael King stated, “The declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand.” King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the declaration.
Historian Paul Moon agreed, “That the declaration represented a ‘regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance’. No Congress ever met.”
If Maori had sovereignty over New Zealand in 1840, then Lt Governor Hobson would have signed the Tiriti o Waitangi on 6 February 1840 with the Head of State, but there was no Head of State, so he had to travel the country to get over 500 individual chiefs to sign the Treaty of Waitangi and give up their “tribal control over their territories” to Queen Victoria. Five hundred chiefs signed the Maori version, five signed the CMS-printed Maori version and only 39 signed the English version, which was different in wording from the Maori version, so the English version, legally, would only apply to those who signed it, but even so, the 39 chiefs who signed the English version had the Maori version read and discussed with them before it was signed. The fact is, they agreed to give up their ‘sovereignty’ to Queen Victoria, whether they legally had sovereignty or not. This English version was attached to the CMS printed version and was signed by Lt Governor Hobson as one document.
The Governor General, Attorney General, Solicitor General, Crown Law Office, Waitangi Tribunal, Government and the lawyers acting for Maori on their alleged claims surely know New Zealand’s true history, but deliberately allowed the Tiriti o Waitangi to be distorted for their own benefit and the benefit of the tribes they were representing. They know the Tiriti o Waitangi only gave the tangata Maori the same rights as the people of England: no more, no less, no partnership and definitely no co-governance, but [they] have allowed the Tiriti o Waitangi to be distorted to prove their claims. We believe they are all ‘parasites’ by distorting the Tiriti o Waitangi to defraud the taxpayers of New Zealand of billions of dollars and assets to line their own pockets and the pockets of some, not all, New Zealand citizens who can claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry.
Shame on them, we believe they are all ‘parasites’ that should be charged with fraud and corruption, and if found guilty, jailed or life!
So, the answer to the question, “Did Maori Really Have Sovereignty Over New Zealand in 1840” is very simple: NO!
NOTE
Article 1. The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England forever, all the Governments of their lands.
New Zealand’s True Founding Document. There is no other document in New Zealand’s history that comes anywhere near to a Founding Document and first Constitution than Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/Letters Patent dated 16 November 1840. The Treaty of Waitangi only played a very small part in New Zealand becoming a British Colony under one flag and one law, irrespective of race colour or creed. For copies and information on the Six Documents that made New Zealand into a British Colony, visit www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.
Researched by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc from documents held in the New Zealand, Australian and American archives, plus the British Parliamentary Papers.
For further information, visit: www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.