The Māori nation maintains that they never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, and for good reason. Primarily, this is because that is not what they signed up for. There are nine documents that make up the entire treaty agreement, signed by 535 men and women, which form our nation’s founding national document.
Of these nine documents, eight were written in Te Reo Māori and one was written in English—the Treaty of Manukau/Kawhia. The Treaty of Manukau/Kawhia and the Treaty of Waitangi are unique documents, each written in a different language and each conveying a different message. One permits the formation of a government, while the other calls for the absolute surrender of a nation’s sovereignty forever.
Of the 535 men and women who signed the treaty documents, only 39 signed the English version that offered sovereignty of the Māori nation to Her Majesty Queen Victoria at the Waikato Heads on March 20, 1840. This is a distinctly different document from Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi).
Organisations like Te Papa, in an act of revisionist history, have grouped the Treaty documents together under the banner of “The Treaty of Waitangi.” This gives the impression that the entire agreement was ratified at a single location in one instance. In truth, there are nine separate founding documents. This misrepresentation seems to be a deliberate attempt to create the perception that the English version is equivalent to the Te Reo Māori version, that the English Manukau/Kawhia document carries the same weight as the other eight Treaty documents written in Te Reo Māori. They do this by creating the false perception that all nine Treaty documents were signed in a single event on February 6th, when in reality the Treaty documents took approximately seven months to sign in 50 different locations by different iwi authorities that were all self-governing.
One reason why we can’t bundle all of the separate documents under the banner of the Treaty of Waitangi is because the British Colonial Office and the Royal Navy were negotiating separate documents in different locations to be signed by autonomous iwi that governed themselves independently. They were not negotiating a single treaty with a single overall leadership of the Māori nation. For example, Ngāpuhi can’t sign on behalf of the Tūhoe nation over 300km away.
Critics often make bombastic claims that the Treaty of Waitangi was a complete surrender of all authority and self-determination to Queen Victoria. Yet this was never explained by Governor Hobson to the chiefs who signed the individual treaties, and that opinion is not supported by the facts. The present-day British Royal Family does not accept this version of events, as the Treaty is an agreement between the British royals and Maoridom, not 21st-century British New Zealanders.
In 1840, the Māori population made up 99% of the population of the country. They were the outright authority and had already declared their sovereignty in the Declaration of Independence, He Whakaputanga, in 1835. This document was accepted by the British Colonial Office, and the British Empire conceded that this country was an independent sovereign nation. The Treaty of Waitangi did not dispute this assertion or contest the 1835 He Whakaputanga; that binding legal document still stands today.
This was at a time in the 1800s when the English language was merely a minor foreign language. Many anti-Treaty critics forget that the English language is relatively new to this land and was not considered the official language of the land. The English language was spoken as widely as Hindi is today in Aotearoa. So, to put the English Manukau/Kawhia document on a pedestal the same as the Te Reo Māori versions is an exercise in historical amnesia.
Printed text of the Treaty from Kawhia 1840
Organisations such as Hobson’s Pledge have attempted to cherry-pick individual sentences of the Treaty and take them out of context to make claims that the Treaty is not based on the indigenous rights of Māori but is a founding document that protects the rights and privileges of British New Zealanders in the 21st century. Basically, they are suffering from FOMO (Fear of Missing Out) and have created their own reality. Hobsons Pledge have also attempted to introduce imposter documents such as the Littlewood paper found in a cupboard in Pukekohe by Beryl Needham in 1989 and promoted by American conspiracy theorist Martin Doutre. The Littlewood paper lacks the one ingredient neccesary to qualify as a Treaty and that is signatures.
The reality is that countries like Britain do not sign treaties with their own citizens or subjects; that is an absurdity and has never happened in history. British New Zealanders of the 21st century are the descendants of British migrants who were permitted to immigrate thanks to the chiefs and tribes that offered them the life-changing opportunity to move to the most beautiful country in the world. We all owe the first New Zealanders ‘Māori’ our founding fathers a great deal of gratitude for allowing us all to live here.
In line with the principle of contra proferentem, any ambiguity should be interpreted against the party that drafted or proposed the provision. Given the Crown’s unclear interpretation of its own document, the chiefs and tribes of the 21st century reserve the right to determine how the documents should be interpreted, not the Crown.
Many anti-Treaty critics place expectations upon Māori that they themselves need to show gratitude for the industrialisation of Aotearoa New Zealand. They have created the narrative that they alone, without any help, are responsible for the industrialisation of modern New Zealand. This couldn’t be further from the truth. In the heart of the Waikato, in places such as Rangiaowhia, Māori had managed to develop an advanced industrial economy with mechanical windmills. They were exporting produce around the Pacific in oceangoing vessels they owned, although your garden-variety anti-Treaty critic in a patronising manner would describe a Māori society as a bunch of primitive Stone Age cavemen that needed us colonial saviours.
For Aotearoa New Zealand to heal from the consequences of the past and to improve race relations, the anti-Treaty argument combined with white fragility, colonial saviour mentality needs to be thrown out of the political discourse in this country. Simply for the reason that it divides a nation and is extraordinarily unpatriotic towards our founding national document. If history has proven anything, it is that a nation divided will eventually turn to violence, and at all costs, we need to preserve democracy. The intended suppression of our founding national document, the Treaty of Waitangi, is an attack on democracy because that is the document that founded democracy in this country.
