The Tiriti o Waitangi could only be based on English Law.

Lt Governor Hobson’s speech had been carefully prepared for the morning of the 5^th February 1840 at Waitangi, and for the purpose of greater accuracy he relied upon extensive prepared notes. While this speech has been forgotten by many, it was very important as it was Lt Governor Hobson first official contact with Maori to introduced them to the Treaty and to the fact: Britain could not protect the tangata Maori unless they agreed to give up all their territories and governments to the Queen and in return, would be given the same rights as the people of England. This speech is taken from, ‘Treaty of Waitangi’by T Lindsay Buick page 122. Important parts of the speech have been copied in bold.

“Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland,” he said, “wishes to do good to the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and for the welfare of her subjects living amongst you, has sent me to this place as Governor. But as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent. Her Majesty has commanded me to explain these matters to you, that you may understand them”.

(Governor Hobson confirmed this again at the Hokianga signing when he stated, “English Law could only be exercised on English soil”).

“The people of Great Britain are, thank God! Free, and so long as they do not transgress the laws, they can go where they please, and their sovereign has no power to restrain them. You have sold them lands here and encouraged them to come here. Her Majesty, always ready to protect her subjects is also always ready to restrain them. Her Majesty the Queen asks you to sign this treaty, and to give her that power which shall enable her to restrain them.  I ask you for this publicly: I do not go from one chief to another. I will give you time to consider the proposal I shall now offer you. What I wish you to do is expressly for your own good, as you will soon see by the treaty. You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you. Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty. I think it is not necessary to say any more about it. I will therefore read the treaty”.             

As the Queen of England made the offer, it had to be made under English Law and the reason the Tiriti o Waitangi states, “and the laws spoken here”.

Governor Hobson then read the final English draft (Littlewood document) of the Treaty and the Rev Henry Williams read the Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori to the estimated 2000 Maori and Pakeha gathered at Waitangi on the 5^th February 1840. After the Treaty was read, the chiefs discussed it with Hobson for 5 hours before retiring to the Te Tii Marae, where the chiefs discussed it well into the night with the missionaries.

Rev Henry William’s recalls, “We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British Crown, by which act they would become one people with the British, in suppression of wars, and every lawless act; under one sovereignty and one law, human and divine.”

Nōpera Pana-kareao encapsulated Māori understanding of the treaty, saying, ‘Ko te atarau o te whenua i riro i a te kuini, ko te tinana o te whenua i waiho ki ngā Māori’ (The shadow of the land will go to the Queen [of England], but the substance of the land will remain with us). The Queen will have Sovereignty over the shadow of the land while the actual land will be given legal title to its proven owners and protected by the law, the first time ever for Maori. The guarantee made in the Second Law and confirmed by the Third Law of the Tiriti o Waitangi and consented to by 512 chiefs.

On the night of the 5^th February 1840 the Rev Richard Taylor transferred Rev William’s translation onto dog skin parchment to become the Tiriti o Waitangi that was the only Treaty signed at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840.While Governor Hobson had scheduled the next meeting for the 7^th February 1840, the chiefs had decided it was to their advantage on the night of the 5^th and summoned Hobson on the morning of the 6th to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language. No English version was signed at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840.

Governor Hobson’s gave the following instruction to those gathering further signatures, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.  After the Tiriti was signed at Waitangi on the 6^th February 1840, it was taken around the country and was signed by over 500 tangata Maori chiefs. Governor Hobson claim British Sovereignty on the 21 May 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on the 2 October 1840 and New Zealand became a British Colony on the 3^rd May 1841.

Sir Apirana Nagata stated in 1922, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws”. These were the laws that the people of England lived by in 1840, laws based on the Magna Carta.

As for the Second Law, the Queen could only make guarantees “to the chiefs, the tribes and all the people of New Zealand” based on English Law. The Queen herself was not above the law. Once titles or proof of ownership were given to their land, their dwellings and their property, they all had “tino rangatiratanga or full chieftainship” over these so long as they did not transgress the law. It must also be remembered this is the only place in the Treaty where “all the people of New Zealand” are mentioned, as people other than Maori also owned large tracts of land by 1840 and had to have these lands, dwellings and property ownership identified under the law. In 1840 nearly 2/3 of New Zealand had either been sold by individual chiefs or was under contract by them to Pakeha.

The Third Law confirmed the guarantees made by the Queen in the Second Law; that tangata maori would be given the same rights as the people of England to their land, dwellings and their property.

“Their Property” -

Only ‘their property’ that could be identified under English Law. (When the Treaty was signed Maori had acquired many European goods/property using European methods of payment).

“By the law of nature these things are common to mankind –the air, running water, the sea and consequently the shores of the sea”- Institutes of Justinian 500AD. See, “Nature on our Statute Books” and “The Ownership” and “Nature V Marine and Coastal”.

Taonga means Property

“Property” is translated in the Tiriti o Waitangi as “taonga”.

Hongi Hika translated “taonga” in 1820 as, “property procured by the spear”.

Rev Henry Williams translated “taonga” in 1844 as, “Property”.

Sir Hugh Kawharu’s 1987 translation is, “all their treasures”.

Dr Margaret Mutu translation is, “all their treasured possessions”.  

The apartheid Waitangi Tribunal translation is, “anything highly prized”.

It is sad how Maori have allowed their once noble language to be destroyed by the Waitangi Tribunal and their greedy academics for the almighty dollar.           See “That Noble Language”.  

Some will say that the second part of the Second Law contravened English law, but this was the basis of English Law, to protect the chiefs/people from the land speculators, land being sold more than once and to establish the rightful owners, boundaries and to give legal title before land could be sold. By only selling to the Crown made sure all these ‘laws’ were met.

We are now one Nation.

We have always taken,  “He iwi tahi tatou” to mean “We are now one people” which has caused people to say we cannot be one people and I tend to agree with them, but “He iwi tahi tatou” translates to “We are now one Nation/Tribe”, which is exactly what the Treaty did – One Nation of many people.

Samuel Lee/Hongi Hika’s translation of  “Iwi” in 1820  =  Nation, people.

Rev Henry William’s translation of “Iwi” in 1844           =  Tribe.

It makes more sense for Governor Hobson to have said, “We are now one Nation” or “We are now one Tribe” than “We are now one people” because this is exactly what he had travelled half way around the world to do, “One Sovereignty, one Law, one Nation”.

This was the ‘statement’  Hobson made to each chief as they signed the Tiriti with a hand shake at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840. At the end of the signing the whole gathering gave three hearty cheers and a deal was made. A handshake and these words from Governor Hobson in 1840 would have meant far more to the chiefs than the signing of a piece of paper. The piece of paper, the Tiriti of Waitangi records what happened at Waitangi on the 6th Feb 1840 – a Nation was borne – New Zealand.“He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one Nation”. 

Conclusion.

The promises and guarantees made by Queen Victoria in the Tiriti o Waitangi could only be made under English Law as it stood in 1840. There is nothing in the Tiriti o Waitangi or English law giving the Queen the authority to form a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown. Hon David Lange our Attorney General stating in 1990, “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people. Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”.

The chiefs gave up their entire territories and governments in 1840 to the Queen forever for protection and the same rights as the people of England – no more – no less. Today we are all New Zealand Citizens of many races under one Sovereignty, one Law and one Nation.

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one Nation

Prepared by the One New Zealand
Foundation Inc. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz  15/5/2012

The first speaker was Te Kemara, chief of the Ngati Kawa tribe.

Health to thee, O Governor. This is mine to thee. I am not pleased toward thee. I will not consent to thy remaining here in this country. If thou stayest as Governor, then perhaps Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes indeed, and more than that- even hung by the neck. No no no, I shall never say yes to your staying. Were we  to be an equality , then perhaps Te Kemara would say yes.  But for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara to be down – Governor high up up up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler. No no no, O Governor. This is mine to thee. O Governor, my land is gone, gone, all gone. The inheritances of my ancestors, fathers, relatives, all gone, stolen, gone with the missionaries. Yes, they have it all, all, all. That man there, the Busby, the Williams, they have my land. The land on which we are now standing this day is mine. This land even under my feet, return this to me. O  Governor, return me my lands. Say to Williams. ‘Return to Te Kemara his land’. Thou thou thou, thou baldheaded man, thou hast got my lands. O Governor, I do not wish you to stay. You English are not kind to us like other foreigners. You do not give us good things. I say, go back Governo; we do not want thee here in this country. And Te Kemara says to thee, go back, leave to Busby and to Williams to arrange and settle matters for us natives as heretofore.

Te Kemara later admitted the French Bishop Pompallier had told him, ‘Not to write on the paper, for if he did, he would be made a slave’ Te Kemara had already sold most of his land.

The next speaker was Rewa, chief of the Ngati Taweke tribe.

How d’ye do , Mr Governor. This is mine to thee, O Governor . Go back; let the Governor return to his own country. Let my lands  be returned  to me which have been taken by the missionaries – by Davis and Clarke and by who and who beside. I have no lands now – only my name. Foreigners come, they know Mr. Rewa, but this is all I have left – a name. What do native men want of a Governor?  We are not white or foreigners. This country is ours, but the land is gone. Nevertheless, we are the Governor – we the chiefs of this our father’s land. I will not say ’Yes’ to the Governor remaining. No no no, return. What! This land become like Port Jackson, and all the lands seen by the English. No no no, return. I, Rewa say to thee, O Governor go back. Send the man away. Do not sign the paper. If you do you will be reduced to the condition of slaves, and be compelled to break stones on the roads. Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chief will be destroyed.

The next speaker  was Moka, chief  of the Patukeha tribe.

Let the governor return to his own country. Let us remain where we are. Let my lands be returned to me – all of them – those that are gone with Baker.  Do not say ‘the lands will be returned to you’. Who will listen to thee, O governor?  Who will obey thee? Where is Clendon?  Where is Mair? Gone to buy, buy our land, not withstanding the book. (Proclamation) of the Governor.  Hobson interrupted the speaker saying any lands illegally taken would be returned. ‘That is good. O Governor. That is straight. But stay, let me see. Yes  yes indeed. Where is Baker? Where is the fellow. Ah, there he is – there standing. Come return to me my lands.  To this Mr Baker. We shall see whether they shall return.  Moka continued. There, there, that is as I said. No no no, all false, all false, all false, alike.  The lands will not  be returned to me.

Tamati Pukututu, chief of Te Uri-o-te-hawato Tribe, rose and said,
“This is mine to thee, O Governor! Sit, Governor, sit, a Governor for us–for me, for all, that our lands may remain with us — that those fellows and creatures who sneak about, sticking to rocks and to the sides of brooks and gullies,  may not have it all. Sit, Governor, sit, for me, for us. Remain here, a father for us, &c. These chiefs say, ‘Don’t sit,’ because they have sold all their possessions, and they are filled with foreign property, and they have also no more to sell. But I say, what of that? Sit, Governor, sit. You two stay here, you and Busby—you two, and they also, the missionaries.”

Matiu, a chief of the Uri-o-ngongo Tribe, rose and said,
“O Governor! sit, stay, remain–you as one with the missionaries, a Governor for us. Do not go back, but sit here, a Governor, a father for us, that good may increase, may become large to us. This is my word to thee: do thou sit here, a father for us.”

Kawiti, chief of the Ngatihine Tribe, rose and said,
“No, no. Go back, go back. What dost thou want here? We Native men do not wish thee to stay. We do not want to be tied up and trodden down. We are free. Let the missionaries remain, but, as for thee, return to thine own country. I will not say ‘Yes’ to thy sitting here. What! to be fired at in our boats and canoes by night! What! to be fired at when quietly paddling our canoes by night! I, even I, Kawiti, must not paddle this way, nor paddle that way, because the Governor said ‘No’–because of the Governor, his soldiers, and his guns! No, no, no. Go back, go back; there is no place here for the Governor.”

Wai, a chief of the Ngaitawake Tribe, rose and said,
“To thee, O Governor! this. Will you remedy the selling, the exchanging, the cheating, the lying, the-stealing of the whites? O Governor! yesterday I was cursed by a white man. Is that straight? The white gives us Natives a pound for a pig; but he gives a white four pounds for such a pig. Is that straight? The white gives us a shilling for a basket of potatoes but to a white he gives four shillings for a basket like that one of ours. Is that straight? No, no; they will not listen to thee: so go back, go back. If they would listen and obey, ah! yes, good that; but have they ever listened to Busby? And will they listen to thee, a stranger, a man of yesterday? Sit, indeed! what for? Wilt thou make dealing straight?”

Here there was an interruption by a white man named Jones (a hawker and pedlar of Kororareka), and by the white man who had previously addressed the Governor, and also by another young white man, who all three spoke to the Governor at one time from different parts of the tent, calling on His Excellency to have the speeches interpreted for the whites to hear, and also to have them interpreted correctly. Johnson was again called for to come forward, who, on the Governor desiring him to do so, interpreted the speech of the last speaker, Wai, commenting on the same, after first remarking that “it was great lies.”
 

Pumuka, chief of the Roroa Tribe, rose and said,
“Stay, remain, Governor; remain for me. Hear, all of you. I will have this man a foster-father for me. Stay, sit, Governor. Listen to my words, O Governor! Do not go away; remain. Sit, Governor, sit. I wish to have two fathers–thou and Busby, and the missionaries.”

Warerahi (George King), a chief of the Ngaitawake Tribe, rose and said,
 ”Yes! What else? Stay, sit; if not, what? Sit; if not, how? Is it not good to be in peace? We will have this man as our Governor. What! turn him away! Say to this man of the Queen, Go back! No, no.”

Here a commotion and bustle took place among the Natives, who were sitting closely packed, in consequence of a lane or open space being made in front of the platform for Tareha, and for Hakiro, and for other chiefs to make their running speeches in, a la Nouvelle-Zelande .

Hakiro (son of Tareha, but who on this occasion appeared and spoke on behalf of Titore, 13 deceased, principal chief of the Ngatinanenane Tribe) arose and said,
“To thee, O Governor! this. Who says ‘Sit’? Who? Hear me, O Governor! I say, no, no. Sit, indeed! Who says ‘Sit’? Go back, go back; do not thou sit here. What wilt thou sit here for? We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor. Return, return; leave us. The missionaries and Busby are our fathers. We do not want thee; so go back, return, walk away.”

Tareha, chief of the Ngatirehia Tribe, rose, and, with much of their usual national gesticulation, said,
“No Governor for me–for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! Thou high, and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low! No, no; never, never. I am jealous of thee; I am, and shall be, until thou and thy ship go away. Go back, go back; thou shalt not stay here. No, no; I will never say ‘Yes.’ Stay! Alas! what for? why? What is there here for thee? Our lands are already all gone. Yes, it is so, but our names remain. Never mind; what of that–the lands of our fathers alienated? Dost thou think we are poor, indigent, poverty-stricken–that we really need thy foreign garments, thy food? Lo! note this.” (Here he held up high a bundle of fern-roots he carried in his hand, displaying it.) “See, this is my food, the food of my ancestors, the food of the Native people. Pshaw, Governor! To think of tempting men–us Natives–with baits of clothing and of food! Yes, I say we are the chiefs. If all were to be alike, all equal in rank with thee–but thou, the Governor up high-up, up, as this tall paddle” (here he held up a common canoe-paddle), “and I down, under, beneath! No, no, no. I will never say, ‘Yes, stay.’ Go back, return; make haste away. Let me see you [all] go, thee and thy ship. Go, go; return, return.” 

Tareha was clothed with a filthy piece of coarse old floor-matting, loosely tied round him, such as is used by the commonest Natives merely as a floor-mat under their bedding. He was evidently dressed up in this fashion in order the more effectually to ridicule the supposition of the New-Zealanders being in want of any extraneous aid of clothing, &c., from foreign nations. He also carried in his hand, by a string, a bunch of dried fern-root, formerly their common vegetable food, as bread with us. His habit, his immense size–tall and very robust (being by far the biggest Native of the whole district)–and his deep sepulchral voice, conspired to give him peculiar prominence, and his words striking effect: this last was unmistakably visible on the whole audience of Natives.

Rawiri, a chief of the Ngatitautahi Tribe, arose and said (first sentence in English)Good morning, Mr. Governor! very good you! Our Governor, our Father! Stay here, O Governor! Sit, that we may be in peace. A good thing this for us–yes, for us, my friends, Native men. Stay, sit. Do thou remain, O Governor! to be a Governor for us.”

Hoani Heke, a chief of the Matarahurahu Tribe, arose and said,
“To raise up, or to bring down? to raise up, or to bring down? Which? which? Who knows? Sit, Governor, sit. If thou shouldst return, we Natives are gone, utterly gone, nothinged, extinct. What, then, shall we do? Who are we? Remain, Governor, a father for us. If thou goest away, what then? We do not know. This, my friends,” addressing the Natives around him, “is a good thing. It is even as the word of God” (the New Testament, lately printed in Maori at Paihia, and circulated among the Natives). “Thou to go away! No, no, no! For then the French people or the rum-sellers will have us Natives. Remain, remain; sit, sit here; you with the missionaries, all as one. But we Natives are children–yes, mere children. Yes; it is not for us, but for you, our fathers–you missionaries–it is for you to say, to decide, what it shall be. It is for you to choose. For we are only Natives. Who and what are we? Children–yes, children solely. We do not know: do you then choose for us. You, our fathers–you missionaries. Sit, I say, Governor, sit! a father, a Governor for us.” (Pronounced with remarkably strong and solemn emphasis, well supported both by gesture and manner.)

Hakitara, a chief of the Rarawa Tribe, rose and said a few words; but, in consequence of several talking (both whites and Natives) the one to the other at this moment, remarking on Hoani Heke’s speech and manner, and from Hakitara speaking low, what he said was not plainly heard. He spoke, however, in favour of the Governor’s remaining.

Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, rose and said,
 ”I shall speak first to us, to ourselves, Natives” (addressing them). “What do you say? The Governor to return? What, then, shall we do? Say here to me, O ye chiefs of the tribes of the northern part of New Zealand! what we, how we?” (Meaning, how, in such a case, are we henceforward to act?) “Is not the land already gone? is it not covered, all covered, with men, with strangers, foreigners—even as the grass and herbage–over whom we have no power? We, the chiefs and Natives of this land, are down low; they arc up high, exalted. What, what do you say? The Governor to go back? I am sick, I am dead, killed by you. 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 father, a judge, a peacemaker. Yes, it is good, it is straight. Sit thou here; dwell in our midst. Remain; do not go away. Do not thou listen to what [the chiefs of] Ngapuhi say. Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”

Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene, who has for some time been living in the island of Waiheke, in the Thames, and who only came up from thence a few weeks back) rose and said,
“What shall I say on this great occasion, in the presence of all those great chiefs of both countries? Here, then, this is my word to thee, O Governor! Sit, stay–thou, and the missionaries, and the Word of God. Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not, that Pikopo, that bad man, have us not. Remain, Governor Sit, stay, our friend.”

Te Kemara (who had spoken the first) here jumped up, and, in his usual excitable, lively, and flourishing manner, said,
 ”No, no. Who says ‘Stay’? Go away; return to thine own land. I want my lands returned to me. If thou wilt say, ‘Return to that man Te Kemara his land,’ then it would be good. Let us all be alike [in rank, in power]. Then, O Governor! remain. But, the Governor up! Te Kemara down, low, flat! No, no, no. Besides, where art thou to stay, to dwell? There is no place left for thee.”  Here Te Kemara ran up to the Governor, and, crossing his wrists, imitating a man handcuffed, loudly vociferated, with fiery flashing eyes, “Shall I be thus, thus? Say to me, Governor, speak. Like this, eh? like this? Come, come, speak, Governor. Like this, eh?” He then seized hold of the Governor’s hand with both his and shook it most heartily, roaring out with additional grimace and gesture (in broken English), “How d’ye do, eh, Governor? How d’ye do, eh, Mister Governor?”

This he did over, and over, and over again, the Governor evidently taking it in good part, the whole assembly of whites and browns, chief and slave, Governor, missionaries, officers of the man-o’-war, and, indeed, “all hands,” being convulsed with laughter.  This incident ended this day’s meeting.

From the previous article, True Tiriti – False Treaty, Lt Governor Hobson only authorised the Tiriti o Waitangi to be signed, he never authorized an English version of the Treaty to be read, discussed or signed by the chiefs. Governor Hobson also had 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi printed by the Church Mission Society but not one in English. This article dissects the Tiriti o Waitangi to understand its true meaning. To do this we will use the official translation made by Mr T E Young of the Native Department for the Legislative Council in 1869. The final draft dated the 4^thFebruary 1840, plus other translations of the time, also supports this translation. A copy of the translation and final draft are attached to True Tiriti – False Treaty, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz.

It must be remembered, Maori had been continually at war with each other since the “Boundary Wars” between Ngapuhi and others in 1795 and long before the introduction of the musket. While these wars were mainly for utu/revenge they were also fought for the “love of human flesh”. While Maori lived in constant fear of being killed and eaten, they were in greater fear of becoming slaves. By 1840, Maori had slaughtered an estimated 80,000 of their fellow countrymen and New Zealand was completely out of control, the reason the 13 Northern chiefs wrote to the King in 1831 asking him to become their protector and guardian, not only from the French but also from themselves.

See, “Maori Wars of the 19^th Century” by S. Percy Smith.

With the ‘genocide’ Maori wars and the large investment by British subjects in New Zealand by 1837, Britain had to take more control of this country and its people. For three years the British Government discussed the best way to bring law and order to New Zealand, a country completely out of control. It was decided in 1839 to send Captain William Hobson half way around the world to cede New Zealand to Britain by Treaty for Britain to form a legal government to bring law and order as the chiefs had asked in 1831. Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England.

As there was no united government, congress or sovereignty in New Zealand in 1840 and each tribe was completely independent to the other, the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed between Lt. Governor Hobson on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and 512 individual Maori chiefs on behalf of their individual tribes for their individual territories.

There is also no mention in the Tiriti o Waitangi that Maori were the ‘indigenous people of New Zealand’. In fact they are referred to in the Tiriti as ‘tangata maori’ not ‘tangata whenua’ or ‘the indigenous people.’ S. Percy Smith and many others state that old Maori acknowledged they were not the ‘tangata whenua’ or ‘first people’. This was also endorsed by Dr Ranginui Walker in 1989 in ‘The Book of New Zealand Events”. Many archaeology sites and artefacts show there were people in New Zealand long before the ‘tangata maori’.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was a very simple document that ceded (the territory) to Britain so that Britain could form a legal Government to make laws to bring protection and order to all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed. Unfortunately, the Tiriti has been confused with an English version Governor Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman compiled for overseas despatch. Governor Hobson never intended this English version to be read, discussed or signed by the chiefs. There was only one version of the Tiriti signed on the 6^th   February 1840 and that was the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language. No English version was read, discussed or signed on that day.

The government, Waitangi Tribunal, universities, lawyers, government officials and others have combined both the Tiriti o Waitangi and the false English version that completely confuses the issue. Governor Hobson only made one Tiriti to be signed by the chiefs. This document was signed on the 6^th February 1840,

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs -  26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Lt. Governor Hobson.

In 1986 the Fourth Labour Government replaced the Tiriti o Waitangi with five ‘Principles’ and turned the Tiriti in to a ‘Partnership between the Maori and the Crown’. There was only one Principle in the Treaty of Waitangi to which Hobson and the chiefs shook hands and the whole gathering of over 2000 Maori and Pakeha gave 3 hearty cheers.    “He iw tahi tatou – We are now one people”

The first part of the Treaty referred to Maori only. It explained if the Queen was to bring protection and order to the Maori and Pakeha living without laws, the chiefs must consent to the Queen’s sovereignty over the whole land. Governor Hobson stating at Hokianga, “That
English laws could only be exercised on English soil”. The 3 Laws of the Tiriti followed, then the consent by the chiefs; that they fully understood all the words of the Tiriti, therefore affixed their names or marks.

Dissecting the Tiriti o Waitangi

Victoria, Queen of England, in Her kind thoughtfulness of the chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and Her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their lands, 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 Maoris 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 of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.

This explained to the chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand the intention of Her Majesty the Queen to protect the Maoris and their lands. The Maori may consent to the Government of the Queen to all parts of New Zealand because many of Her tribe have settle or are coming later.

Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil will not come to the Maori or the Europeans who are living without law.

The Queen is desirous to establish a Government to make one law for both Maori and Pakeha so that evil will not come to them.

Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all parts of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen;…..

The Queen sent Lt Governor William Hobson to be Governor of all parts (territories) of New Zealand that the chiefs may give up now or at a later date. There was no united Government or sovereignty in New Zealand in 1840. The chiefs only had control over their individual
territories for as long as their tribe could protect them. Over 500 chiefs gave up their individual territories to Her Majesty the Queen in 1840 and New Zealand was declared a British Colony under English law. English law could only be exercise on English soil.

…..and he give forth to the Chief of the assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other chiefs the laws spoken here.

Once the chiefs gave up their territories to the Queen, they lost all rights to their land, their settlements and all their property. The three laws that followed explained to the chiefs, the tribes and all the people of New Zealand the rights they would be given under English Law, British Sovereignty. The laws were based on English Law.

The First Law.

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 Government of their lands.

The chiefs must also give up entirely to the Queen forever all the Governments of their lands. There could only be one Government under one Sovereignty.

The Second Law (First part).

 The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property.  

The Queen agreed and guaranteed to give the chiefs, the tribes (the Maori) and all the people of New Zealand (the Pakeha) the full rights to their lands, their settlements and their property.

Note. This is the only time ‘all the people of New Zealand’ is used in the Tiriti o Waitangi, at all other times the people are specifically called, chiefs, hapu, tangata maori or Pakeha. In this part of the Tiriti, it referred to ‘all the people of New Zealand’ irrespective of race colour or creed.

As the chiefs had sold or had contracts over 2/3 of New Zealand at this time, Hobson had to also guarantee the Pakeha people the rights to their lands, settlements and property. Large areas of land had been sold by the chiefs to the New Zealand Company at Wellington, Wanganui and Taranaki, which had in turn been on sold to the immigrants from Great Britain, as well as most of the South Island had contracts over it by the few South Island chiefs. There were also many private sales to the missionaries, whalers and timber merchants etc. At the time there were over 2000 Pakeha living in New Zealand, whose rights also had to be protected under English law.              

The Second Law (Second Part)

 But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be Her purchaser.

The chiefs could only sell their land they wanted to sell to the Queen’s purchaser. While this was to stop the dubious speculators, it was mainly to make sure the seller was the legal owner and land sold was first surveyed so that legal boundaries and titles of ownership could be given. Land sold before the Treaty was investigated and if found to be a dubious purchase was returned to the original owner. Most purchases were also reduced to 2560 acres (4 square miles) as well as purchasers that could not afford to bring their claim to court (most of the South Island), had their purchase returned to the Maori.

The Third Law

This is an 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.

As Maori had given up their territories and the government of their lands to the Queen they must now consent to the Queen’s Government. The Queen’s Government would protect all the Maoris of New Zealand with the same rights as the people of England.

The Consent  

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 attached our names and marks.

From the chief’s speeches, they fully understood the meaning of the words of the Tiriti o Waitangi. They understood they must give up their individual territories to the Queen for Her to form a legal Government to bring protection, law and order to all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed under on sovereignty.

This done at Waitangi, on the six day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of our Lord.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was the only document authorised to be signed by Lt Governor William Hobson and the only document signed by the chiefs on the 6^th February 1840 at Waitangi.

Conclusion.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was a very simple document agreed to by both parties; Lt Governor Hobson on behalf of Her Majesty the Queen and the 512 Maori chiefs on behalf of their individual tribes. While the Tiriti is not in our legislation, we are told by our academics it is not a legal document in International Law. Would Britain send Captain William Hobson, a ship and crew half way around the world if it was not a legal document in International Law? The Tiriti o Waitangi was accepted by the two major powers at the time, America and France and has never been challenged in International Law. France also wanted sovereignty of New Zealand but accepted defeat on the 20 July 1840, “That sovereignty had been procured in a manner such as could be approved by other nations”. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on the 2^nd October 1840, that British Sovereignty was gained over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery and New Zealand became a British Crown Colony under one sovereignty and one law.

After the Treaty was signed, “the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

“Some have said these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the  Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of
the Treaty”. Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, M.A., LL.B. LIT.D. – 1922.

The End.

Prepared by Ross Baker. One New Zealand
Foundation Inc. 10/3/2012.

Right from the beginning there were going to be problems,not because of the actual Treaty but because there were two different documents. One the ‘true’ treaty in Maori, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, signed at Waitangi and the other a false ‘English version’ . This false ‘English version’was attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act,  while the ‘true treaty’ the Maori text, did not appear in the Act until the 1985 Amendment.    See copy of the ‘two versions’ of the Treaty and the official translation for the Legislative Council below.

The Second Law of the true Maori text gave the same rights to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, while the false ‘English version’ gave Maori continuing preferential rights over Pakeha.

‘True’ Maori text – Second Law    (See Translation Below)

“The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus, and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and all their property”.

Once the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed both Maori and Pakeha  had  the same rights  under the law “to their lands, their settlements and all their property”.

False ‘English version’ – Second Law  (See Copy Below)

“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….”

The false ‘English version’ would continue to give preferential rights to Maori over their “Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess….”. This false ‘English version’ has been called a ‘living document’ and has been used as such to continue the generation claims. For 10 years this false document set up the Waitangi Tribunal to give Maori preference over all other New Zealanders. The introduction of the true treaty, Tiriti o Waitangi in 1985 made little difference – the stage had been set.

Principles and Partnership.

The false ‘English version’ also allowed the Fourth Labour Government to write the “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” making the Treaty into a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. This could never have happened with the Tiriti o Waitangi where all the people became one people under the law -English Law based on the Magna Carta.

English Version a Fraudulent Document.

The ‘English version’ and the Maori  Te Tiriti o Waitangi, both have the words, “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840” written on the bottom, but the ‘English version’, was not “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840”. It was never presented, read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on this day, therefore it is legally a fraudulent document.

Completely Different Document

If one was a true and accurate translation of the other, then it would be acceptable, but the two texts are two completely different documents. One gave the same rights to both Maori and Pakeha while the other gave preferential rights to Maori only.

International Law.

In International Law, if the English language text differs from the Native language text, then the Native language text takes precedence over the English language text.

The False English Version

Once the final draft of the Treaty was translated by the Rev Henry Williams and his son into the Tiriti o Waitangi; both the translation, TeTiriti o Waitangi and the final draft were read to the large gathering of Maori and Pakeha at Waitangi on the 5th February 1840. Now that the Treaty had been read to the Chiefs, Hobson’s secretary James Freeman had to send a dispatch back to England of the events of the day. Instead of asking Hobson for a copy of the final draft, he compiled an English Treaty from Busby’s earlier draft notes. Freeman, not knowing that major changes had been made to the final draft, including recognition of Pakeha in the Second Law, he completely left Pakeha out giving preferential rights to Maori only. While Freeman made seven versions, which all varied, all had “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840”on the bottom, but not one was ever presented, read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840. Legally the English version is a ‘fraudulent document’ as it was not, “Done at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840”.

The Final Draft
(Littlewood Treaty document)

The reappearance of the final draft in 1989 also showed without doubt, the Tiriti o Waitangi was not translated from this English text and was not the document read in conjunction with the Tiriti o Waitangi to the gathering on the 5th February 1840. The false ‘English version’ of the Treaty of Waitangi was not authorized by Governor Hobson to be read, discussed or
signed by the Chiefs.  He accepted the signatures as, “merely testomonials of adherance of that original document signed on the 6th February 1840″.

Never an English Version

Lt. Governor Hobson never made or authorized an English version of the Treaty to be signed by the Chiefs, but he did authorise the  Church Mission Society to print 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language.

False English Version Never Read or Discussed – Just Signed

When the Rev Robert Maunsell arrived at Waikato Heads to gather further signatures, his official copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi had not arrived. Luckily, he had a CMS printed copy in Maori and proceeded to read this to the people gathered. Discussions followed before the chiefs commenced signing. As the CMS printed document could only hold a few (5) signatures, Maunsell produced one of James Freeman’s compiled versions, which he used to collect a further 39 signatures. At no time was this document read or discussed, it was just used to record the signatures of approval to the CMS printed copy of the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language. While Hobson later signed this document, the signatures were, merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

Hobson’s Statement

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

The original document being the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language that was signed on the 6th February 1840 at Waitangi. No English version of the Treaty of Waitangi was ever read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840.

All English versions of the Treaty of Waitangi are fraudulent documents.

There is only one Treaty

There is only one true treaty, the Tiriti o Waitangi. This is the one that ceded sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain and gave all the people of New Zealand, Maori and Pakeha the same rights and protection under English Law to their lands, their settlements and their property.

No More – No less.

Our New Constitution

If we are to rewrite our Constitution, then it must be based on the Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding document and its one principle,

He iwi tahi tatou

– We are now one people – New Zealanders.

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 6/2/2012.

This Treaty WAS  Done at Waitangi on this 6th Day of February in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand eight hundred and forty.

THE TREATY OF WAITANGI

(The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985)

The Treaty of Waitangi

(The text in Maori)
This description is misleading as it implies that the Maori text is a version of the English language ‘Treaty of Waitangi’.

Ko Wikitoria te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki ngaRangatira 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 kiakaua 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, amoa 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 ratou wenua.

KO TE TUARUA

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki nga hapu-ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tinorangatiratanga 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 Kawanatangao 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 & 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 Tiranika 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.

Hobson’s Statement

“The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.

This false ‘English version’ was NOT “Done at Waitangi on this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty”. It is a fraudulent document.

Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of GreatBritain 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 authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any partof 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 authorize “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 NewZealand 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 Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors there of 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 Englandextends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

[Signed] W Hobson Lieutenant Governor

Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria inWaitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.

Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord one thousand eight hundred and forty.

CONSTITUTION OF NEW ZEALAND

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

“The constitutional place of the Treaty of Waitangi is a subject of much debate. Increasingly, the Treaty is seen as an important source of constitutional law…..The English text of the Treaty itself is included in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, an act which established the Waitangi Tribunal to determine issues of breaches of the Treaty. The Act was initially prospective, but was later amended in 1985 so that claims dating from the signing of the Treaty could be investigated. The 1985 amendment also included the Maori text of the Treaty for the first time”.

T.E Young’s back-translation of the Maori text into English (1869).

This official translation was made for the Legislative Council by the Native Department 1869. It is a true and accurate translation of the day.

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 Maoris of New Zealand – that the Maoris 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. Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law. Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, heir settlements and their property. 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.

The Third

This is an 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.

William Hobson Consul and Lieutenant Governor.

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.

• In 1831, thirteen Northern Chiefs wrote to the King asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from the French but also from themselves as Nga Puhi had just gone on the rampage south slaughtering an estimated 60,000 (half the Maori population) of their fellow unarmed countrymen. The southern tribes were now arming themselves to travel north for utu – revenge.

• For Britain to bring law and order to New Zealand, Britain had to obtain sovereignty over the whole country. The British Parliament reluctantly decided after 2 years of debate, the best way to achieve this was by treaty. Captain William Hobson was instructed by the Colonial Office on the contents of the treaty and sailed for New Zealand in 1839.

• Lt. Gov. Hobson’s final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, which went missing soon after it was translated was given to the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward on the 4th February 1840 to be translated into Maori to become, ‘Te Tiriti o Waitangi’. The final draft (Littlewood document) was found in 1989 confirming William’s translation was true and accurate.

• The Preamble explained to the Maoris the reason for the treaty and that the chiefs must agree to give up their territories to the Queen if Britain was to form a legal government, “….to all places of New Zealand that may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”.

• The Preamble is the ‘essence’ of the treaty as it ceded sovereignty of New Zealand to Britain. Since 1985 the Preamble has been omitted from most Government publications of the treaty, including the public viewing panels at Te Papa. The Tiriti o Waitangi consists of the preamble, the three laws/articles and the consent from the chiefs.

• The three laws/articles that followed the preamble had to be obeyed if the chiefs agreed to cede sovereignty.   “to all places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen”.

• Article 1. The chiefs must also give up their entire government to the Queen forever.

• Article 2. The Queen guaranteed both Maori and Pakeha the same rights to their land, settlements and property. Pakeha owned or had contracts to over 50% of New Zealand at the time the Treaty was signed, therefore had to be included in Article 2. If Maori wanted to sell land, they could only sell it to the Queen on a willing seller/willing buyer basis and for an agreed amount.

• Article 3. Maori would be given the same rights as the people of England. No more – No less. Crown protection and one law for all the people of New Zealand, the first time ever for Maori.

• Consent. “We the chiefs see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks”.

• “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”. Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs. M.A., LL.B.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi was, “Done at Waitangi on the 6th day of February 1840, of Our Lord”. “…all signatures that were subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Lt. Gov. Hobson. Over 500 chiefs signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in the Maori language in 1840.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi was signed by tangata Maori not the tangata whenua or the indigenous people as these people had been driven to extinction by the tangata Maori some time before.

• Lt. Gov. Hobson claimed sovereignty over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery on the 21 May 1840. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on October the 2nd 1840 and New Zealand was recognised internationally as a British Colony.       Note; the South Island was ceded by Discovery and not by the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• Once the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed, it should have been filed away in our archives. It had done its job of ceding sovereignty to Britain for Britain to form a legal government in a country without law and order. A country out of control.

• Lt. Governor Hobson never made or authorized an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi to be signed by the chiefs. While the English version also stated, “Done at Waitangi on 6th February 1840”, it was never presented, read, discussed or signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, therefore it is legally, a false document.

• Hobson had the CMS print 200 copies of the Tiriti o Waitangi in Maori but not one in English.

• There is no “Partnership between Maori and the Crown” in the Tiriti o Waitangi. Once the Tiriti was signed, Maori had the same rights as the people of England. No more – No less.

• The Tiriti o Waitangi only has one Principle, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.

• There in no mention of forests or fisheries in Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• As Tangata Maori have continued to intermarry with the Pakeha of their own free will, they are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

• While the Tiriti o Waitangi made all the people of New Zealand subjects of the Queen, the Statute of Westminster adopted by New Zealand in 1947, made all the people New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

• The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its 1985 Amendment created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal to make recommendations (in some cases binding on government) on alleged Maori claims dating back to 1840. Many of these claims had already had full and final settlements in the 1940’s. The Treaty of Waitangi Act allowed an unauthorized and illegal English version of the Treaty compiled by Hobson’s secretary James Freeman to be used alongside the official Tiriti o Waitangi. Pakeha cannot lodge a claim or participate in the Tribunal’s hearings and the recommendations are based mainly on the Crown’s 5 Principles and not the Tiriti o Waitangi.

• All alleged grievances are justice issues and should be heard in a Court of Law where the standards of evidence are upheld and the law applies equally to all. The Waitangi Tribunal allows the claimants to falsify evidence, omit evidence not helpful to their claim and only pay researchers if they agree to write their report in favour of the claim. This would never happen if the Courts heard these claims, the claimants and the researchers would be held accountable for their actions.

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and contravened the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty. If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”, Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, M.A. LL.B. 1922.

Wake up New Zealand, you are being scammed by a small group of people claiming to be a race of people that no longer exists. The Tiriti o Waitangi made us all one people.

He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people – New Zealanders.

We can still “Honour the Tiriti o Waitangi and those that had the foresight to sign it” by taking the advice of our leading Constitutional Lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, the man that instigated the Treaty reforms in the 1980’s but realised with David Lange in 1990; the reforms were unfounded and now completely out of control, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”. (c)

For further information, www.onenzfoundation.co.nz or onzf@bigpond.com.au.   28/12/2011

From Sir Apirana Ngata’s statement made in 1922 when Minister of Native Affairs, “Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”. Sir Apirana was also a qualified lawyer with a M.A and LL.B.

Sir Apirana Ngata is correct when he states.

“The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws”.

This was the sole purpose of the Tiriti o Waitangi that over 500 chiefs signed in 1840. The chief’s ceded/gave up all parts of New Zealand to the Queen for her to form a legal Government to make laws.

“Some section of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled”.
Correct, various tribes breached the Queens laws and the Imperial Troops were brought in to enforce the
law. Unfortunately, blood was spilled on both sides.

“The Law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong”. 

While the British did not plunder, they did confiscate land from those that breached the law.

“It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen”.

The chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen giving her the authority to make laws.

“The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

The confiscation had nothing to do with the Tiriti o Waitangi, they were breaches of the law, which the majority of the chiefs gave the Queen the authority to make and enforce.

The alleged confiscations were not Treaty breaches, they were alleged breaches of the Queen’s laws, therefore must be heard by the Court system where they are open to the public to present evidence, cross examine claimants and their researchers and if in doubt, appeal the findings. They should not be heard by the Maori only apartheid Waitangi Tribunal where non-Maori cannot participate, give evidence or appeal the findings.

Many past researchers and staff of the Waitangi Tribunal, including a past Chairman, Chief Judge Eddie Durie have admitted researches have falsified evidence, omitted evidence not helpful to the claim and only being paid if they write a report in favour of the claim. This would never happen if a Court heard these claims, the claimants and their researchers would be held accountable.

The Waitangi Tribunal also bases its findings on the Fourth Labour Government’s “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi”, but if “the confiscations cannot be objected to in the light of the Treaty”, then why is the Tribunal using the Treaty or the Principles as a base for its finding. In fact, why do we have a Waitangi Tribunal hearing these alleged claims when the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata, a fully qualified lawyer found in 1922, they were breaches of the law and not the Treaty, therefore a legal matter of law for the Courts, not a apartheid Tribunal?

All alleged grievances are justice issues and should be heard in a Court of Law where the standards of evidence are upheld and the law applies equally to all.

The End. (c)

Prepared by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 15/12/2011.

“The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. From this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.  Comment by Dr Ranginui Walker in ‘The New Zealand Book of Events’, page 18, (1986). When the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed the “canoe ancestors of the 14 century” were known a tangata Maori.

Maori tradition also makes it clear that the tangata whenua were light skinned with fair or reddish hair and in some cases, blue eyes. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu and were described by Te Arawa as, “of non-Maori appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Other names given to the tangata whenua were Patupaiarehe or Turehu. Maori traditions tell of these friendly, peaceful and law abiding people teaching Maori many of their skills and cultures before they either “merged with the tangata Maori” or were exterminated by them. Captain Cook recalls he saw fair skinned Natives with reddish or blonde hair when he visited New Zealand in 1769. Tradition also tells that, the tribal wars over land and resources drove the tangata whenua into extinction.

Dr Ranginui Walker’s statement that his ancestors “merged with the tangata whenua” is confirmed as we find fair or red hair appearing in tangata Maori, although the tangata whenua were exterminated as were the peaceful Moriori of the Chatham Islands by the tangata Maori before the British became legally involved in New Zealand.

When the Pakeha started living in New Zealand in the early 19th century, they had no intention of harming the tangata Maori. They treated them with respect, although there were a few unfortunate incidents when the two cultures met. Especially when the Captain and 25 crew of the French ship La Favourite were killed and the crew retaliated by killing 250 tangata Maori and setting fire to their village. Another incident was when the ‘tangata Maori’ slaughtered the crew, men, women and children when the British ship the Boyd arrived in New Zealand in 1809.

With the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, New Zealand became a British Colony and tangata Maori were given the same rights as the people of England. At the time they signed the Tiriti o Waitangi, they were a distinct race of people called tangata Maori, but as they continued to intermarry of their own free will with the Pakeha, this race no longer exists. The British never tried to exterminate the ‘tangata Maori’ as the tangata Maori had exterminated the tangata whenua and the Moriori, They treated them with respect by giving them the same rights as the people of England under one flag and one law.

While the Government has done little research into the tangata whenua, they have researched areas of the Waipoua Forest, but the results of this research have been restricted from the public until 2065. What did they find that must be hidden from the public until 2065?  While Maori admit that not all burial sites (human remains) are Maori, the Government returns all remains to Maori for reburial or disposal without DNA or other methods of finding their ‘true” identity. The Government has just accepted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, but the people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi were called tangata Maori not tangata whenua or Indigenous People.  Once, again we are being duped by a Government that does not want us to know our true history.

As the people that arrived in the 14th century “merged with the tangata whenua” and became tangata Maori, the tangata Maori merged with the Pakeha and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi to become British Subjects, but once we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 we all became New Zealand Citizens irrespective of race, colour or creed.

While the Tiriti gave tangata Maori protection and one law for all the people of New Zealand, it also gave tangata Maori the responsibility to act within the law. “……… the chief’s placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty”. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P., Minister of Native Affairs, 1922.

In the 1940’s the Government still under the control of the British Government held inquiries into the alleged breaches of the law against the tangata Maori and any found to be valid had full and final settlements. Once these claims had been settled or rejected as the case my be, New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947 when all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Since this time hundreds of thousands of people from other lands have settled in New Zealand and intermarried with those already here to become New Zealand Citizens.

The End. (c).

Prepared by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 15/12/2011.

OUR NEW CONSTITUTION?

Where 15 % of the population may control 85%?

On the 20th September 2011 Muriel Newman asked the question on her website NZPCR, “Do you support the establishment for a new Constitution for New Zealand based on the Treaty of Waitangi?” Most of the comments stated, they did not want the new constitution to be based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

Here are comments that sum up the feeling of the majority people that replied. “The issue has nothing to do with what’s right – or legal or just. It has everything to do with an ethic group using a document to leaver power. It doesn’t matter what you think the Treaty says. What matters is how it is being interpreted, and the “one law for all” meaning you are seeing is NOT the prevailing view being taken by the Tribunal, the Courts or the Government. They see the Treaty as giving preferential rights to Maori as a partner of the Crown. It is rubbish as we know, but “we” (the people) are not being listened to. We should stay as far away from all this – especially if the Maori Party is in Government. We should be dead against a Treaty based constitution that can be hijacked by radical sovereignty activists not in favour of one”.

Here we have 85% of the population being dictated to by 15% and of these 15%, possibly only about 100 people in total. And the final comment on NZPCR, “Unfortunately ONZF, that is exactly what has happened – pathetic really, isn’t it”!

If this is how weak our Nation has become, then we deserve all we get and it will only get worse with a new Constitution if we do not stand up for our Tiriti o Waitangi rights – NOW!

Since the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its amendment; including the Principles and Partnership, we have allowed one small group of New Zealand citizens that can claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry to hijack our country when we don’t even know who these people really are. The Hon John Key foolishly recognised Maori as the Indigenous People of New Zealand without any forensic evidence to back up his claim.

The fact is that the Government has never investigated the following.

1.      Whether Maori were the first people to inhabit New Zealand? (See below)
2.      Where they came from?
3.      How they arrived?
4.      When they arrived.
5.      What is their DNA – true ancestry?
6.      Through intermarriage of their own free will, should Maori today be recognised as the ‘distinct race’ of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

Maori are not “tangata whenua” – there were prior inhabitants – Dr Ranginui Walker.

“The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes”. ‘New Zealand Book of Events’, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker. The people that signed the Tiriti in 1840 were referred to as “tangata Maori”. (Preamble, Tiriti o Waitangi)

Maori tradition also makes it clear that the “tangata whenua” were light skinned with fair or reddish hair and in some cases blue eyes. The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu and were described as, “of non-Maori appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Te Arawa drove these people to extinction. Other names given to these people were Patupaiarehe or Turehu. Maori traditions tell of these friendly, peaceful and law abiding people teaching Maori many of their skills and culture before they were exterminated or “merged with the tangata Maori”. Captain Cook and other early visitors to New Zealand recall they saw fair skinned people with reddish or blonde hair when he visited New Zealand.

In European times (1835), the Maori traveled to the Chatham Islands and completely annihilated the peaceful Moriori. One Moriori survivor, Heremaia Tua said, “They were laid out touching one another, parent and the child. Some of the women had stakes thrust into them, were left to die in their misery. They were eaten so that corpses lay scattered in the woods, the rest were herded like sheep and killed and eaten at a later date”. As recalled by Michael King in “Moriori, a People Rediscovered”.

When the chiefs signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840, they were a distinct race of people (tangata Maori), but as they have continued to intermarry of their own free will with other races, this race of people through Maori tradition have merged with the Pakeha to become  ‘tangata Pakeha’. Should ‘tangata Pakeha’ today be recognised as the distinct race of people (‘tangata Maori’) that signed the Tiriti in 1840? Mr John Clark, a past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent thought not when he stated, “Maori today are a race of people as one sees in legislation”. Since we adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, we are all New Zealand Citizens. See ‘New Zealand in Crisis’ by the ONZF.

Governments have used the wrong Treaty of Waitangi.

The Tiriti o Waitangi that was signed by over 500 Maori Chiefs in 1840 gave one flag and one law to all the people of New Zealand, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. Since this time, a Treaty written in English by James Freeman, Hobson’s secretary and compiled from Busby’s earlier draft notes has been wrongly used as our founding document and has allowed our Treaty to be distorted to benefit Maori only. This English version of the Treaty was for overseas dispatch only and was never officially authorised or intended to be our founding document or to be signed by the chiefs. Article 2 of this unauthorized English text forgot to mention the settlers, whalers and speculators rights to their land, dwellings and property, which Governor Hobson made sure was in the final draft and the Tiriti o Waitangi. Article 2 of the Tiriti o Waiatngi makes no mention of exclusive rights to ‘tangata Maori’ to the fisheries or forest.

When Governor Hobson had stopped in Sydney on his way to New Zealand in 1839, he found the chiefs had sold or had contracts in place to sell large tracks of land to the settlers, whalers and speculators consisting of one fifth of the North Island and virtually the whole of the South Island before the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed. These people also had a major stake in New Zealand and therefore, had to be recognized in the Tiriti o Waitangi. See research by Jean Jackson.

After the Treaty was signed, the Government held Court inquiries into the pre-Treaty purchases for legal titles to be given to the land and its legal owner. In most cases the chiefs honoured these purchases, some being offended if they were rejected. The claims that were rejected were either returned to the chiefs or repurchased by the Crown. Some claimants did not bother or could not afford to make a claim for their purchase and the land reverted back to the original owner. Many of these pre-Treaty Deeds are held in our Archives.

Britain not only wanted to bring law and order to New Zealand as she had promised, she also had to protect her Subjects property and investments in a country without law and order. The only law that existed before the Tiriti was signed was, “Might is Right!” What was “owned” today could be fought over and lost tomorrow and in most cases the losers becoming slaves or dinner!

Governor Hobson only authorized one Treaty text to be signed by the chiefs and that was in the Maori language -  Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In 1989 the final English draft (Littlewood treaty document) compiled by Governor Hobson from Lord Normanby’s instructions and used by Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate our Tiriti o Waitangi into Maori, was found. (See “The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Tiriti of Waitangi found,” by Martin Doutre. www.treayofwaitangi.net.nz).

When Governor Hobson dispatched Major Bunbury to collect further signatures from the southern tribes, he wrote, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an English version of the Tiriti o Waitangi to be signed by the chiefs, but   had 200 copies of Tiriti o Waitangi printed by the Church Mission Society, but not one in English. One of these printed versions was read, discussed and signed in the Waikato with one of James Freeman’s unauthorized versions being used to receive further signatures when the printed version in the Maori language would hold no more.

By using the final draft, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the words spoken by Governor Hobson as he shook each chiefs hand at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, there is NO misunderstanding of its interpretation. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. This was confirmed on the 5th February 1840 during the chief’s discussion with Hobson after he had read the Treaty and at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later when 200 chiefs again swore the alliance to the Queen.

Below is a copy of Governor Hobson’s final draft of the Tiriti o Waitangi, with Rev Henry William’s changes to his translation for clarification in red. Article two was left as “all the people of New Zealand” as it referred to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed, that owned land, dwellings and/or property at the time the Tiriti was signed. Sovereignty was also changed to “Government” in the Articles, as sovereignty was ceded to Britain in the Preamble. The articles were the laws that must be obeyed if the chiefs accepted the Tiriti o Waitangi. Over 500 chiefs signed the Treaty in 1840 and New Zealand became a British Crown Colony under English law based on the Magna Carta.

In 1947 New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster and all the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens.

Copy of the Final Draft – with changes made by the Rev Henry Williams for clarification to the Tiriti o Waitangi in red.
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration of the chiefs and the (people or New Zealand to Hapus of New Zealand), and Her desire to preserve to them their lands 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 of their country and of the islands adjacent, to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving, and 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 Mr. 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 tukua/give up) 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 (Soverignty to Government) of their country.                 Note. Sovereignty was ceded in the Preamble, “such parts/territories to be ceded/tukua/given up to Her Majesty.

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.                                             Note. All the people of New Zealand referred to Paheka.

Article Third

In return for the cession of their (Sovreignty to Government) to the Queen, the ( people of New Zealand to Maoris) shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
 

Signed, William Hobson, Consul and Lieut. Governor.
 

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the (4th to  6th) of February 1840.

The final draft has the word ‘soverignty’ spelt wrongly and it is dated the 4th February 1840. All back translations have ‘sovereignty’ spelt correctly and are dated the 6th February 1840 therefore this is not a back translation as our government historians falsely claim. It is the final draft and stops all the distortion of our founding document giving preferential rights to Maori never intended by Governor Hobson or the chiefs that signed it in 1840. The Tiriti o Waitangi gave all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed, “the same rights as the people of England” – No more – No less!

The final draft is held in the Constitution Room at Archives New Zealand in Wellington but only shows one side, the side giving the same rights, “to all the people of New Zealand” is conveniently obscured.

The Tiriti o Waitangi was a lot more than an agreement with ‘tangata Maori’, it was a guarantee, a promise, by Queen Victoria and the chiefs that, “all the people of New Zealand and their property would be protected and they would be given the same rights as the people of England”. Surely we are not going to let a few people that can claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry continue to distort our Tiriti o Waitangi for their own gain. Surely, as a Nation, we have not become so weak, that a few (perhaps 100) that can claim a minute trace of ‘tangata Maori’ ancestry can hold the majority to ransom based on a false English Treaty text!

If we do not use our founding document, the Tiriti o Waitangi as our basis for the new Constitution then what do we base it on? The Bolivian Constitution, where the indigenous people have sovereignty over the whole country and are given sole rights to all its resources? It must be remembered our Prime Minister, the Hon John Key foolishly recognized ‘tangata Pakeha’  as the Indigenous People of New Zealand without forensic evidence, so it is only natural that if the Tiriti o Waitangi is NOT used as the basis for our Constitution, then it will with the help of the United Nations,  be based on the Bolivian Constitution, which is already being discussed and favoured by the Maori Parties. We must not let this happen, we must oppose it to the end. The Tiriti o Waitangi, which over 500 chiefs signed, gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

Oh how times have change, while Sir Apirna Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs honoured the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1922, today’s Maori politicians continue to distort it to give preferential rights to ‘tangata Pakeha’ over their fellow New Zealand Citizens. Below are extracts from, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, by the Minister of Native Affairs, Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922.

“Let me issue a word of warning to those who are in the habit of banding the name of the Treaty around to be very careful lest it be made the means of incurring certain liabilities under the law which we do not know now and which are being borne only by the Pakeha”.

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This in itself is Maori custom – revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot be objected to in the light of the Treaty”.

If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”.

Although ‘Pakeha’ offends some people, it has been used here, as it was the word used in the Tiriti o Waitangi to define the two races -‘tangata Maori’ and ‘Pakeha’.

THE END ©

Compiled by Ross Baker for the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. 1/10/2011. www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Past members of the Waitangi Tribunal believe it is!

A recently published book by Dr John Robinson, “The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Industry Overview’ puts right his astonishing revelation that as a Waitangi Tribunal researcher he had to falsify evidence to get paid.

Hired to study Maori depopulation from 1850-1900, he found the main cause was a chronic shortage of potential parents.  The inter-tribal holocaust of the 1820s and 1830s had extinguished up to forty percent of the race, and it was customary practice to kill newborn girls.

This was not what Dr Robinson’s state masters wanted to hear. They ‘encouraged’ him to blame the decline on the ‘catastrophic’ effects of Maori land loss. And so, against all the evidence, he did.

His book sets the record straight. It exposes the corruption within the Waitangi Tribunal to write reports to allow claims to proceed.

During our research for this article we came across 5 other ex-Waitangi Tribunal members that were concerned with re-writing our history to allow some of these claims to proceed. This included former Labour Cabinet Minister Michael Bassett who regularly criticised the tribunal, accusing his fellow members of bias. He criticised the tribunal’s Tauranga report, in which he recorded a minority view. In a subsequent newspaper column he accused his fellow members of “inventive arguments” and said it was time to “review the tribunal’s usefulness”. After ten years on the Tribunal he did not want to be reappointed.

Six ex-Waitangi Tribunal members have now come forward to expose the corruption within the Tribunal to deceive the people of New Zealand. We also believe there are a lot of people who work in the treaty claims industry – whether they work for the tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements or whatever – who share some concerns about the way history is being distorted/rewritten, but they are not in a position to voice those concerns.
Many of these claims had been heard in 1930/40 and while some were rejected others received full and final settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal has recommended and the government has settled many these claims again costing millions of dollars and some of our countries most valuable assets but from the six members of the Waitangi Tribunal that have come forward, it seems on rewritten history or corrupt evidence. See article below.

Instead of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlement researching our history to prove a breach to the Treaty of Waitangi occurred, they are now re-writing history and the Treaty to allow the claim to proceed. This was never the intention of the taxpayer funded Waitangi Tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements.

The Government must hold an inquiry into the alleged corruption within the Waitangi Tribunal and the Office of Treaty Settlements.

Historian Giselle Byrnes criticises the tribunal.
By DIANA McCURDY, NEW ZEALAND HERALD, 10 July 2004.

Every week, 19 researchers and historians at the Waitangi Tribunal painstakingly unearth new information about New Zealand’s disappearing past. As they investigate Maori claims against the Crown, the researchers document aspects of history never before recorded on paper. In an improbable twist, the tribunal – one of New Zealand’s more controversial institutions – has become a nursery for the rewriting of New Zealand’s history.

It seems a laudable enterprise. But questions are emerging about the academic validity of the history the tribunal is producing. In a new book, The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment”. The tribunal, she says, is not writing “objective history”. Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present. It commits the ultimate faux pas of judging the past by the standards of the present.

“As an historian, I believe history is inherently political, but the tribunal does not acknowledge that it has a philosophy or even that it is writing history, instead repeatedly saying it is simply issuing a report as a Commission of Inquiry.” In some cases, the political bent of the tribunal is strongly evident. In its 1996 Taranaki report, for example, the tribunal openly responds to the Government’s fiscal-envelope policy of the previous year. “It was clearly saying in that report … that this claim is just going to blow that kind of thinking apart. It really tried to challenge that mentality that there should be a cap on treaty settlements.”

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians – including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver – have raised similar concerns.

Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says. “I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

For her part, Dr Byrnes is at pains to stress that she is a strong supporter of the claims process. She regards the tribunal as a worthy institution that deserves greater support from both the government and the general public. However, she is adamant that the history the tribunal is writing should not go unchallenged simply because it is politically sensitive. Indeed, the very fact that the tribunal’s reports receive so much public attention is further justification for exposing it to scholarly critique.

“This is an area of energy and activity that is exposing a huge amount about our history. We need to pay it serious attention because the tribunal is publishing these historical narratives and people are buying these books thinking they are truthful accounts. In lots of ways they are, but we need to engage with this.”It’s not that the tribunal is deliberately setting out to deceive, Dr Byrnes says. Ultimately, the bias and politicism of tribunal reports can be traced back to its governing legislation, which requires it to have a quasi-judicial role.

Often, the tribunal’s historians produce excellent research. But that research then has to be presented in a form palatable to the adversarial environment of the tribunal. The version, which eventually reaches the public, is the tribunal’s summary and interpretation of that research. The resulting flaws in tribunal history are typical of tribunals, commissions of inquiry and human rights investigations everywhere in the world, Dr Byrnes says. Whenever history is pressed into the service of the law – where history is employed as evidence – distortion is inevitable.

So if the bias is inevitable, what is the point of her criticism? Why not accept that the reports are quasi-judicial findings and not works of academic rigour? Dr Byrnes returns to the mass consumption of the reports by the media and the general public. She believes the tribunal should make overtly clear its inherent bias otherwise there is a danger that lay people reading tribunal reports will be misled. “If you don’t read the reports alongside the legislation it does look like it’s very biased history.”

Waitangi Tribunal chief judge Joe Williams acknowledges Dr Byrnes’ concerns. He’s heard them before, from other historians. Yes, he says, the tribunal’s reports differ from the history produced in New Zealand’s universities. However, that doesn’t mean the history in the reports is flawed. ”Personally, I don’t think the standard applied to academic history in New Zealand universities is anywhere near as rigorous as the standard applied to the recording of truth in an adversarial tribunal such as ours, in which the disciplines being applied are not just history but tikanga Maori, anthropology, economics, all sorts of things.” Judge Williams almost embraces the charge that the tribunal is a “presentist” body. He says there’s no question that the tribunal must remain sensitive to the standards of the past, but it can’t be a slave to them.

As a truth and reconciliation body, the tribunal is required not merely to describe and understand the past, but also to judge it, he says. This means that the tribunal must assess the past by the standards of today.

“This is something historians feel deeply uncomfortable with … “We are there to describe, to understand and then judge. And it’s from judgment that reconciliation comes. This is something historians have never done before, and the historians on the tribunal really tussle with this challenge of taking it beyond understanding to judgment … “Historians hate that, and I don’t blame them because in my experience it’s bloody hard.”

OUR PAST: IN SEARCH OF THE TRUE STORY
Victoria University historian Giselle Byrnes began to question the history being produced by the Waitangi Tribunal while working there as a researcher. She joined the tribunal staff in 1995 fresh from completing her PhD at Auckland University. She was excited by the chance to use her skills as an historian away from the gleaming spires. “It opened my eyes, in one sense, to the contemporary utility of history and the real-world politics in which it gets used.”

Soon she developed creeping misgivings. “I remember working at the tribunal and having lunchtime conversations with other people who worked there about the significance of the tribunal and what it was doing. For a number of reasons, it was impossible while I was there to think about this in any sustained manner.” When she left the tribunal after two years to teach Maori-Pakeha relations at Victoria University’s history department, Dr Byrnes had an opportunity to reflect more on her misgivings. She started giving students tribunal reports to read as examples of how history is used in the modern world. In turn, this motivated her to begin critiquing the reports from a scholarly perspective.

“There are a lot of people who work in the treaty claims process – whether they work for the tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements or whatever – who perhaps might share some concerns about the way history is used, but they are not in a position to voice those concerns.”
The End.

The One New Zealand Foundation Inc would be very interested in any other past or present member of the Waitangi Tribunal or the Office of Treaty Settlements that have concerns in relation to the work of these two institutions. The people have a right to know the truth.

1. Waikato Times, 29/10/2011
2. ONZF, 14/11/2011

Colonising Myths Maori Realities
by Ani Mikaere (Huia, ISBN: 9781869694531).
Waikato Times Review. 29/10/2011. The author, a tutor of Maori law and philosophy, has brought together a collection of papers showing the impact of what she calls Pakeha law on Maori legal thought and practices. It would be easy to dismiss this work as the rhetoric of yet another Maori academic beating the drum of Maori suppression by a colonising nation. That would, however, be an injustice. Although the rhythm of unresolved grievance and an undertone of feminism permeate the work, there are a number of issues she addresses that few others have treated with equal frankness. Most non-Maori people with an interest in the subject will find some of the issues addressed uncomfortable. They nonetheless should be addressed.
In the early days of colonisation, Maori were treated in a manner unacceptable in any nation today and some of the effects of that era are still obvious. The book is challenging and some readers will find at least some of the assumptions about modern Pakeha attitudes to things Maori untrue and even offensive. Of particular provocation is the assumption that Pakeha born in New Zealand carry an inherited guilt as the product of an invading culture and are therefore insecure in their claimed indigeneity (sic). Some will find that laughable, but this is an important debate and the author presents a legitimate opinion from one end of the academic spectrum. The work makes a valuable contribution for that alone. The End

ONZF Review 14/11/2011.

Colonising Realities and Maori Myths
Ani, I have no “inherent guilt” and my people did not “invade” this land!

It’s a pity Ani Mikaere had not read the letter from the 13 northern chiefs in 1831 inviting the King to be their protector and guardian or the chief’s speeches on the 5th February 1840 or the chief’s speeches at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later before she put pen to paper. She may then have respected and honoured her ancestors that asked for, understood and appreciated colonization, the Tiriti o Waitangi and the English law it brought to a country “abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”. By 1840 an estimated 60,000 Maori had been slaughtered, taken as slaves or eaten. Taranaki, Auckland and most of the South Island had been deserted and Maori were on the brink of becoming extinct. We would have thought with her feminist views, Ani would have been in favour of English law – one law irrespective of race, colour, gender or creed.

It’s also a pity she did not speak to Dr Ranginui Walker before referring to Maori as “tangata whenua”. “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants). The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes. Fr Reference. Book of Events, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker.om this time on the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.            New Zealand Book of Events, page 18 by Dr Ranginui Walker.

The Tiriti o Waitangi refers to Maori as “tangata Maori” not “tangata whenua” – an earlier race of people, which Maori traditions are quite clear: were fair skinned with light or red hair. When the Pakeha disembarked they merged with the “tangata Maori”, which traditionally should have been called, “tangata Pakeha”, who helped enforce the English laws the 13 northern chiefs had asked for in 1831.

“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”,      The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, by Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs, 1922.

So Ani, we “Pakeha” should have no “inherent guilt” and our ancestors did not “invade” your country. We are extremely proud of our ancestors that were invited to be your ancestor’s guardian and protector that stopped a race of cannibals from becoming extinct and their country forcibly stolen by the French.

Proud “Pakeha” New Zealanders.