How
Do We Know That Maori Ceded Sovereignty? There are 12 Proofs. Julian Batchelor M.ED Hons, B.Th, Dip.
T’ching.
Proof 1 .The Speeches of the chiefs
A report by the Waitangi Tribunal in 2022 argued that Ngapuhi chiefs of Northland did not agree to cede sovereignty. This is contradicted by statements made by chiefs at Waitangi on February 5, 1840, and by the affirmation of 144 chiefs at Kohimarama in Auckland in August 1860.
Missionary William Colenso attended the Treaty debate among chiefs on February 5, 1840, and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the next day. He wrote an account of the events.
He recorded statements by various chiefs, and these statements reveal that the chiefs fully understood the meaning of ‘ceding sovereignty’ as set out in Article 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi. For example:
Te Kemara, a chief of the Ngatikawa, said, “Health to thee, O Governor! This is mine to thee, O Governor! I am not pleased towards thee. I do not wish for 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 all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, ‘Yes;’ but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down—Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler—No, no, no.”
Clearly, Te Kemara understood what ‘sovereignty’ meant.
Hakiro (son of Tareha, but who on this occasion appeared and spoke on behalf of Titore,* 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, (below) chief of the Ngatirehia Tribe, 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.”
Clearly, Tareha understood what ‘sovereignty’ meant.
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.”
Clearly, Rawira was inviting the British to govern Maori.
Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said “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.”
Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene) 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.”
Proof 2 .The Kohimarama Conference, 1860
Full notes of this conference can be found HERE
In August 1860, in an attempt to prevent the fighting in Taranaki from spreading to other regions and tribes, Governor Thomas Gore Browne held a conference for chiefs at Kohimarama, Auckland. 144 chiefs attended.
This was more chiefs than the number who attended Waitangi 20 years earlier. Many of these 144 chiefs were the same chiefs who signed the Treaty on February 6th, 1840 at Waitangi.
They had had 20 years to think about what they had done at Waitangi 20 years earlier. Usually, when people have a long time to think and ponder something, they typically get clarity. Isn’t that true?
Wikiriwhi Matehenoa of Ngati Porou said “We are all under the sovereignty of the Queen, but there have also been other authorities over us sanctioned by God and the Queen, namely, our Ministers”.
Horomona Toremi of Ngati Raukawa in Otaki said “You over there (the Pakehas) are the only chiefs. The Pakeha took me out of the mire: the Pakeha washed me. This is my word. Let there be one word for all of this island”.
Te Ahukaramu said “First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law”.
Tamati Waka Nene, one of the leaders who signed at Waitangi, said:
“My desire when Governor Hobson arrived here was to take him as our Governor, in order that we might have his protection. Who knows the minds of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say, let us have the English to protect us. Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor and this Queen our Queen. Let us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people. When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is through the teachings of that Word that we are able to meet together on this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha”.
It is clear by the words of these chiefs that they understood that cession of sovereignty meant that they would come under the sovereignty of the Queen, being ruled by her, through the governor. It’s a completey myth that the British were given permission by Maori to rule over only the unruly British, and not Maori. There is absolutely no historical evidence to support this.
The recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal that the Ngapuhi chiefs of Northland did not agree to cede sovereignty is manifestly incorrect and provides further proof that the Waitangi Tribunal should be abolished.
At the end of their Kohimarima conference, these 144 chiefs made a series of affirmations.
One of those affirmations is on the next page.
Proof 3. There is a third proof that Maori ceded sovereignty. At the church in Russell in Northland, there is the headstone of Tamati Waka Nene, the father of all the chiefs. He was the dominant speaker at Waitangi on the 5th of February 1840 at Waitangi. Scholars often point out that it was because of his speech that most of the chiefs ended up signing. He was very influential. Take a moment to read what is written on his headstone. Those are compelling words, aren’t they.
Skeptics have suggested that those words were not authorised by Tamati. How should we reply? Look at the date. 1871. Many of the chiefs who signed the Treaty were still alive in 1871.
There is no record anywhere of any of those chiefs, or any other persons, questioning those words. This tells us that it is beyond reasonable doubt that these words told the truth about not only what Tamati Waka Nene thought, but also what happened at Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840 - Maori ceded sovereignty.
Proof 4. Documented Evidence from records inside the British Parliament.
Significant academics, academics who make our own pale into insignificance, affirm that the Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty.
Take Dr Bain Attwood for example.
In one of his highly acclaimed books, he writes “In October 1840, the Colonial Office had welcomed Hobson’s 21 May proclamations of British sovereignty throughout New Zealand. It immediately approved and gazetted them, thereby setting the seal of British sovereignty over New Zealand1...what was most important in their eyes was that British sovereignty in New Zealand was now incontrovertible.”2 Bain goes on to say “...it was a historical fact that the Crown had asserted sovereignty over New Zealand and that consequently it was incontrovertible that all of New Zealand and all persons inhabiting its territory lay within the dominion of the Crown.”3 He is quoting correspondence in 1843 between Lord Stanley and the Attorney General in New Zealand, William Swainson.
Here is more evidence to make a mockery of the claims of Maori activists today that the chiefs only gave permission to the British to rule settlers, not Maori. ‘All persons’ means all persons. As usual, the claims of activists are found to be fiction when fact checked.
Another acclaimed Historian Dr Matthew Wright states “Sovereignty was explicit in the British understanding of the Treaty.” 4
Proof 5. The Views of Top NZ Academics and Authors
New Zealand Judge Anthony Willy (Barrister and Solicitor, who served as a Judge on four Courts: District, Environment, Tax and Valuation. He is a former Lecturer in Law at Canterbury University). writes “Without that recognition of British sovereignty there would have been no “Treaty” and the British would have sailed home leaving these islands to the tender mercies of the French who were waiting in the wings.”5
University of Canterbury Law Lecturer David Round states: “We may safely say, then, that assertions that Maori did not agree to the surrender of their sovereignty at Waitangi are patent nonsense, a modern invention and a lie.”
Acclaimed author Ian Wishart writes “Maori also knew something else. They already had ariki (paramount
1 Dr Bain Attwood. Empire And The Making Of Native Title. Cambridge University Press. 2022. page 187.
2 According to the dictionary, incontrovertible means ‘impossible to argue with’ or ‘impossible to deny or disprove.
3 Ibid, page 188.
4 Matthew Wright. New Zealand. An Illustrated History. Bateman Press. 2014. Page 73
5 https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-lore/
chiefs) within each tribe, but they were ariki of equal status to each other. As you’ve read in this book, Maori had often lamented that they needed someone of even higher mana to rule over them and settle their disputes, because their existing political structure was incapable of that. They also repeatedly made the comment that the person with the highest mana had to come from outside the tribes completely, hence the ongoing pitches for the British to step in. To turn around and now argue that Maori signing the Treaty of Waitangi did not understand they were surrendering their sovereignty to an entity of even higher mana defies belief, and history.”6
He goes on, “There’s another clue [that Maori ceded sovereignty] as well. Mana Motuhake. The phrase means ‘mana severed,’ and in its contect the movement wants to cut off Crown mana. There would be nothing to sever, if none had been recognised. And therein lies the fallacy of the academic argument. The Mana Motuhake movement, buy its very existence, proves sovereignty was ceded to the Crown.”7
Proof 6: Lord Normanby’s Instructions to Hobson.
There are the words of Lord Normanby. When Hobson left England on August 20th 1839 bound for New Zealand, he was given a 4200 word brief. This brief explained what the British government expected Hobson to do in NZ. Essentially, it was a job description. The full brief can be seen HERE. Below is an extract from this brief.
Please study the highlighted sentence. In effect, Normanby is saying to Hobson “The Queen, in the same vein as her predecessor King William, has made her will known to the British Parliament. You [Hobson] are not to take NZ from the Maori chiefs by force. If New Zealand is to become a British colony, you can only do so by getting the free intelligent consent of the Maori chiefs in New Zealand to cede sovereignty. If they don’t freely and intelligently cede sovereignty, via a Treaty, then pull out and move on.” ‘Sovereignty’ is clearly the implicit subject of this sentence.
The fact that Britain did not pull out of New Zealand in 1840 and move on, but carried on to this day colonising these Islands proves one thing beyond any doubt - the Maori chiefs, with their free and intelligent consent, ceded sovereignty.
Proof 7: Eye Witness testimonials of Settlers.
Another proof that Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840? The eye witness accounts of settlers who were at the Waitangi signing and who lived among Maori after the signing provide another powerful proof that Maori ceded sovereignty.
One such eye witness was the Rev. Samuel Warren (right) writing in 1863, an eye witness to the Treaty signing at Waitangi, February 6, 1840: He says:
“I was present at the great meeting at Waitangi when the celebrated treaty was signed, and also at a meeting
6 Ian Wishart. The Great Divide. The Story of New Zealand And Its Treaty. Howling At The Moon Publishing. 2012. p.165
7 Ibid p. 166
which took place subsequently on the same subject at Hokianga.
There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally on the subject of securing their proprietary right to the land, and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only too happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England.
In my hearing they frequently remarked, “Let us be one people. We had the gospel from England, let us have the law from England.” My impression at the time was that the natives perfectly understood that, by signing the treaty, they became British subjects, and though I lived amongst them more than fifteen years after the event, and often conversed with them on the subject, I never saw the slightest reason to change my opinion. [Editor’s note: i.e. they ceded sovereignty.]
The natives were at the time in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when they placed the British lion between themselves and the French eagle.”8
He is pretty clear, isn’t he. Maori were thrilled to have Britain take control of New Zealand, thrilled to have the British rule over them. It’s hard to argue with an eye witness, someone not pushing a political barrow. Living with Maori for 15 years after the event at Waitangi would give the someone a pretty good insight into what they were really thinking about what happened at Waitangi. Don’t you think?
Proof 8: The plaque in the grounds at Waitangi.
Still not convinced that Maori ceded complete sovereignty?
There is a plaque at Waitangi (below) which is still there today. It affirms the great fact. It is impossible to have dual sovereignty in a country i.e. The British being sovereign and Maori being sovereign. It’s a contradiction, or an oxymoron. It’s like saying “here is a four sided triangle.”
Either the British were sovereign, or Maori were sovereign, but not both. It’s one or the other.
The point of the wording on the plaque? New Zealand could only have become part of the British Empire if the chiefs had ceded sovereignty.
Proof 9: The Writing Of Sir Apirana Ngata.
One of the greatest proofs that Maori ceded sovereignty comes from New Zealand’s greatest Maori scholar, Sir Apirana Ngata. He was a politician in the 1920s and 30s. He was also a lawyer, and sometimes stood in as the deputy Prime Minister. In Parliament, he was called ‘the Father of the House’. Fluent in Te Reo, he traveled the Maraes of New Zealand, teaching Maori about the Treaty.
8 Twisting the Treaty. Tross Publishing, p48
He said “What remains of the Treaty of Waitangi? What is there in the Treaty that the Maori can today celebrate whole heartedly with you? Let me say one thing. Clause 1 of the Treaty handed over the mana and sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.” 9
It’s obvious isn’t it. Sir Apirana Ngata considered that Maori ceded sovereignty at Waitangi. Only a fool would poo poo his judgment on this issue.
Proof 10: The November 16, 1840 Letters Patent.
With British Sovereignty firmly asserted, Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter/ Letters Patent dated the 16 November 1840 ratified that Sovereignty had been legally and morally obtained by Great Britain over all the Islands of New Zealand. This was recognised and accepted by the rest of the world ever since.
Proof 11: The passing of the New Zealand Constitutional Act 1852
The New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom that granted selfgovernment to the Colony of New Zealand. It was the second such Act, the previous 1846 Act not having been fully implemented. The purpose of the Act was to have constitutional independence from Britain.
The British parliament would not, and could not, have passed this piece of legislation unless it had achieved sovereignty over the Islands of New Zealand. One can’t have ‘constitutional independence from Britian’ if one didn’t have ‘constitutional dependendence’ in the first place. And how did NZ come to have ‘constitutional dependence’ on Britain in the first place? Maori gave it to them through the Treaty i.e. the chiefs ceded sovereignty.
University of Canterbury law lecturer David Round say “The establishment of the New Zealand Parliament itself was an expression of British sovereignty.”10
Proof 11: Geo-Political Proof
During Queen Victoria’s reign she oversaw the largest expansion to the British empire. As well as New Zealand she colonized; British Guiana, Brunei, Canada, Falkland Islands, Gold Coast, Kenya, Kuwait, Newfoundland, Rhodesia, St. Lucia, and Uganda among others. Why would she allow Maori to keep their sovereignty, when her focus on EVERY other country was to gain supreme power? To acquire sovereignty? If it was Queen Victoria’s aim for Maori to keep their sovereignty, why did she send soldiers and armaments to New Zealand after the treaty of Waitangi during the land wars when her sovereignty was challenged?
Summary.
I have given twelve proofs that Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840.
1. The speeches of the chiefs.
2. The Affirmation of 144 chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.
3. Tamati Waka Nene’s headstone at the church in Russell.
4. Documented evidence from inside the British Parliament.
5. The views of top New Zealand acedemics and authors.
9 Andy Oakley. Once We Were One. The Fraud of Modern Separatism. Tross Publishing. 2017. p179 10 Twisting the Treaty. Tross Publishing, p48
6. Lord Normanby’s Instruction to Hobson.
7. Eyes witness testimonials of settlers.
8. The plaque in the grounds at Waitangi.
9. The writings of Sir Apirana Ngata.
10. The November 16, 1840 Letters Patent.
11. The passing of the New Zealand constitional Act, 1852.
12. Geo-Political proof.
Just one of these proofs is powerful, but in combination they make for an incontrovertible case that Maori ceded sovereignty in 1840.
Not just partial sovereignty (i.e. activists try and tell us that the chiefs only gave permission for the British to rule over British settlers, but not Maori) , but, as Lord Stanley said, complete sovereignty, over all the people and all the land and all the resources of this country.
Why is this document important? It’s hugely important because it knocks over / refutes / puts to bed/ torpedoes many of the myths which the activists have propagated. Because they have relentlessly groomed / conditioned the population with these myths for the past 50 years, many Kiwis now believe them.
These are:
1. Myth 1. The Treaty is a partnership. Despite what the courts say (via activist judges) in their interpretation of the Treaty, the fact remains that Maori ceded sovereignty. A careful study of the meaning of the words ‘sovereignty’ and ‘cede’ leads to the incontrovertible conclusion that the British in 1840 achieved complete control of New Zealand, not partial control. ‘Partnership’ and ‘sovereignty’ are mutually exclusive concepts, not unlike saying “Here is a four sided triangle.”
2. Myth 2. That Maori are still sovereign, even though they ceded sovereignty in Article 1. They use the Maori phrase “tino rangatiratanga” or “Mana motuhake” to try and bamboozle everyone.
These Maori phrases are both code for “Maori did not cede sovereignty.” 11 They say this because they know that if they ceded sovereignty, then they can’t be in control of the country.
In Article 1, there is no doubt that Maori ceded sovereignty.
Even most Maori Activists can’t get around this.
So what do they do? One thing they do is change the meaning of Article 2, sentence 1 which says “The Queen 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.”
The best way to explain what they do is like this.
Imagine a map of NZ. In the middle of the North Island, draw a red square 1cm x 1cm (right). Let’s say this square represents the land owned by a particular tribe at the 6th of February 1840. The British considered that everything on that piece of land – including the land itself – dwellings, chattels,
11 Maori flesh these Maori words out to mean “Self-determination, sovereignty, autonomy, self-government, domination, rule, control, power. Highest chieftainship. Māori are in charge of their land & resources, and aspirations. Māori acting with authority and independence over their own affairs. Tino rangatiratanga is a practice: Maori living according to tikanga lore (Maori beliefs / superstitions / customs. When they are all boiled down, they just mean Maori did not cede sovereignty.
rivers, mountains, forests – everything – was literally ‘owned’ by that tribe. The British promised to protect each tribes ownership of everything inside their 1cm square. By ‘tribe’ I mean that sometimes inside that 1cm there were families, Iwi, and Hapu, who also ‘owned’ parts of that land. Oftentimes many parts. The British sought to give each individual land owner individual title to their land. This was one of the priorities of the British.
Roughly 540 chiefs signed the Treaty. So in effect, we could say (not literally, but figuratively speaking), there were 540 x 1cm² squares all over New Zealand, each square representing the land owned by each tribe. Not all the squares were 1cm². Some were smaller, some larger, depending on the size of the tribe and the size of the land they owned. And inside that square were multiple pieces of land owned by families or groups of Maori, and not by the chief.
Now, go back to Article two sentence one again and focus on the word “possession”. In the Maori version of the Treaty, the word property translates as “tino rangatiratanga”.
This Maori phrase is a translation of the English word “possession” or “ownership”. All the British were promising in the Treaty was that they would protect the Maori ownership of everything inside their 1cm square.
In 1989, Waitangi Tribunal member and settlement claimant, himself a Maori, Hugh Kawharu, did a back translation of the Treaty in Maori. He didn’t need to do this, as we already have the final English draft of the Treaty. That is to say, if you want to know what the Treaty in Maori says in English, just read the final English draft. Nonetheless, Kawharu did his “back translation”. Surprise Surprise! He changed the meaning of tino rangatiratanga, telling us it really meant “unqualified exerices of chieftainship”.
What he meant was the the chiefs were still the chiefs over all New Zealand or “Maori did not cede sovereignty.”
What else did Kawharu get up to? He translated the word ‘property’ (in Maori the word is “taonga”) in Article 2, sentence one, as ‘treasures’.
The authentic 1840 meaning of taonga is “property procured by the spear.”
Bruce Moon writes : “The word “taonga” that the Williams chose for “property” was precisely what it meant in 1840 – chattels or ordinary possessions. The word has an interesting history. In 1820 while assisting Kendall and Lee of Cambridge in compiling the first Maori dictionary, Hongi Hika had defined it as “property procured by the spear – tao”. In an appeal for protection by 13 Ngapuhi chiefs to King William in 1831, they said “We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes.” And their word for “possessions” was “taonga”. Note that two of their four taonga they owed to Europeans. Then with the vast influx of European material goods, they needed a word or them so the meaning of “taonga” expanded rapidly. However, in William Williams’ 1844 dictionary, it still meant only “property”. But ever since its meaning has kept on expanding, even exploding! Hugh Kawharu proceeded to state: “As submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Maori language have made clear, ‘taonga’ refers to all dimensions of a tribal group’s estate,
material and non-material – heirlooms and wahi tapu (sacred places), ancestral lore and whakapapa (genealogies), etc.” Well, maybe now, but why in translating an 1840 document, did he not give the 1840 meaning of this word? He distorted the integrity of the treaty and those who signed it.”12
In other words, tribes went on raids against other tribes pre-1840 and they used spears as weapons as they did so. When they entered the pa site of another tribe, they killed and ate the inhabitants, or enslaved them, and stole their possessions. Those possessions were said to be “procured by the spear.” When Kawharu translated taonga as “treasures”, reaty fraud really ramped up.
Maori quickly came to claim that anything Maori treasure in New Zealand is theirs.
That is to say, by changing the original meaning of this word, Maori started to “claim” things that were not in their 1cm² in 1840.
An example would be awarding part of the 5G cell phone network in New Zealand to Maori “because the Treaty promised this”.
Another example would be the claim by Maori that the Treaty “promised” to protect and promote the Maori language.
Another would be that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed, or all the water.
I can’t, now, think of one government department which does not require their institution to “Give effect to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and its principles” supposedly “promised” in the Treaty?
Question - where are they getting all this from?
Answer? They are getting it from Hugh Kawharu’s fraudulent interpretations of ‘possession’ and ‘taonga’ in Article 2, sentence one.
How should we view these ‘awards’ or ‘settlements’ or ‘treaty claims / promises’ or ‘treasures’?
In two words, they are outright fraud. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty about the British ‘guaranteeing’ these things to Maori.
Go back to the 1cm² analogy.
Re: gifting Maori the 5G network. It’s impossible to procure a 5G network with a spear. For a start, the 5G network did not exist in 1840 so it was not inside a tribes 1cm².
Re: the seabed and foreshore, and the water.
That all New Zealanders “owned” the foreshore and seabed, the water and air in a Western Society “was a principle first written down, as far as records exist, by the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, about 530 AD. He is famous for compiling and rewriting Roman law, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His law of public commons states (in English) “By natural law itself these things are the common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea.”
What is this saying?
12 Bruce Moon. NZ. Fair Colony. pages 5-6
It’s saying that according to British law, “the air, running water, the sea and with it the shores of the sea” are owned by the government, managed by them for the benefit of all New Zealanders. And because British law was installed here in 1840 via the cession of sovereignty in Article 1 of the Treaty, the same law applied here as well.
It was implicit in the Treaty i.e. it didn’t need to be spelt out in the Treaty because it was just part of British law.
Re: the Treaty promising to protect and promote the Maori language.
Just read the Treaty and see if you can see this promise. It’s not there. The British understood that the Maori language, culture, and customs were to be preserved and promoted by Maori themselves as they went about their lives inside their 1cm² squares. Really, it’s a ridiculous idea that one culture (i.e. the British) would be made responsible for preserving and promoting the language, culture, customs of another culture (i.e. the Maori). With every other cultural group in New Zealand, each cultural group is responsible to preserve and promote their own language, culture, and customs. In short, they delight to preserve and promote their culture because it’s ‘in them’ to do so. It’s part of their very DNA. When Maori put the onus on the government to promote Maori language and culture, things don’t add up.
Think about it – if Maori language, customs, and culture were really valuable to Maori, wouldn’t they want to take responsibility to pay for and promote their own culture, customs and language? So why have they not done this?
In New Zealand today, there are 160 cultures. One of those is the Maori culture. Maori are the only one of the 160 who demand that the government be responsible for promoting their language, culture, and customs. The other 159 want to fund and promote their own language and culture, but Maori want to be paid to do it. Doesn’t that seem odd?
There must be other motivations at play here. It does not require much effort to see what they are.
Think about it - Maori boast that they have a $70B Maori economy , so why aren’t they using their own money to develop their language and culture? There is no valid reason to use taxpayers money, when they have plenty of their own. So just what is the reason?
Playing the ‘you promised to promote Maori language, customs, and culture through the Treaty’ card has proved to be a wonderful cash cow. It’s lucrative. To view just one example of the money going to Maori for the development of their language, customs, and culture, click HERE.
Ok, back to the 1cm² squares.
One of the first tasks the British undertook in the early 1840s was to establish the size and boundaries of each tribe’s ‘square’. As I said, some were larger than others, depending on the size of the tribe. Once established, titles were issued.
The practice of surveying land and issuing title was described by Lord Normanby (i.e. Hobson’s superior in London) as “that system of sale [i.e. in anticipation of buying land from Maori] which experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British settlements.”
So important was the issue of surveying the land and the issuing of titles that Lindsay T. Buick reports that Hobson took Surveyor General (i.e. the head of a small army of suveyors who came to NZ after 1840) to set up the new colony. “Mr. Felton Mathew, [came] with Hobson as the Surveyor - General to the new colony.”13
13 Lindsay T. Buick. The Treaty Of Waitangi Or How New Zealand Became A British Colony. Wellington N.Z. S. & W. Mackay Lambton Quay 1914. page 85
In New Zealand today, 2024, the British system of surveying the land and issuing titles has been preserved. Every property in NZ today has to be surveyed, boundaries established, and a title issued.
So here is my main point – over the past 50 or so years, from 1974 onwards, activists have slowly moved the goal posts.
The British only ever intended, and the Treaty only ever mandated, to protect the possession / ownership of Maori “land, dwellings, and property” inside their 1cm² squares.
The activists now say the British “promised”, via the Treaty, to protect the Maori possession / ownership of all of the natural resources of all New Zealand forever.
This is a gross and fraudulent interpretation of what the Treaty promised. It’s pure fantasy. It’s akin to a magicians trick - putting a rose into a black bag and pulling out a rabbit.
It’s like someone today owning a 50 acre farmlet with a stream running through the property.
They tell everyone who visits that they own the water running through their property i.e. their 1cm². This is the truth.
Over time the story changes to “we own all the water in our entire district.” This is not the truth.
Over more time the story changes further.
It becomes “We own all the water in the entire country.” This is not the truth.
Can you see the goal post shift? From 50 acre farmlet, to whole district, to whole country.
To describe this “we own all of New Zealand” idea, activists use words “tino rangatiratanga” or “ mana motuhake” to bamboozle the public.
So when they use these words, you now know what they are talking about. They are talking about their supposed right, via the Treaty, to own all the resources of the whole country. They do not have sovereign rights over the whole country. This idea, as I have said, it pure fantasy.
3. Myth 3. That Maori have the right to control resources in our country like forests, and fisheries, the coastline, the airwaves, the water, and so on. As I have already said, the Treaty did not mandate this. Again, when the Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty, they gave up their right to control the resources in our country, except those which were privately owned. The resources of our country are managed by the elected government, on behalf of the all the people.
4. Myth 4. That in 1840 the Maori chiefs only gave the British the right to govern unruly settlers, not Maori. The Treaty did not mandate this. When the Maori chiefs ceded sovereignty, they gave the British the right to rule over Maori, all of them, forever. Almost all the 12 proofs I have provided here affirm this great truth.
Many Kiwis have come to believe these myths as being true. As the saying goes “If you believe a lie for long enough, and it’s repeated often enough, you begin to believe the lie as being the truth.” Read more about this
Sources
1. William Colenso, The History of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/ tei-Stout69-t3-body-d2-d1a.html
2. Proceedings of the Kohimarama Conference, July 1860. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/ MMTKM18601130.2.6?
Please subscribe to our Youtube channel for videos, articles, and papers which make the Treaty easy to understand,
https://www.youtube.com/@stopcogovernance