The source document for the Treaty Principles Bill is the Treaty so my submission will focus on the Treaty.
The Treaty has five parts:
A Preamble
Article 1
Article 2
Article 3
An A@irmation.
In this submission I draw on facts and quotes from historians, and all quotes are academically referenced. Much of what I present today is the British perspective on the Treaty, a perspective drowned out by a cacophony of Maori activist voices in New Zealand. It’s time to restore a more balanced perspective.
I am using the final English draft of the Treaty written by James Busby and in his handwriting .
Governor Hobson made it clear in his journals that the final English draft of Treaty was written by Busby and was in his handwriting.
Yet the Treaty in English in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 schedule one is not in the handwriting of James Busby. It’s in the handwriting of someone called James Freeman. Which means what? The government has the wrong English version of the Treaty in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. The explains why there is a big di@erence between the so called English and Maori versions.
In turn, this has given rise to the need to invent principles to reconcile the di@erences.
There would be no need for so called “principles of the Treaty” if the true bone fide English final draft of the Treaty was in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act because this final English draft and the Treaty in Maori are perfectly aligned.
That is to say, if the courts, or Maori, or MPs, or the public wanted to know with 100% accuracy what the Treaty in Maori says, they would only need to read this final English draft.
If you want to know what the Maori chiefs read, understood, and signed o@ on in 1840, then read this final English draft.
If you want to fix the issue of Treaty principles once and for all, then for God’s sake, use the final English draft of the Treaty in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 as the o@icial Treaty in English. Amend the Act.
So, what does the Preamble of final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi say.
It says:
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an oBicer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen.
Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.
What exactly did the British promise to do in the Preamble?
Answer ? To set up a government in these Islands. What kind of government?
Answer?
Democracy, albeit in seed form. As the infant colony grew, so did the reality of democratic government grow.
For example, Māori men could vote for their own four Māori MPs from 1868. Adult women, Māori and Pākehā, could vote from 1893. Granting the vote to women was a landmark, and New Zealand was the first country in the world to do this, making it the world's first true democracy. These seeds of these democratic acts were planted in NZ in 1840. That these seeds germinated and grew into what we have now in NZ is proof that Hobson came here to install democracy.
We are the third oldest democracy in the world behind America and Switzerland.1
In the preamble of the Treaty, and indeed in the entire text both the Maori text and the English text, there is no mention of Partnership with
1 https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/08/countries-are-the-worlds- oldest- democracies/
Maori or that the British would only rule over British settlers. Why are these ideas blatantly and obviously missing from the plain reading of the entire Treaty ?
Answer? Because those ideas don’t exist in the Treaty. They are a mirage, the inventions of activists or politically motivated judges or both.
It is oxymoronic for a country to be sovereign, and have a partner in government. Partnership and sovereignty are mutually exclusive concepts.
The idea that the Treaty is a partnership is the greatest lie to ever come out of our courts and the mouths of our Judges. We ought never to accept their judgements when those judgements contradict the plain reading of the actual words of the Treaty.
Judges are not Gods.
They are just people and people are fallible & open to corruption. I reiterate, there is no mention of partnership in the Treaty. Any Party or government or MP who says the Treaty is a partnership is not just intellectually lazy but they are either delusional or deliberately and knowingly lying to the people of New Zealand.
David’s first principles says “That the government has the right to govern for all New Zealanders.” In light of the Preamble, to make David’s first principle law would be to honour the Treaty.
What about Article one?
This is what it says. “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.”
Here in Article 1, the chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and forever. What does this mean? It means Maori handed over the complete control of their country to the British, forever. Entire means entire. All of it. Not partial control, but entire control. Not the British only ruling over the British, but ruling over all citizens, including all Maori. Again, this is the plain meaning of the Treaty.
In 1843 inside the British Parliament, in a 3 day sitting on the question of NZ, Lord Stanley reported to his fellow MPs.
“...it was an historical fact that [in 1840] 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.”2
The dictionary defines the word incontrovertible as “not open to question. Indisputable.” Conclusion? Anyone who claims Maori did not cede sovereignty is living in history Disneyland. I have written another paper called “12 Proofs Maori Ceded Sovereignty ” which you can read HERE.
Interestingly, the British in 1840 sought out all the chiefs who signed He Whakaputanga or the Declaration of Independence, 1835, making sure they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. In other words, if the chiefs attained sovereignty in 1835, a fact disputed by many historians, they ceded it to the British in the Treaty five years later.
On what authority do we say this? Renown historian Dr Matthew Wright says “The declaration [of independence] was accepted by the Colonial OSice to the extent that its signatories were sought [and collected] for the Treaty of Waitangi, which superseded it.”3
Sir Apirana Ngata, New Zealand’s greatest Maori, affirmed that Maori ceded sovereignty when he said “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.” 4
And now to Article 2.
This has two parts.
The first sentence states “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.”
The key point I want you to grasp here is that the English word “possession” was translated as Tino rangatiratanga. It does not guarantee Maori ownership of their land in perpetuity. If Maori sold their land, they lost possession of it, the security transferred to the new owner.
2 Dr Bain Attwood. Empire And The Making Of Native Title. Cambridge University Press. 2022. page 187188
3 Dr Matthew Wright. Illustrated History of New Zealand. David Bateman Press. 2013. p51
4 Andy Oakley. Once We Were One. e Fraud of Modern Separatism. Tross Publishing. 2017. p179
Imagine how ludicrous it would be if home owners in NZ today could sell their properties, take the cash, spend it, and then demand that the government re-issue to them the ownership of the land they had just sold. It’s a complete insult to the British, and to the intelligence of all New Zealanders, that this idea is even being entertained.
Such a demand would be not only laughable, but nonsensical. Yet these demands are made by activists today, in the name of tino rangatiratanga, while MPs meekly nod in agreement, seemingly oblivious to the comical idea they are agreeing to.
I reiterate, if after 1840 Maori chiefs, Iwi, or Hapu sold their land, they lost possession of it.
The historical record shows without doubt that from 1840 onwards, Maori went on to sell 92% of their land. It was not stolen which is the narrative trotted out by activists with regular monotony today. It was sold.
So when Te Pati Maori leader Rawiri Waititi uses the word “rangatiratanga”, he uses it as meaning Maori sovereignty which is as close to reality as the reality of Snow White and the 7 dwarves.
I therefore call on the government to a@irm David Seymour’s original 2 principle because it synchronises perfectly with plain meaning of sentence 1, Article two.
Now to Article 2 second sentence, which reads as follows. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the 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.”
What did the British promise Maori here? To buy Maori land. That is all. Contrary to what activists and the media says today, the chiefs were hungry to sell their land.
Acclaimed historian Dr Bain Attwood reports “…[There was] a growing demand on the part of the natives to dispose of their lands without government interference or control.”
So the twin narratives that we hear today that Maori would never sell their land and that their land was stolen are manifestly untrue.
What about Article 3?
It reads:
“In return for the cession of their sovereignty to the Queen, the Maori people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”
When Maori in 1840 became British citizens, they automatically became equal before the law with all other citizens. The cry of Maori activists today to claim superior status over all other citizens has no foundation in the Treaty. Once again, it’s simply Treaty fantasy land. Therefore, if politicians want to be faithful to the Treaty, they would do well to make David’s 3rd principle law.
Finally, to the fifth and final part of the Treaty, the A@irmation. Here the Maori chiefs said they fully understood what I have just described and agreed to the same. They signed.
In summary, I support David Seymour’s Bill becoming law because his original 3 principles honour the Treaty of Waitangi in every respect.
If the government is sincere with its claim to want to honour the Treaty, and be faithful to the plain meaning of its actual words, then they would not hesitate to make David’s original three principles law.
A transcript of this submission is available at www.stopcogovernance.kiwi
Thank you.