“People in Wellington have a good understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and what needed to be done to honour it.” –Wellington City Councillor, Jill Day, in supporting Maori wards
Honour the Treaty
By Roger Childs
“Honour the Treaty” is a catch cry we hear often these days, but which Treaty? Silly question? No, there is a choice:
- The Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi) in Maori signed at Waitangi on 6 February 6 1840. Nine copies were made and sent to 34 locations around the country. 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed.
- The Freeman Treaty in English which was signed by 39 chiefs at Waikato Heads and Manakau. This version was needed because Maori versions of the original were not available. Unfortunately Freeman added some flourishes and additions of his own. (See more below.)
- The English draft prepared by British Resident James Busby from Captain Hobson’s notes. It was this draft that Missionaries Henry Williams and his son Edward translated into the Maori Te Tiriti.
- A copy of the English draft was sent by American Consul James Clendon to Washington DC. This is the same as what is known as the “Littlewood Treaty”. This hand-written Treaty text was discovered by John Littlewood and his sister in 1989. Their forebear, solicitor Henry Littlewood, did work for James Clendon.
- The 1989 Hugh Kawharu translation of the Maori version of the Treaty into English. He gave new meanings to the original Maori words in the treaty — taonga, kawanatanga and rangitiratanga. (See more below.)
The one and only true Treaty
This is the one Maori chiefs signed on 6 February at Waitangi and other tribal leaders signed in subsequent months around the country. What did it say in the three articles? In summary:
- Chiefs ceded sovereignty (Kawantanga) completely and forever to the Queen and her successors.
- The right of possession of their lands, dwellings and property (taonga) to “all the people of New Zealand”.
- All Maori were given the same rights as all British people.
Maori who wished to sell land could only do so through the Crown’s representatives.
There were no partnership mentioned, no principles and no reference to fisheries or forests.
So this Treaty is the only valid one as it was the original.
Freeman’s bogus Treaty
James Freeman was Hobson’s Secretary, and when a treaty for signing was needed at Waikato Heads and Manakau, he took it upon himself to write his own. (Hobson was sick at the time.)
His Treaty excluded the reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand” and he added “Estates, Forests Fisheries” to the possessions list in the same article.
Freeman sent his copy to the Governor of New South Wales.
His treaty was un-authorised so is not valid.
Kawharu’s mistranslation
Professor Hugh Kawharu 1989 version changed the meaning of three crucial words:
- Kawanatanga meant “sovereignty” in 1840, Kawharu made it “government”.
- Rangitiratanga appeared in the original preamble but not in the articles. In 1840 it meant “possession”. Kawharu translated it as “chieftainship”.
- Taonga meant property, however controversially Kawharu widened the meaning to “treasures” which opened the floodgates for claims to the Waitangi Tribunal.
The Waitangi Tribunal uses Kawharu’s version. Kawharu served on the Tribunal for a time and was also a claimant.
Honouring the Treaty of Waitangi
As stated above, this can only be to the original 1840 document. So in honouring the Treaty there can be no mention of partnership or principles as they didn’t feature in 1840.
Constitutionally the Crown (the government on behalf of the Queen) cannot enter into a partnership with a particular group of the population.
There was also no reference to foreshore, seabed, air waves, fisheries, forests or legislative provisions in the treaty signed at Waitangi. Unfortunately all these things have featured or been cited in Waitangi Tribunal claims and should not have been allowed to proceed.
The Treaty of Waitangi gave Maori equal rights, but not special rights.
fred said:
It would be nice if there were a few more English street names that people can relate to instead of the tiresome maori ones that few people relate to. The council seems to be wrapping this up so that its impossible to have a non maori street name at least until the next election.
Waikanae watcher said:
The government preference is for Maori names for new streets, although there have been European names also in Waikanae since 2017. Local iwi aren’t that exclusive.
Barbara Ward said:
So true.It feels like only some people are represented yet there are 85% more of other races in New Zealand
Pam Vernon said:
No references in this piece? Not one?
Bud Jones QSM said:
Roger Childs is the foremost expert on Treaty matters, he is word perfect here as well.
Bud JonesQSM
Pam Vernon said:
In which case why would he not add the references? I took the Treaty Paper at Massey & have not noticed he was an authority on topic?
AHNZ said:
Nice one. There is also a copy in the national archives at Kew I’d quite like to see. This is the copy, I presume, that George Clarke sent to the Home Government.
Ref. http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C8956085
Dave Witherow said:
Massey being a well-know outpost of the Treaty Industry would be the last place to look for anything more than propaganda on this subject. And if you want to rebut Roger Childs, let’s hear you try – rather than raising a smokescreen about references.
Pam Vernon said:
If you are considered an authority then it’s understood academically at least that you produce references for what you are saying. Standard practice. My comment is not a smoke screen at all. And if you consider the universities mere propaganda outposts then I’m wasting my time even commenting here.
Roger Childs said:
Hi Pam
Sorry be slow in getting on to this – I hadn’t caught up with the comments until recently. As regards sources, there are many eg Mike Butler ” Tribes Treaty Money Power”; Bruce Moon “New Zealand the Fair Colony”; Andy Oakley ” Cannons Creek to Waitangi”; Robinson & Childs “One Law or Two Monarchs” . You can also Google. The critical thing is what the Treaty said on 6 February 1840. There was no mention of “estates forests fisheries” in Article 2, but this article did include “all the people of New Zealand”. I’m sure you learnt this at your Massey course. Father and son Williams worked from an English draft to translate the Treaty into the Nga Puhi dialect. That English draft has become known as the Littlewood Treaty.
It is the unauthorised, fake Treaty of Hobson’s Secretary James Freeman which added “estates forests fisheries” and removed “all the people of New Zealand”, which must be rejected. Fortunately only 39 chiefs signed this version at Waikato Heads and Manukau. I don’t have a copy of Claudia Orange’s book, but I’m sure she covers all this. Strangely Michael King in his “History of New Zealand” got it wrong by using Freeman’s bogus version to represent what the Te Reo treaty actually said in English. The key thing is probably to read the original in Te Reo to see what words were used at the time.
Pam Vernon said:
Thank you Roger I will need to take time to read your sources. Will do so when time permits. Cheers.
John Robinson said:
Two particularly important sources of information on the Treaty are: (1) “The Treaty of Waitangi, an explanation”, by The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata MA, LLB, LitD. First published in 1922, with a translation into English by M R Jones. Published again by the Maori Purposes Fund Board with footnotes added. Available on the Victoria University website from the NZETC at http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-NgaTrea-t1-g1-t1.html. (2) “The Littlewood Treaty: the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi, found” by Martin Doutre. It is available at Paraparaumu Library.
Pingback: Bruce Moon responds to ‘Joe Descartes’ | Waikanae Watch
Wayne said:
Why do you describe “Freeman’s Treaty” as unauthorised and fake? The wording didn’t exactly match that of the version in Maori signed on Feb 6th, however it was signed by both the Crown’s representative (Hobson) and Maori chiefs. That in itself makes it a valid treaty. This treaty and the te reo version, are recognised by the Waitangi Tribunal as the only two true versions of the treaty of Waitangi.
PS The so called “Littlewood Treaty” was never a treaty but an unsigned draft unsigned by anyone.
Rose said:
The basic premise of the Treaty was to give Maori EQUAL rights and the protection of the law as British subjects of the crown. Not more, not less.