By William Chambers

Activists within the Waitangi Tribunal are claiming that the Māori chiefs did not cede sovereignty … by falsely alleging that it was not the intent of the British to have them do so.  And, by deviously misinterpreting the Te Reo version of the Treaty as meaning they had agreed to self-determination; or to govern in partnership with the Crown.

This is an issue that has the potential to result in very serious consequences if allowed to go unchallenged.  An example being that Te Pati Māori (The Separatist Party) are using this fraudulent myth to push for a separate Maori Parliament. 

But here’s the kicker … for starters, they’ve already said, quote: “Our Maori Parliament will levy a 2% commission on ALL property sold or leased in Aotearoa.” !*#@=!*!

So, did the Maori chiefs cede sovereignty to the British Crown?

Cede means relinquish.  Sovereignty is supreme authority, that is, power to govern.

To counteract all the devious fabricating of the truth, here is a concise summation … that no matter who might claim that Maori did not cede sovereignty, or the reasons they might come up with as so-called proof … one thing none of them will ever be able to honestly dispute, is all the evidence presented here that the chiefs definitely ceded sovereignty. 

FACT:  Evidence of British intent for the Māori chiefs to cede sovereignty can be seen in documents housed in British Parliamentary Papers and Colonial Office archives (e.g., CO 209 series) 

Short Relevant Excerpt:  ‘…signaling the Crown’s pivot towards treaty-based sovereignty as a means to pre-empt French claims and protect Maori. . . .’

_______________________________________

FURTHER  FACT:  Part of the instruction regarding the Treaty from Lord Normanby to Governor Hobson was to negotiate terms with the natives for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority. 

And, to walk away if full sovereignty cannot be ceded; as without it, Britain will have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to New Zealand.

Despite the above evidence, activists argue that the British did not wish to have Maori cede sovereignty at all.  They insist vehemently that British sovereignty was to only apply to European settlers … many of whom were lawless at the time.

This scenario had been considered in earlier proceedings … but was scrapped as not being practical.  Sovereignty by one, encompassing all, was the only viable option.

And let’s be realistic about thissilly claim by activists … if the intent was for sovereignty to apply only to European settlers, then that sentiment would surely have been in the treaty preamble or Agreement, or recorded somewhere, or mentioned in a speech by someone.

For more documented evidence of British intent to have the Maori chiefs cede sovereignty … see below. 

TREATY PREAMBLE

Source: Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, Museum of New Zealand

Short Relevant Excerpt:  ‘. . . .for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands’ . . . . ‘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 New Zealand 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 of Individual Chiefs respectfully exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereign thereof.

_______________________________

Thus, there can be no argument as to whether the intent of the British was to have the chiefs cede sovereignty. 

Of course, to get around this, the tricksters will claim that the chiefs didn’t understand the meaning of sovereignty – so they weren’t aware that they would be under British Governance Authority.

To prove most chiefs knew very well what ceding sovereignty to the British Crown meant, I’ll quote just a couple of them from Waitangi in 1840 during discussions as to whether they should sign the Treaty.

Chief of Ngatkawa, Te Kemara, said: “Were all to be equality, then perhaps I’d say “Yes” but for the Governor to be up, and me to be down low, a worm, a crawler – No.”

Another chief, Tareha added: “We will not be ruled over.”

( Ref. William Colenso’s Journals )

So, despite the advantages of the treaty (i.e. preventing the self-annihilation of Maori due to their out-of-control intertribal warfare, and/or a takeover by the ruthless French) the reason some chiefs were initially hesitant about signing it, would’ve been due to concern about losing their mana.

For more proof that the chiefs knew what was going on, I’ll quote Rev John Warren: “I was present when the treaty was signed.  My impression was that the natives perfectly understood that by signing it they became British subjects.  Many natives were in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when placing the British Lion between themselves and the French eagle.”

(Ref. ‘The Treaty of Waitangi’ by T. Lindsay Buick)

Of significance, is that in 1860 a chief named Tamati Nene said: “I know no sovereign but the Queen and I shall know no other.”

Also of significance is that in 1901 a chief of the Wairarapa, Tamahau was reported in the New Zealand Times as saying, quote: “The British Queen is our Queen.” 

In 1940 Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs said, quote:”The Treaty handed over the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.”

Despite all the above evidence pointing to Maori having ceded sovereignty, activists of every hue (and the naïve folk they brainwash) turn a blind eye to it … and focus on just one twisted aspect, i.e. the misinterpretation in the Te Reo version of the treaty that the chiefs were guaranteed the right to self-govern.

Even though the English versions do not indicate that at all.

It needs to be kept in mind that Article 1. deals with sovereignty, and then Article 2. as a secondary progression from 1. focuses on property rights.

The defining point is that Article 1. in the English Draft states that Maori will cede sovereignty, which means Maori will be governed by the British Crown.

So, in Article 1. of the Maori version, the word sovereignty was translated as “kawanatanga” (“governorship”) which believe it or not, is now deviously misinterpreted as meaning governance over Maori land only.  Not over Maori personally!!  You couldn’t make this up.  And yet they have.

And it gets worse:  To back-up the shameless twisting, it’s also claimed that “chieftainship” in Article 2. means chiefs had the right of governorship over their Tribes. 

But, there’s a ridiculous contradiction at play, because what Article 2. (which focuses on property rights) really refers to is that chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) was about protecting Māori ownership of their land.  Not self-governance.  

You only have to read Article 2. in the treaty to realise that it was all about Maori “rights” to their property ownership.  Because it goes on to say that the Chiefs must grant to the Queen the exclusive right to purchase their land, if they wish to sell.  This was to ensure that Maori wouldn’t get ripped-off by unscrupulous buyers.

Those in responsible positions of influence, including Chris Hipkins … who push the deceitful dogma, should be taken to Court for treason.

The Case could be settled in three minutes flat.  Just as soon as they were shown up as fraudsters when unable to dispute all the evidence presented here.

Of course, the activists will say they stand firmly by the belief that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty because it’s what Hugh Kawharu came up with, when in 1986 he back-translated the Maori version of the treaty.

Yeah well, keep in mind that it’s alleged by many, that Kawharu was recognised as an Activist within the Waitangi Tribunal.

Someone back then, should have had the gumption to stand up to such glaringly obvious (irrational) child-like trickery.

Te Papa Museum clarifies what the treaty meant, quote: Kei a Kuini Wikitria te mana kawanatanga, kei nga rangitira te mana rangatiratanga

(Queen Victoria holds authority over the country and the chiefs hold right of possession).

There is more very clear evidence that the chiefs did cede sovereignty, such as, before the signing of the treaty, Governor Hobson stated explicitly: “As the law of England gives no civil power to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.” 

That this was understood and accepted, was confirmed beyond doubt at the largest ever meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 where they unanimously agreed they had consented to become subjects of the British Crown.

Another point is that after the Treaty had been signed, Hobson proclaimed: “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people).

So, ask yourself … why would he have said that?

And think about it … if the Chiefs really believed they had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then surely someone amongst them wouldhave disputed that unmistakable “statement” there and then.

In the 1987 “Lands Case” Court of Appeal, Justice Cook clarified what the Treaty really meant, i.e. quote: “The Queen would govern, and Māori would become her Subjects”. 

Talking about producing indisputable evidence that it had been accepted by most of the Maori chiefs that sovereignty was ceded to the British Crown, you’d have to wonder how Activists could wriggle their way out of what is clearly written on an historic headstone:

Tamati Waka Nene Died 1871 ‘Chief of Ngapuhi the first to welcome the Queen’s Sovereignty in New Zealand’

NOTE:  University Law lecturer, Dr David Round has said, quote: “Assertions that Māori did not agree to the surrender of their sovereignty at Waitangi is a patent nonsense, a modern invention, and a lie.”

And yet, activists, including all those within the Waitangi Tribunal, twist any evidence contrary to their fraudulent stance.  However, there is one thing that cannot be disputed … and that is, if in their minds the chiefs really believed that they had agreed to self-determination, then they would’ve run their own affairs right from the outset.  Rather than be “controlled” by the British.  Because at the time, Maori outnumbered them by a considerable margin.

Of course, activists will question why Maori would allow a minority of Europeans to have ultimate “power” over them, in their own country.

Well, in truth, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, the Chiefess of the greatest Empire in the World at the time … because they wanted to be part of that powerful regime, so as to share in its “success” and “security”.

Mind you, a defining reason centred around Maori facing the fact that they needed to place themselves under British governance … as being the only way to put a stop to their self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare, especially since the introduction of muskets, that started with Hongi Hika bringing 300 of them to NZ from Australia.

Incidentally: The whole matter can be settled by asking WHY in pre-treaty discussions, or the treaty Preamble, or the treaty “Agreement” was there absolutely no clear indication of what the chiefs were actually signing about (which was causing such angst) if it wasn’t ceding sovereignty (as spelled out in the Treaty Preamble).

You might also ask why Parliamentary seats were set up specifically for Maori.  And why Maori men achieved ‘universal suffrage’ 12 years before European men. 

And here’s the clincher:  If Maori had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then why would they have been given the right to vote when a “condition” of the ‘New Zealand Constitution Act’ was that only British Subjects could vote!!

NOTE:  If the argument is that Maori were able to vote because Article 3. granted equal “rights” and “responsibilities” … then just remember that hinged on the rights of citizenship … which could only come about by ceding sovereignty.  End of story.

CONCLUSION:  For anyone, especially the Waitangi Tribunal to claim that Maori did not cede sovereignty is shameful.

A former senior Labour Minister, Richard Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal … but, after becoming aware of the falsehoods being promoted, such as sovereignty having not been ceded, he resigned on principle.

Prebble described the Tribunal as, quote: “A rogue and self-perpetuating industry of grievance; re-writing history specifically to suit a radical agenda.”

______________________________________________________

To see more shocking revelations about the fraud going on in NZ click here: www.thetruth.nz

       or put The Truth NZ into a search engine.