Waitangi speeches, Treaty principles and where is Britain when you need her?
If Shane Jones’s speech was best then something must be wrong. That was yesterday (05/02/2024) at Waitangi. Winston Peters and David Seymour both deliberately antagonised without subtlety. It was a shameless petulance peppered with calculated discourtesy that fell so far short of the dignity and statesmanship demanded for that place and time. Those two politicians conducted themselves in such a shabby manner that the activist demonstrators were left looking distinctly regal by comparison.
I cannot recall anything quite like this role reversal: both in behaviour and policy – those who once derided the Treaty wanting it upheld, those who once upheld the Treaty wanting it derided. Evidently their polling support relies on low brow white bigotry and little else. They had to generate heat to stay relevant to their base and it was a pathetic spectacle as they tried time and again to provoke a reaction. Winston was hyperventilating within seconds of stepping to the mic, the quietly murmmering crowd harangued as “hysterical” as he flailed his arms around and voice pitched hysterically. Rimmer looked like a dork, he acted like a cock, just utterly disrespectful. Rimmer’s argument for a referendum was so stupid it was a rambling stream of non sequiturs. If Rimmer’s hateful and illogical speech was part of the debate he has lost. It is a faux debate because the object is not about ideas and convincing, it is about activating fear to motivate reactionary racist white people.
Luxon gave a low energy stump speech from the safety of the mahau so dull people forgot to boo. His speech too was insulting for failing to address the Treaty and his quotation of a Chinese rather than a Maori proverb told us plenty about whose community is worth tokening. Luxon is a cucked egg-headed David Brent and it’s getting worse because as each public incident unfolds of the other two stooges running amok without him being able to rein them in the less confidence he has in himself and that is incredibly debilitating for someone who has only self confidence as his skill set.
As I watch the coverage from Waitangi Ned Fletcher’s 723 page book on the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi sits, still in a brown paper bag, in a pile with my other unread Kiwi classics. I bought it about six months ago, but I haven’t read beyond browsing the dust jacket – abandoned holiday masochism.
This fat volume’s ideology is permeating through the legal, academic and political elites, trickling through the bloggers, and is entering social media. It’s happening, it’s barely visible, but the references are mounting. This feels influential. This is how public discourse changes and before long the concepts (if not the attached jargon and phrases too) flow from the author, their circle, their profession into the board rooms, lecture theatres, courts, journals and departmental presentations until it finds itself noddingly echoed back and forth at the nation’s bourgie barbecues as a matter of widely accepted fact.
With Fletcher’s inside running connected to the incestuously closed Wellington power elite my expectation is this will be merely replacement mythology. I expect the conclusions drawn by Ned of the Fletcher clan will concur with the Palmer clan and every other Wellington legal scholar – a self-serving exoneration and confirmation of the state’s status quo and a breezy arrogance of the white liberal class in setting out the white settler community’s very high bottom lines that unilaterally abrogate the Treaty and to which their superior arguments the Maori are presumed to have yielded without fuss. I expect nothing less, nothing less.
I’ve seen mentions appearing in the timeline of comparisons with Treaties the British signed with other nations and I believe Fletcher’s book is the origin of this recent phenomenon. I burnt through a third of the word count in a column for Metro last year (April 2023) on just this point because the myth of the Waitangi Treaty as “unique” is a pet annoyance. The British made hundreds of Treaties all over the world – most of them more generous and better observed by the Crown than the Waitangi Treaty.
The utility to the white settler community of the “unique” Treaty myth is both to uplift the Pakeha and to patronise the Maori – to plead a special case of exception to Imperial oppression – which the Maori because of the uniqueness of its humanitarianism are bound by gratitude to honour and obey the Pakeha in the partnership. All this mythology is preconditioned on ignorance. Once that ignorance is removed in this case by first exposing the chattering classes to the facts then that narrative strand of the mythological tale seems doomed. I definitely don’t put the emerging awareness of the issue down to my Metro article that no-one has seems to have read or ever quoted, but rather the tide shift being effected by the gravity of Fletcher’s book.
Luke FitzMaurice-Brown in a Newsroom series [link] makes the case for moving past principles and pins the axis of the mythology as sovereignty:
“The principles, a legal and policy construct in existence since 1975, are grounded in the myth of the cession of sovereignty. They are also grounded in the misconception that we can’t possibly know what was intended at Waitangi in 1840, but as historians, legal scholars, and the Waitangi Tribunal have repeatedly stated, that just isn’t true.”
The myth of sovereignty surrender too is vulnerable to facts, often put as an exercise in role playing to establish what seems reasonable and realistic to the parties at the time. This seems sufficient nowadays to outflank the dogmatic stance taken by the NZ Government. Even that stance has proved maleable – the Treaty Negotiations minister Paul Goldsmith and Chris Bishop stating in interviews that sovereignty is held by the NZ Government through “other” ways than the Treaty. Always ambiguous the current position maintains an indivisible sovereignty but allows a possibility that Maori did not cede it, meaning it was subsumed or cancelled somehow after the Treaty. The NZ Government’s story is becoming wobbly.
The NZ Government’s story is so wobbly that they felt the need (or Britain did?) to state in the preamble to the NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement that the NZ Crown has succeeded the British Crown to all rights and obligations of the Treaty. I mentioned this fact in a previous TDB column [link] and have since filed an Official Information Act request to get some answers on what date this succession purportedly occurred and the circumstances. Which Maori were consulted and consented before this happened? – or was it just Nanaia Mahuta making another captain’s call on behalf of Maoridom?
So much for partnership when the partner can be swapped out for a different partner without the other party even knowing. This raises the possibility any one of the signatory tribes can have their rights and obligations succeeded to also… say by Russia? Seems if Maori were to reciprocate they don’t need to consult the other partner either before they sign an FTA with Tonga making them now the Crown’s partner. Where does it end if these fictions are entertained?
The reason I assume the NZ Government is behind the NZ-UK FTA Treaty succession clause is to sure up the sovereignty deficit. I don’t think the UK Government is just trying to weasle out of their own responsibilities for loaning the colonial government the funds to wage the Land Wars, supplying British Army and Royal Navy to prosecute the war and allowing the land confiscations – it may have been a factor but I see the conceit of a Wellingtonian in such a high-handed manoeuvre.
The Maori Party co-leader, Rawiri Waititi, was talking of Maori having their own trade treaties with nations in interviews yesterday. He may not know – and I doubt anyone does – that while the NZ-UK FTA is smattered with feel-good platitudes to Maori business the fine print says MFAT controls the relationships between Maori business and the UK: it prohibits Maori business from dealing with the UK unless approved by MFAT. Labour’s co-governance pro-Maori agenda was nothing but a superficial rort that actually sold Maori out and the NZ-UK FTA is a case study in that from my examination of the text.
The Maori electorate votes were 70%+ in favour of retaining the Union Jack in the NZ flag in John Key’s ill-fated referendum. Pakeha should reflect on why that was. The link is with Britain, that is the partner, the protector – that is the will of Maoridom clearly. A move to unilateral independence of the NZ colonial entity is not something supported by Maori.
The principles, ah, The Principles. Whereas sovereignty was clearly the aim at the time, and whereas unique status seems a mantra developed by the turn of last century the principles are a modern day myth in the making. Any talk of principles instantly abrogates the terms, it should be obvious. FitzMaurice-Brown:
“The court discussed the principles of partnership (that te Tiriti/the Treaty was a partnership between Māori and the Crown), active protection (that te Tiriti/the Treaty creates a duty on the Crown to actively protect certain Māori interests), and of redress (that breaches of te Tiriti/the Treaty oblige the Crown to compensate Māori). It also discussed the obligation on both Treaty partners to act reasonably and in good faith towards each other, an idea that remains central to understandings of te Tiriti/the Treaty today.”
God, what self-serving tosh it is. Those Pakeha judge derived principles simply allow the bulldozers of colonisation to roll right over Maori – any crying from the natives just flick them some money and keep going. That is all it means, it is risible.
My view on the Treaty is straight forward: it is about a reasonable interpretation of what the terms meant at the time – not “principles”. The Treaty is between the UK and Maori – not between the Governor or New Zealand and Maori. The parties cannot just be swapped out. Sovereignty over the whole country was clearly the British aim, but not sovereignty within tribal areas. The word colony appears nowhere in the Treaty, but protection does because the relationship upon signing is a protectorate not a colony. The article 3 mention of British Subject status says “rights and privileges” and deliberately omits duties and obligation because that is tbe quid pro quo. The Treaty does not say in English that it succeeds beyond Victoria so as per other Treaties it should have been renewed before the anniversary of her successor’s coronation. Indeed many Treaties like the British one with Tonga wad updated often and that is what should have happened here. The more I see how it is being led by Pakeha the more I see how it needs to be led by Maori.
Is your conclusion that maori must now go to King Charles lll and update the Treaty. Then what?
Yes. The English treaties eg. with the Portuguese, have that coronation clause – it is up to the new monarch to continue or not each Treaty.
It is interesting how 2 people can see the same event and come away with 2 different opinions.
I saw a rabble of well inended people stired up by some trouble makers and 3 people that could hold their head high at the way they handled the situation.
Winston and Seymour are not my cup of tea but they deserve respected as our elected leaders no matter how much you dislike their opinion.
Oh Trevor, you are so naive, and I might add not very good at spelling. Three people holding their heads high – UTTER BS. They were publicly shamed – the people present at Waitangi were not going to let them continue promoting their divisive racist policies. Let me remind you Trevor, that Peters, Jones, and Seymour represent less than 15% of the NZ voters.
They are nothing but EVIL PUPPETS, and Luxon is out of his depth trying to control them. We shall see how long this coalition group continues with their BS policies. Happy Waitangi Day Trevor.
Apologies about the spelling never was a strong subject .I was better with figures and know Maori are 17 percent of the population but expect to be treated as equal in the say of all policy. While they deserve a voice at the table we are too small a country to have duel institutions like like health and education.
Stats can be deceptive. I’ve been in the Hokianga for a week, and at Waitangi, and it seems to me that every second person is Maori, if not more. Sure, Waitangi would be special. What I’m getting at is that if one lives in Timaru, Riverton, Dunedin or Queenstown I suspect the aspirations of Maori living in many locations across the motu are invisible, notwithstanding the economic presence of Ngai Tahu. Northland is not the only place. So yes, the aggregated stats say 17% but on the ground in many many places the picture is a bit different.
Kia ora Bozo, I believe the latest updated statistics put Maori around 20%, but if you consider the number of Pakeha middle class professionals moving to Oz, then the fact that pakeha women in general are now having their babies late into their 30’s, the %’s are going to keep shifting upwards for Maori. Interesting times ahead methinks.
David Seymour stirs people up against the poor and the workers. Consistently he has called for wages and benefits to be slashed, and brown people to be jailed en masse.
The first part is tenuous the second part is you on drugs.
They don’t deserve an ounce of respect.
Although, admittedly, in the case of Winston Peters, at least _his_ party isn’t run by open pedophiles.
Ah, the famous “outside agitators”. The go to of every reactionary.
Your comment has the stench of “colonial privilege” all over it.. Next time you choose to display your shallow, and bigoted world view, do it somewhere that we all don’t have to see it…
The rank bigotry and freed of the colonial descendants gives off a powerful enough stench already.. There’s no need to wave it under our noses..
Yeah that’s pretty much my take – that the British required that Māori not make separate agreements with the French, pretenders like de Thierry, or other foreign powers. That sovereignty was surrendered, and for it, Maori got the rights of British subjects.
“but they deserve respected as our elected leaders no matter how much you dislike their opinion”
That’s your first mistake.
Hey Bomber,
I get your interpretation but where does it or the principles leave us?
A grown up conversation seems like a good idea, not sure where you find the grown ups though.
Daft
Daft, it’s my opinion not Bomber’s! “The Principles” as articulated by the Pakeha judiciary serve the NZ govt, not Maori, but if we had principles agreed between the UK and the Maori tribes then fine that is what the principles can be as agreed by the actual parties.
I suppose the Crown in right of the realm of the United Kingdom wouldn’t enter into any korero with Māori unless the Crown in right of the realm of New Zealand agreed. My guess is Charles would agree but the PMs and cabinet would run for cover and say no.
The idea that Queen Victoria would have even entertained the idea of partnership let alone pursued it with Māori in 1840 is just laughable.
Ask why an Empress and her government would act in such a liberal and progressive manner for that era whilst at roughly the same time they allowed and some would argue exacerbated the tragedy that was to become the potato famine in Ireland.
Is it possible that it was simply cheaper to agree to let Māori become British as per the three articles than subdue them through warfare?
There’s just no way an Empire and rapacious and as ruthless as Victoria’s would have acted as is now suggested. It’s revisionist lunacy.
> The idea that Queen Victoria would have even entertained the idea of partnership let alone pursued it with Māori in 1840 is just laughable.
Here’s a few things Yeti is overlooking.
First, internal politics. By the time He Whakaputanga was being signed, the UK Parliament had banned slavery. This couldn’t have happened without an ideological victory over white supremacy inside the British Empire.
> Ask why an Empress and her government would act in such a liberal and progressive manner for that era
That would be why. Yeti’s line of argument presumes an ideological orientation that had clearly become a minority view at least 7 years before Te Tiriti.
Second, defender’s advantage. Even in the 21st century we’ve seen heavily armed superpowers unable to conquer a determined local population with far fewer fighters and simpler weapons, because they know their land and how to defend it against invaders. We saw it in Afghanistan. We’re seeing it in Ukraine. Force of numbers, or superior weapons technology, doesn’t always translate into the ability to simply point your pen at a map and claim territory.
Third, military logistics. The Māori population in 1840 was far bigger than the European settler population. It would have been easy for Māori to exterminate them. If they chose to do that, the only thing that could have prevented it was moving huge numbers of troops and weapons from elsewhere in the Empire to defend the settlers. At a time when that meant putting them on ships and waiting months for them to arrived, and and receiving their reports and issuing new orders took just as long. It might have been possible for Britain to take Aotearoa by force, but it would have been difficult and costly. Much cheaper and more mutually beneficial to sign a treaty in good faith, and peacefully co-exist.
Finally, international relations. Assuming Britain could conquer Aotearoa by force presumes that all the other European powers would have remained neutral. It seems much more likely that the French or others would have supported Māori. Either though an open alliance, or a proxy war approach where they supplied weapons and other equipment, in order to improve their relationship with iwi and their access to the resources of Aotearoa.
Again Ukraine is a good contemporary example. The doesn’t want an open war with Russia, but they’re more than happy to arm the Ukrainians to bloody Russia’s nose on their behalf.
So no, it’s not laughable that the British Empire would pursue a partnership with Māori. Any more than it’s laughable that the US would pursue a partnership with the NZ government. It’s what happens, for very sound strategic reasons.
But all of this is beside the point. Whether the British were genuine or cycnical in proposing a treaty, a treaty was signed. Under international law, it remains binding, and the version that is binding is the one in the indigenous language. The one that guarantees Māori “tino rangatiratanga”. As for the iwi that never signed a treaty, like Ngāi Tūhoe, what possible basis could there be for claiming they ceded sovereignty?
Good comments, Danyl, as were your comments to my earlier column.
Interestingly Cook and Banks when they first landed at “Thames” (from memory) made references in their diaries about what good land this would be to colonise. So the first English here already had an idea to bring settlers in – from the very start that was on their minds so all the British interactions and activities should be viewed in that light.
Tuhoe is funny. Their settlement legislation says the NZ government accepts Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty, and yet… here they are… getting a settlement of something they never signed up to LOL. This is the pernicious effect of the sovereignty clause in the Treaty settlements – each tribe must accept (in order to get the settlement money) that the NZ government (defined as the bundle of entities in the Public Finanace Act FFS) is now sovereign and accept the Treaty “Principles”.
Out of favour politicians are expected to be heckled, jeered and drowned out while sitting politely and listening to speeches by Maori
Is that how it rolls?
An extremely interesting analysis, Tim. As far as I know, you are the only contributor to this debate to have introduced the historical construct of “protectorate” into the discussion. It is a term which dramatically simplifies the process of interpreting the Treaty.
What sold the proposition put before the chiefs at Waitangi on 6 February 1840 was the guarantee that chiefly rights and possessions would not be interfered with by the Crown. Without this promise, no chieftain in his right mind would have signed the document.
As you suggest, the arrangement was very simple. We (Her Britannic Majesty’s Government) undertake to let you (the rangatira of hapu and iwi)) get on with life in the usual manner. In return, you undertake to recognise that, when it comes to determining and protecting the interests of “Niu Tirani” as a whole, we have the last word.
As you point out, this was a far from unique arrangement. Indeed, in the manner of just about every imperialist power since the Roman Empire, Britain was working – at least initially – alongside the existing power structures. These (and this was especially true of New Zealand) were only too happy to extract from their new relationship as many of the newcomers’ tools and techniques as possible.
What upset the apple-cart in New Zealand was the speed and volume of European settlement. This soon exposed the limitations of its protectorate status and necessitated the transition to full colonial status. Once New Zealand became a full colony, with its own legislature, tino rangatiratanga was doomed.
Many thanks for the clarity of your analysis – it has helped me tremendously.
Glad to have assisted, Chris. I agree with your comments and will add a few points:
Yes the settler influx, and maybe Grey’s position as well, ensured no Treatiy v2.0+. The Kohimarama conference of 1860 was a moment, but the colonial govt refused to back that process they had started when it got beyond their control. Indeed when I put forward the idea of a 150th anniversary seminar in 2010 it was rejected by Finlayson. No, the government did not want to revisit that moment at all. The mass migration policy is what Seymour relies on to change the facts on the ground. If E G Wakefield defined colonisation as immigration (I agree) then colonisation has not even peaked yet. The New Caledonia Noumea Accords addressed this issue as the central problem of French sovereignty over Kanakia, they agreed the immigrants coming in after the Accords (1998?) were not to have a vote on the independence question. Let’s consider that option.
Protectorate is the more persuasive answer to the sovereignty question. The colony was founded on the back of the protectorate in 1841. Could it have supplanted the protectorate completely? Was the United Tribes confederation co-existent with the colony as the government of the protectorate?
If we look at the colonial administration of Kenya we can see how the two concepts operate: there was a single Governor and single administration of Kenya from 1920-63, so in that sense there was a unified government, but Kenya was composed of Kenya Colony – an inland area where European settlement was to occur, and Kenya Protectorate – a coastal area under the suzerainty of the Sultan of Zanzibar on lease since 1895 to the British for an annuity. Malaya had protectorates and India had hundreds of such entities from Treaties with tribes of less than 100 people, to Treaties with large Kingdoms of tens of millions like Hyderabad. The Viceroy was the Crown representative to the states and was also the Governor-General of the Indian provinces (direct British sovereignty). The British had these concepts and instruments and procedures that recognised different forms of sovereignty, sometimes at a very localised granularity, however, as you say, once the rapacious settlers move in all that “co-governance” goes out the window and the convenient amnesia sets in and the New Zealanders’ brains hurt when these things get raised.
So the issue after working out what the facts were is what the facts are now and whether they do, or should, reflect the facts then.
I simply do not accept the notion that unilateral moves by the NZ government could count as shifting the facts. The breezy way the lawyers just wave their hands and say any republic of the future will just roll over the Treaty and succeed to it as a matter of course is profoundly wrong and conceited. That is the moment a new Treaty would have to be arranged between the tribes and the newly constituted state. Hopefully the UK will negotiate the end (settlement) to get to that other place in good faith, however we see from how the UK and Mountbatten ended British sovereignty over India that they may just repudiate all the Treaties wholesale and declare the incoming independent government responsible for everything – very messy for the Indians, but very clean for the British. My worry is this scenario is what has occurred behind closed doors with the NZ-UK FTA which would place the tribes at odds with both the UK and NZ.
Seems quaint to celebrate a two-hundred-year-old mission statement when we as a great country are sending military support overseas to murder poor brown kids.
I’ve heard of USA people finding us very quaint and picaresque (sic).
All of this race baiting is simply distracting people from the main task at hand: rebuilding the labour movement, in order to reverse thirty years of attacks on wages, workers’ protections, public assets, housing and infrastructure.
Organised labour can only win political power if it is a united mass movement. That is only sustainable if it is multi-racial, non-segregated, national, and opposed to petty tribalism or sectarianism.
I’ll just make two points for now
1) That’s fantastic art and the best portrait I’ve seen of King Charles in the header of this post.
2) All the white pride ‘look at em bloody Maori’s’ commenters ignore the rather startling and sly evidence Tim has brought into the public light …. “The NZ Government’s story is so wobbly that they felt the need (or Britain did?) to state in the preamble to the NZ-UK Free Trade Agreement that the NZ Crown has succeeded the British Crown to all rights and obligations of the Treaty. I mentioned this fact in a previous TDB column [link] and have since filed an Official Information Act request to get some answers on what date this succession purportedly occurred and the circumstances. Which Maori were consulted and consented before this happened? – or was it just Nanaia Mahuta making another captain’s call on behalf of Maoridom?”
Origins of Maori Culture
Maori people probably originated in Eastern Polynesia[4] near the Society Islands[3] and the Southern Cook Islands. In Maori legends, the Maori homeland is a place called Hawaiki, which appears to be at least semi-legendary. In Maori mythology, this is the home of the gods as well as where people go after they die.
Maori people arrived in New Zealand around 1300 BC or slightly earlier. Since New Zealand, or “Aoteaora” as the Maori called it, represented the southwestern coast of the known world to the Polynesians of the 13th and 14th centuries, the Maoris can be thought of as people living at the edge of the world.
Maori History
When the Maori arrived, New Zealand was covered with forests inhabited by primitive animals. It was colder than the Maori’s Polynesian homeland, which meant that some Polynesian staples, such as breadfruit, coconuts and bananas, were either harder to grow or could not be grown. This made it even more difficult for the early Polynesian settlers, accustomed to the tropics, to adapt to the temperate climate that characterized the New Zealand archipelago. The first settlers lived along the coast hunting New Zealand ostriches and seals, and later settled deeper into the forests. Humans have affected New Zealand’s environment by extirpating New Zealand ostriches and Haast’s eagle.
Main Concepts in Maori Society
Because Maori are descendants of Polynesian travelers who settled the island in the 13th or 14th century, they share many social, supernatural, and religious concepts with other Polynesian groups, including mana and tapu .
Mana is not the same in every culture, but it is a ubiquitous concept in Oceania. New Zealand is no exception. In Maori tradition, mana is associated with prestige and authority. In ancient times, those of high status, such as Maori chiefs and tohunga, held the most mana .
Tapu is essentially a word meaning “sacred”. Objects or people with title are thought to be reserved for the gods and are off-limits to all except certain individuals, such as the tohunga. Objects or people with title in ancient New Zealand included tohunga, who specialized in making tattoos and sacred sites.
Good stuff Tayfun. ‘Pathway of the Birds’ is a good read, examines the settlement of Polynesia, these southern islands being the last. No mean feat back in the day. But not for the faint of heart. In most NZ public libraries if you reside here. An oldie but goodie is Michael King’s History of New Zealand. A bit broader in scope covering colonization and its impact. Readily available.
There was no blood bath, no uprising, the Prime Minister not reduced to tears, no dildos thrown just words which are not violence. The MSM and the lefts attempt to whip up a revolution through their continued misinformation and agenda against the government has failed.
If you watched the pre-coronation administration of King Charles (there’s a name for it that has totally slipped my mind) he sits in his throne room declaring among other things that all past treaties with everybody will hold. Basically, despite provocation, he isn’t going to invade Scotland anytime soon. These declarations include his agreements with various colonies. Even us. The British sovereign is immortal, which is why you might hear something like “The King is dead, long live the King!” Victoria’s agreements were passed down through her heirs.
Good luck negotiating with the UK. Their political capabilities far outstrip anyone we have. Better off talking to Seymour. You might get a concession. Seymour doesn’t have to make sense, to you, his opponents are doing all his work for him. It isn’t hard, is it? To seem at least as un/reasonable as Winston? That’s the benchmark that maori activists need to meet to win this.
In the mean time average joes will support or oppose based on everything other than obscure facts about old laws. Does the maori party seem like a stable minded crew that won’t allow gangs, who are “their people”, free reign to turn NZ into an even more violent society? These kinds of questions based on snippets of newspaper articles, ignorance, a bet each way, personal preference and good old suspicion, is what NZders use to measure everything.
National want to convince maori they are better off in the 21st century, with cars and property and businesses and power from money. A happy comfortable maori isn’t a troublesome maori. Labour want to own maori like they own every minority group they can infect, to hold up as an unassailable road block to anything that doesn’t conform to their goals. They don’t a have a good history of doing anything well, such as jobs, or housing, and anything you might own is considered to be destroying the world or your more important and rare neighbour. The people who actually need help will of course be ignored by everyone, and not given any voice. Given that arrangement, i’d say the treaty will be just a memory within 50 years.