WHY A TREATY...recounted by Ross Baker, Historian.

Many books written as to why New Zealand needed a treaty are so complicated and in many cases biased that few take the time to read all these and extract the facts. If we are to understand the Treaty, then first we must understand why it was instigated and by whom.

For ten years prior to the Treaty, the Missionaries had tried to encourage the Maoris to form their own independent government and state, but the chiefs, as always, could not agree between themselves and in the end it became evident that New Zealand must become a British Colony under British Sovereignty if the Maoris were to survive*.

(*From 1814, Samuel Marsden, one of the first missionaries in New Zealand, gave the Maoris an introduction to the British Government by inviting them to Australia. Some even remained to obtain an education. The Maoris knew of the British Government in these early times. Some worked on British and foreign ships as crew. Ngapuhi chief Hongi made a trip to England in 1820 to meet the King. On his return to New Zealand he stopped off in Australia and traded all the gifts the King had given him on 300 muskets and then initiated a ten year period of warfare and cannibalism on his fellow countrymen, slaughtering thousands for no apparent reason).

After Cook's three exploratory voyages (commencing) in the 1760's and the establishment of a British penal colony in Australia, trade and Christianity came to New Zealand. British, French and American vessels began visiting New Zealand harbours in the late 18th century to refresh and refit. From the early 1800's commercial trading started in New Zealand with timber, flax, shore whaling, ship building and general trade with the Maoris and non-Maoris who had established themselves in New Zealand. By the 1830's the coast was dotted with trade settlers as well as several missionaries who had also purchased land and set up home. However, after 1830 purchases of land grew until there were quite large acreages of land owned by non-Maori. By 1839 there were 2000 permanent settlers, 28 on-shore fisheries and many commercial ventures in flax, timber and ship building, plus general and domestic trade by non-Maori. The capital invested in New Zealand was made known by Hobson to the Colonial Office in his report in 1837 as well as in a letter to his wife in the same year.

Up until 1832 the British or Imperial Government was reluctant to intervene in New Zealand, but as more and more settlers arrived and trade and investments expanded, the British Government felt responsible for her people and their investments as well as the Maoris. They did pass three acts in 1817, 1823 and 1828 in an attempt to bring law and order, but as New Zealand was outside the British Dominion, these were unsuccessful. In 1820, after Hongi had slaughtered many thousands of the Thames Maoris, they requested that Britain afford them protection.

By the early 1830's trade between New Zealand had become so intense that there could be up to 30 ships at anchor and 1000 seamen on shore at any one time but still no law to control them or the Maoris. The 1828 Act did empower the courts to deal with crimes by British subjects but these had to be heard in Sydney and therefore it was difficult to get all parties together at the same time.

While British interests and investments continued to increase and become predominant at the time, French and American activity was also on the increase. This worried the British as they were beginning to build up large capital investments in New Zealand but with no protection if New Zealand was annexed by another nation.

Many events sparked off Maori appeals to Britain for protection. The first in 1831 when it was rumoured that the French naval vessel La Favourite intended to annex New Zealand to France in retaliation for the killing of Marion du Fresne and his crew. The Maoris even discussed a letter to the King asking for his protection but decided on placing a British flag on the mission flagstaff, reasoning that if the French tore it down, the missionaries would appeal to Britain for protection. After this 13 powerful northern chiefs did send a letter to the King asking him to become their friend, guardian and protector of these islands.



(Enclosure 2 in No. 1.)

From WILLIAM YATE, Esq., to the COLONIAL-SECRETARY, New South Wales.

I have the honour to forward to you, by His Majesty's ship "Zebra" the enclosed New Zealand document, with its translation, and the request that it be transmitted through His Excellency to the Secretary of State, in order to its being laid before His Majesty.

I have, & c.,

(Enclosure 3 in No. 1.)


King William,
We, the chiefs of New Zealand assembled at this place, called the Kerikeri, write to thee, for we hear that thou art the great chief of the other side of the water, since the many ships which come to our land are from thee.
We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes, we sell these things however to your people then we see property of the Europeans. It is only thy land which is-liberal towards us. From thee also come the missionaries who teach us to believe on Jehovah God and on Jesus Christ His Son.
We have heard that the tribe of Marian* is at hand coming to take away our land, therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teazing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land.
And if any of thy people should be troublesome and vicious towards us (for some persons who are living heree who have run away from the ships,) we pray thee to be angry with them that they may be obedient, lest the anger of the people of this land fall upon them.
This letter is from us, of the chiefs of the natives of New Zealand.
The foregoing is a literal translation of the accompanying document.

Secretary to the Church Missionary Society, New Zealand.


1 Wareahi. Chief of Paroa.
2 Rewa.- Chief of Waimate.
3 Patuone ) Two brothers, chiefs of
4 Nene ) Hokianga
5 Kekeao Chief of tile Ahuahu.
6 Titore Chief of Kororaika.
7 Tamoranga Chief of Taiamai.
8 Ripe Chief of Mapere.
9 Hara Chief of Ohaiwai.
10 Atuahaere Chief of Kaikohe.
11 Moetara Chief of Pakanai.
12 Matangi Chief of Waima.
13 Taunui Chief of Hutakura.

* France.
This is a very interesting document and gives a true indication of the feelings of the Maoris in New Zealand in 1831.

The second (event) was when the Ngati Toa of Kapiti conspired with the English captain of the Elizabeth to raid and kill members of the Ngati Tahu of the South Island. The culprits avoided punishment due to the uncertainties regarding British subjects in New Zealand. Northern Maoris were disturbed by the alliance of the Maoris and the British, fearing it could set a precedence for their enemies. These events and the calls of the settlers persuaded the Colonial Office to appoint a British Resident to New Zealand, not only to bring law, order and protection to the people, but also to British trade and investment from a foreign invasion.

There was also a threat from Baron Charles Philippe Hippolyte de Thierry to declare a French Sovereignty over New Zealand. He had purchased a large area of land at Hokianga and it was rumoured that he had summoned a French warship to enforce his Sovereignty as well as a body guard of Tahitian trained Maoris to sustain it. The French Government also expressed interest to appoint de Thierry to the office of French Consul to New Zealand.

As well as Maori appeals to Britain for protection, there was still the memory by the settlers of the slaughter of 70 crew and passengers, including women and children, by the Maoris when the "Boyd" arrived in New Zealand waters in 1814.

These were just a few of the events which made it inevitable that the British would have to have some legal control over New Zealand for the benefit of all, especially the Maoris whose population was diminishing so quickly now that they had the musket that it was feared they would soon disappear.


In 1832, the decision was finally taken to appoint James Busby as Resident to New Zealand. Busby was to be an intermediary between the races but without forces this was virtually impossible. For example, in 1834 the Harriet went aground at Cape Egmont and some of the crew were killed by local Maoris. The Alligator then bombarded the pa destroying canoes and killing many Maoris in retaliation, but Busby could do little to help as he had no forces. Faced with brawling, boundary disputes, stock losses, theft, assault and murder, plus the never ending fighting between the tribes, Busby could do little but arbitrate. The Maoris as well as the settlers started asking where was the protection that they had been promised by the King with Busby's arrival.

Large areas of land and forests were being sold by the Maoris at this time to individual settlers and the New Zealand Company, a company set up to purchase land from the Maoris and later the Imperial Government, and then send out settlers from Britain to purchase it at a profit. The Maoris were also travelling to Australia to sell land, which in some cases they did not own, did not have the authority to sell or sold many times over. This caused much unrest resulting in war between the tribes with some settlers and their families being killed when they tried to claim their purchases. For example, Kapiti Island was sold to five different buyers, Poirua was sold to eight and Taranaki was sold, fought over, returned and bought again so many times, it's difficult to remember. Busby's instructions were to direct the Maoris towards a form of united Government or collective Maori Sovereignty to stop inter-tribal fighting and bring law and order to all the people of New Zealand.


In 1834 Busby introduced a national flag to New Zealand to give recognition to her Sovereignty and Independent Status and to be carried by all New Zealand built ships as well as being displayed on shore. This led to 34 chiefs signing a Declaration of Independence in 1835 with the King giving his assurance that he would protect the Maoris and their land as long as it was consistent with the just rights of others and the interests of the British Subjects. If Britain wanted to formally intervene now, the independent status of the country would have to be nullified with the consent of the Maoris. This did give Britain an advantage as she was now the protector and therefore would have some input into the control of law making of the country as well as protection of her people and investments.



1. We, the hereditary chiefs and heads of the tribes of the Northern parts of New Zealand, being assembled at Waitangi in the Bay of Islands, on this 28th day of October, 1835, declare the Independence of our country, which is hereby constituted and declared to be an Independent State, under the designation of the United Tribes of New Zealand.
2. All sovereign power and authority within the territories of the United Tribes of New Zealand is hereby declared to reside entirely and exclusively in the hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes in collective capacity, who also declare that they will not permit any legislative authority separate from themselves in their collective capacity to exist, nor any function of government to be exercised within the said territories, unless by persons appointed by them, and acting under the authority of laws regularly enacted by them in Congress assembled.
3. The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order and the regulation of trade; and they cordially invite the Southern tribes to lay aside their private animosities and to consult the safety and welfare of our common country, by joining the Confederation of the United Tribes.
4. They also agree to send a copy of this Declaration to His Majesty the King of England, to thank Him for his acknowledgement of their flag; and in return for the friendship and protection they have shown, and are prepared to show, to such of his subjects as have settled in their country, or resorted to its shores for the purposes of trade, they entreat that they will continue to be parent to their infant State and that he will become its Protector from all attempts upon its independence.

Agreed to unanimously on the 28th day of October 1835, in the presence of His Britannic Majesty's Resident.

(Here follows the signatures or marks of thirty five Hereditary Chiefs or Heads of tribes, which form a fair representation of the tribes of New Zealand from the North Cpe to the latitude of the River Thames.

English witnesses:-
(Signed) Henry Williams, Missionary, C.M.S.
George Clarke, C.M.S.
James C. Clendon, Merchant.
Gilbert Mair, Merchant.

I certify that the above is a correct copy of the Declaration of the Chiefs, according to translation of Missionaries who have resided ten years and upwards in the country; and it is transmitted to His Most Gracious Majesty the King of England, at the unanimous request of the chiefs.

(Signed) James Busby
British Resident at New Zealand

The signatures to this declaration pledged to assemble annually to form laws for the promotion of peace, justice and trade, but the ever present inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political cooperation, as always, and it was abandoned. It finally became evident that the chiefs could never form a united working Government.

Early in 1837, a serious outbreak of inter-tribal fighting began in many parts of New Zealand. Up until this time the Maoris had been cultivating their land and had built up large gardens, orchards and flax plantations but had exchanged most of the produce for muskets and powder. The temptation now was to abandon and neglect all this and settle old scores with their rival tribes once they had sufficient fire power. What they had achieved since the Europeans arrived was destroyed for ever by their own hand and the will to fight.

The settlers, traders, missionaries and 192 chiefs wanted more than a half hearted official commitment represented by Busby and appealed to Britain for more effective Government. As tribal fighting increased and the Maori population decreased, Britain had to take more control as she had promised to protect the people and their property. To do this, New Zealand had to become a British Colony, even although the Colonial Office in Britain wanted only limited Government intervention, it was now evident that the Maoris could never form a Government to bring law, order and protection to the people of New Zealand.

For New Zealand to become a British Colony, Britain had to obtain the Maori's consent to Sovereignty over the whole land without force.

For two years the Colonial Office debated the best way to become involved in New Zealand and it was decided, but with extreme reluctance*, to send William Hobson to New Zealand to negotiate a cession of Sovereignty from the Maoris and to set up Government to bring law, order and protection and to investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes.

*Because of New Zealand's isolation from Britain (half a world away at the uttermost parts of the Earth), the extreme difficulties to shipping over such a vast distance, delays in communication, the everpresent volatile nature of inter-tribal fighting, lawlessness amongst an international mix of visitors and general unrest, Britain had only luke-warm, reluctant interest in establishing a colony. To get some appreciation of their attitude, see: The Treaty of Waitangi, by T. Lyndsay Buick, Thomas Avery & Son, 1933.

It was finally decided that the best way to accomplish this was by a treaty, if possible. To do this, first the British had to obtain Sovereignty over the whole land, second, all Maori and non-Maori land and property titles must be verified, third, any land the Maoris wanted to sell must be sold only to the Queen's representative, and fourth, the Maoris must be protected and guaranteed access to all the benefits of British civilisation and law if they consented to the first three conditions.


Queen Victoria sent William Hobson to New Zealand in 1840 to draft and sign a Treaty with the Aboriginal Natives of New Zealand to give, as requested by them on many occasions, a Government for law, order and mainly protection. Not only from a foreign invasion but also from themselves as 80,000 had already been killed in the inter-tribal wars

The Treaty is a very simple document. It contains five parts, the pre-amble which is the main agreement setting out the reasons for the Treaty, three short articles giving Maori the same rights as the British subjects "inherited" when New Zealand became British soil and the chief's consent and understanding of the Treaty. Unfortunately, the pre-amble, article one and three are overlooked by today's negotiators and Government.

Below is a simplified summary of the Treaty which was signed on the 6th of February, 1840 at Waitangi by 46 chiefs, nine non-Maori and William Hobson.

The Pre-amble: The main agreement setting out the reason for a Treaty and to cede Maori sovereignty to Her Majesty.

Article 1: The Aborigines of New Zealand to give up forever, their governorship to Her Majesty.

Article 2: Consists of two parts.
· The Queen guarantees to Maori the ownership of their taonga/ property and possessions at the time of signing. The same as a British subject.

· The Maoris must agree that the Queen or her representatives could purchase those pieces of land for a price, which the rightful owner agreed and was willing to sell.

Article 3: If the Maoris agreed to the preamble, article one and two, then the Queen would protect them and guarantee to them all the rights of a British subject. No more - no less.

The Consent: The consent from the chiefs that they fully understood the meaning of the words of the Treaty and consented to them all.

The Signing: The signing of the Maori version of the Treaty by 46 Chiefs, nine non-Maori and Governor Hobson at Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840 and visually witnessed by many hundred Maori, missionaries and settlers.

After each chief signed the Treaty, Hobson shook their hand and repeated, "He iwi tahi tatou - we are now one people", followed by three hearty cheers from the whole gathering and an agreement between two peoples was sealed forever.

The Treaty was an agreement between two peoples having the authority and agreeing between themselves to wide powers affecting them both. But after the Treaty was signed the Maoris had ceded/given up forever their Sovereignty/ authority/ partnership to the British in return for protection and one law for all people of New Zealand. From this point on all the people of New Zealand became one people under one law, one flag and with equal rights.
As Sir Apirana Ngata stated, "if you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors when they gave away their rights when they were strong".
Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 21st May, 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on October the 2nd 1840 and New Zealand became a Crown Colony.

As can be seen from this Treaty, time or condition does not alter it in any way. In "fact" it is a very simple document unless someone distorts its translation and interpretation as is happening today which we as New Zealanders must stop.

At the time of drafting the Treaty, large areas of land and forests, as well as 28 known on shore fisheries plus many general businesses were owned and operated by non-Maori, a very large British investment. This was the reason for Hobson changing the wording of Busby's draft in article two to include, "All the people of New Zealand", and not just the Maoris as we are led to believe today. It was also British policy that all British subjects and their property would be protected wherever they settled, a point that was voiced on many occasions. What this Treaty actually did was to advance New Zealand and its people by 1000 years to one of the most advanced societies in the world at the time. Unlike the way in-which all other indigenous people were treated, the British took the Maoris with them completely, with all the same rights as British subjects.


There is no evidence that William Hobson had any form of draft Treaty from the Colonial Office in England. He had been briefed well enough to know what the British Government's Colonial Office required - a cession of Sovereignty, absolute control over all land matters and the authority to impose law, order equality and protection on both Maori and non-Maori. On his arrival in New Zealand and with the assistance of J. S. Freeman his secretary, he drafted some preliminary notes as a basis of the Treaty. Hobson then became ill and the notes were delivered to Busby, now the ex-Resident to complete. Busby, who had no understanding of the brief given to Hobson by the Colonial Office, considered Hobson's notes inadequate and drafted a Treaty himself. It consisted of a Preamble and three articles, longer than the notes given to him by Hobson.

Busby's draft, instead of giving equal rights to both Maori and non-Maori, as the Colonial Office had requested, only gave a guarantee to the Maori people collectively and individually, of the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, fisheries and forests so long as they wished to retain them.

Hobson sent a letter, written in Maori, to a large number of chiefs on the 1st of February advising them of the Treaty which was to be read and fully discussed on the 5th and then to be signed on the 7th of February, 1840 at Waitangi

Busby's draft was delivered to Hobson on the 3rd of February 1840.

On the night of the 3rd of February, Hobson asked for and was visited by a number of missionaries - Henry Williams, Charles Baker, George Clarke, William Colenso and Richard Taylor all of the Church Missionary and James Butler from the Wesleyan Mission Society. From these meetings, he held several sets of notes, including Busby's draft, from which the final treaty would be written. Advice on the final wording of the treaty was sought from Henry Williams, head of the Church Mission Society and a missionary in New Zealand since 1823… a man who had a great understanding of the Maoris and their language.

As instructed by the Colonial Office, Hobson changed the wording of Busby's draft to guarantee "to all the people of New Zealand", not just the chiefs and their tribes, the possession of their lands dwellings and all their property, far less than we are led to believe today. Busby admitted that changes were made to his draft. The treaty had to be written in a very simple form for the chiefs to understand. Unfortunately the simplicity has allowed it to be easily distorted.

At 4pm on the 4th of February, Hobson gave Henry Williams the final draft of the Treaty to be translated into Maori by 10am the following morning. Unfortunately, this final draft was misplaced and therefore, not having the final draft, has allowed many people to translate the Maori version to their advantage*.

*Note: The original, final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi, made under the direction of Lieut-Governor Hobson was found in 1989 in the documents of the Littlewood family of Manurewa, Auckland. It was deposited into the National Archives at Wellington in July, 1992. Henry Littlewood (1812 -1864) was a solicitor in early New Zealand, living for extended periods in both Auckland, when it was the Seat of Government, or Russell, near Waitangi. The original draft Treaty document is displayed later in this website article, complete with its full text and pedigree.

Henry Williams and his son Edward translated the final draft from English into Maori, thus becoming the "Treaty" that was read, discussed and signed at Waitangi. As Hobson and Williams had discussed this final draft the night before, Williams would have had a full understanding of it and to the vital importance of an accurate translation that could be understood by the chiefs.

At 9am on the 5th of February, while the chiefs started arriving at Waitangi, Hobson, Williams and Busby met behind locked doors to check and finalise the accuracy of the translation of the Treaty. They made sure it was a true and accurate as possible translation of the final draft and relayed accurately the brief given to Hobson by the Colonial Office. At 10am both the final draft and the Maori translations to the treaty were read out to the chiefs, their tribes and many of the settlers gathered at Waitangi. A discussion followed lasting five hours. After this meeting the chiefs assembled at the Te Tii Marae and discussed the Treaty for the rest of the day and most of the night. As Henry Williams recollects: "We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in the suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereignty and one law, human and divine".

The meeting was to resume on the 7th of February to give the chiefs time to fully discuss and understand the Treaty, but they could not wait until the 7th as they had come to a decision that night that it should be concluded immediately as they saw it to their advantage to do so. Hobson was summoned on the morning of the 6th and the signing commenced with the chiefs consenting that they fully understood the words of the Treaty and that they would become one people with one law under British Sovereignty.

The Maori version of the Treaty was signed at Waitangi on the 6th of February, 1840 by 43 chiefs, nine non-Maori and Hobson representing the Queen, plus many hundreds of Maoris and non-Maoris as eye witnesses. As each chief signed the Treaty, Hobson shook his hand and repeated, "He iwi tahi tatou - We are now one people", to which they all agreed and gave three hearty cheers.

The Preamble of the Treaty ceded all parts of New Zealand to the Queen. The mountains, rivers, lakes, airwaves, natural resources, the lot. The articles then gave the Maoris the same rights to their taonga/property as the British subjects "inherited" when New Zealand became British soil under one flag and one law.

To see the signatures of 240 Chiefs and many other interesting details related to the Treaty signing go to:

Here is the "modern" Treaty, changed in 1975 to "write out" the non-Maori and make the first part of Article 2 relate only to Maori. This was a radical departure away from the agreed, excepted meaning and wording of the previous 135-years, wherein the Maori text had always been "back translated" to state: "and all the people of New Zealand".


(Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975)

The Treaty of Waitangi
(The text in English)

Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty's Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration from both Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorised to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty's Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands - Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorise me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty's Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be cede to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.


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 respectively exercise and possess, or may be supposed to exercise or possess over their respective Territories as the Sole Sovereigns thereof.


Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the Proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.


In consideration of Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her Royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

W. Hobson Lieutenant Governor

Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made to fully understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof: in witness of which we have attached our signature or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.
Done at Waitangi this sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty.
(Here follow signatures, dates, etc).

See also: where article 2 of the modern Maori version is translated as:

The Queen of England agrees and consents to the Chiefs, hapu, and all the people of New Zealand the full chieftainship of their lands, their villages and all their possessions, but the Chiefs give to the Queen the purchasing of those pieces of land which the owner is willing to sell, subject to the arranging of payment which will be agreed to by them and the purchaser who will be appointed by the Queen for the purpose of buying for her.

This modern "official" translation of the Maori text, related to a Treaty encompassing the rights of "all the people of New Zealand", is further substantiated and corroborated by two (circa 1860's) translations of the Maori text back into English:

A literal translation into English, Made in New Zealand, of the Maori Version of the Treaty, in the Year 1865

Victoria, Queen of England, in her gracious remembrance of the chiefs of the tribes of New Zealand and through her desires to preserve them their chieftainship and their land and to preserve peace and quietness to them, has thought it right to send them a gentleman to be their representative to the Queen's Government. Now, because there are numbers of people living in this land, and more will be coming. The Queen wishes to appoint a Government that there may be no cause for strife between the natives and the Pakeha, who are now without law. It has now pleased the Queen to appoint me William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, Govenor of all parts of New Zealand, which shall be ceded now and at a further period to the Queen. She offers to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand and to the other chiefs the following laws:-

1. The Chiefs of (i.e. constituting) the Assembly, and all the Chiefs who are absent from the Assembly, shall cede to the Queen of England for ever the Government of their lands.

2. The Queen of England acknowledges and guarantees to the chiefs, the tribes, and all the people of New Zealand, the entire supremacy of their lands, of their settlements and all of their personal property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all other chiefs, make over to the Queen the purchasing of such lands, which the man who possesses the land is willing to sell, according to prices agreed upon by him, and the purchaser appointed by the Queen to purchase for her.

3. In return for their acknowledging the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the natives of New Zealand, and will allow them the same right as the people of England.

Signed, William Hobson
Consul, and Lieutenant-Governor.

We the chiefs of this Assembly of the tribes of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi perceiving the meaning of these words, take and consent to them all. Therefore we sign our name and our marks.

This is done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the one thousand eight hundred and fortieth year of Our Lord.

Text from J Noble Coleman, A Memoir of the Rev. Richard Davis, London 1865 pp. 455-56


(Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985)

The Treaty of Waitangi
(The Text in Maori)

KO WIKITORIA, te Kuini o Ingarani, I tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangitira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani I tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangitiatanga me to ratou wenua, a kia man tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangitira hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani-kia wakaaetia e nga Rangitira maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga Motuna te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a haere mai nei.
Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana.
Na, kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana I te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei, amua ki te Kuini e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangitira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangitira atu enei ture ka koreotia nei.

Ko te Tuatahi

Ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangitira katoa hoki ki hai I urn ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani aka tonu atu-te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

Ko te Tuarua

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki hapu-ki tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangitiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga me nga Rangitira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokanga o era wahi wenua e pai te tangata nona te Wenua-ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hook e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hook mona.

Ko te Tuaoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini-Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

(Signed) William Hobson,
Consul and Lieutenant-Governor

Na ko matou ko nga Rangitira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangitira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei I te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.
Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi I te ono o nga ra Pepueri I te tau kotahi mano, e waru ran e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

Ko nga Rangitira o te wakaminenga.

Translated From the Original Maori by, Mr. T. E. Young,
Native Department

Victoria, Queen of England, in her kind thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapus of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace may always be kept with them and quietness, she has thought it a right thing that a Chief should be sent here as a negotiator with the Maoris of New Zealand - that the Maoris of New Zealand may consent to the Government of the Queen of all parts of this land and the islands, because there are many people of her tribe that have settled on this land and are coming hither.
Now the Queen is desirous to establish the Government, that evil may not come to the Maoris and the Europeans who are living without law.
Now the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy, to be Governor to all the places of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen; an he give forth to the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand and other Chiefs the laws spoken here.

The First

The Chiefs of the Assembly, and all Chiefs also who have not joined the Assembly, give up entirely to the Queen of England for ever all the Government of their lands.

The Second

The Queen of England arranges and agrees to give to the Chiefs, the Hapus and all the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements and their property. But the Chiefs of the Assembly, and all the other Chiefs, gives to the Queen the purchase of those pieces of land which the proprietors may wish, for such payment as may be agreed upon by them and the purchaser who is appointed by the Queen to be her purchaser.

The Third

This is an arrangement for the consent to the Government of the Queen. The Queen of England will protect all the Maoris of New Zealand. All the rights will be given to them the same as her doings to the people of England.

William Hobson
Consul and Lieutenant Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Assembly of the Hapus of New Zealand, now assembled at Waitangi. We also, the Chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words: they are taken and consented to altogether by us. Therefore are affixed our names and marks.

This done at Waitangi, on the sixth day of February, in the year one thousand eight hundred and forty, of Our Lord.


In the name of Her Majesty VICTORIA, Queen
Of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Ireland, By William Hobson, Esquire, a
Captain in the Royal Navy, Lieutenant-
Governor of New Zealand.

Whereas I have it in Command from
Her Majesty Queen VICTORIA, through Her
Principal Secretary of State of the Colonies, to
assert, on the grounds of Discovery, the Sovereign
Rights of Her Majesty over the Southern Islands
Of New-Zealand, commonly called, "The Middle
Island", and "Stewart's Island"; and, the Island,
commonly called, "The Northern Island",
having been ceded in Sovereignty to Her Majesty.

Now, therefore, I William Hobson,
Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand, do hereby
Proclaim and Declare to all men, that from and
After the Date of these Presents, the full Sovereignty
Of the Islands of New Zealand, extending from
Thirty-four Degrees Thirty Minutes to Forty-seven
Degrees Ten Minutes South Latitude, and between
One Hundred and Sixty-six Degrees Five Minutes
to One Hundred and Seventy-nine Degrees of
East Longitude, vests in Her Majesty Queen
VICTORIA, Her Heirs and Successors for ever.

Given under my Hand at Government-House, RUSSELL, Bay of Islands, this
Twenty-first day of May, in the Year of Our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and


WILLIAM HOBSON, Lieutenant-Governor.

By His Excellency's Command,

(Signed,) Willoughby Shortland, Colonial Secretary.


PAIHIA: Printed at the Press of the Church Missionary Society.


For the first ten years after the Treaty was signed, the Maoris prospered and there were very few disputes between the tribes or settlers but as more settlers arrived, the demand for more land and the new way of life for the Maoris required more money to support it, unrest developed. Disputes between the tribes as to ownership of land being sold to sustain this new way of life and the pressure from the settlers more land caused major problems for the Governor and people alike. Many Maoris whose ancestors sold their land, regret it now and blame the non-Maori for their ancestor's actions.

In 1850 war broke out between some of the tribes of the North and the British Imperial Troops were very reluctantly brought in by the Government to quell these and other disturbances and to enforce British Sovereignty agreed when the chiefs signed the Treaty. A total of 950 Maori were killed by the troops while trying to quell the inter-tribal wars.

After the Treaty, large areas of land transferred from Maori ownership to European ownership at this time although land purchases by devious means, was in most cases returned to the Maori owners by the Governor and then in some cases re-purchased. Many settlers who had purchased land from the Maoris legitimately before the Treaty, but could not prove their purchase, lost their complete purchase when investigated by the Governor. Even some of the Governors tried to do devious deals, like the second attempted purchase of the South Island in Australia, which failed. Most of the South Island had already been purchased before the Treaty was signed but after it was signed the Governor rejected the sale.

The Maoris were also upset that land being purchased from them by the Governor was then sold to the settlers at a profit. What many did not understand was that this profit was being used to develop New Zealand. Many settlers, especially the New Zealand Company, were very upset that they had to pay more for the land than if they had bought it direct from the Maoris. This is why some devious settlers tried to talk the Maoris out of signing the Treaty and to stir up unrest amongst them after it was signed.

Now that the Treaty was signed, land had to be divided into legal ownership to be given titles. Whoever claimed the most land before titles were given would then own it legally after titles were given. This, plus land not owned by the seller, started the land wars of 1860 in Taranaki. A dispute arose between the Maoris who sold the land and the "rightful owners". This land was returned to the "rightful owners" then re-purchased at a higher price. It was again disputed and the Imperial Troops were brought in to gain peace and to enforce British Sovereignty/law/order over this small minority of Maori "rebels".

At the time the "King Movement" was gaining strength. The King Movement was a rebellious group of Waikato Maoris who had signed the Treaty but were opposing British sovereignty by helping the Taranaki Maoris in their war as well as causing unrest and trouble in the development of New Zealand.

Even though they had signed the Treaty they decided to keep their Sovereignty, which through weak Governments, is still in existence today. They are using the Waitangi Tribunal to lodge claims against the Crown/people which have in many cases, like many others, including the Nga Tahu, have had full and final settlements already honoured by the people of New Zealand since 1946 and earlier.

The majority of the tribes and their people accepted British Sovereignty and Government and prospered. It was only a small group, mainly in the centre of the North Island and led by individuals, who caused the trouble. Many Maoris fought alongside the Imperial troops to bring law and order to New Zealand. Only a small percentage of the tribes were involved in the land/Sovereignty wars. Most welcomed and encouraged the Europeans to settle in their area for the protection, trade and prosperity they brought.


For nearly twenty years the Imperial troops fought the "rebel" Maoris at Taranaki, Waikato and Tauranga (Gate Pa). At times the Imperial Troops consisted of more than 14000 men under the command of the Governor. At this time large areas of land in Taranaki, Waikato and Tauranga were confiscated as payment for these wars, although most of the Tauranga land was returned with a large cash payment of two thousand five hundred pounds for the Maoris to re-establish themselves. Many innocent settlers lost their land and/or their lives by the "rebels" during these wars.

Although these wars of the 60's were called "Land Wars" they were really "Sovereignty Wars". The wars were fought to enforce British Sovereignty over New Zealand so that Britain could form a united Government to bring law, order and protection to all the people of New Zealand, as the Treaty promised. The confiscations were a result of these wars and not a means by which to gain land. The war cost 400,000 pounds in 1861, far more than if the land had been bought in peaceful times.

In most cases the Maoris accepted these confiscations at the time. They fought and unfortunately lost and therefore had to pay the price. This in itself, is Maori Custom. The Imperial Troops at no time fought to destroy the Maori; they fought only to bring law and order to a small minority of rebels. The majority of Maori were very good law abiding citizens. It was only a few, as it is today, who were making it difficult for the majority.

As the Kingites in the north, a group of rebels in the south, the Hauhaus had formed their own religious war party determined to drive the Europeans back into the sea by working themselves and their followers into a frenzy before attacking and killing remote settlers, their families and stock around Wellington province and Hawkes Bay.

On the 23rd of April 1851, Auckland with a population of 4500 was threatened by an attack by a group of Maori from the Ngaiti paoa tribe south of Auckland who had some of their people imprisoned. They assembled five war canoes, plus several smaller canoes and set off from Waiheke to attack the people of Auckland as Heke had done six years earlier at Russell. Governor Grey quickly assembled the 58th Regiment and greeted the Maoris when they landed at Mechanics Bay. He also had the HMS Fly sail in behind the canoes, Grey then approached the Chief and told him that if he did not go back to his village, the war ship would make short work of his canoes and the troops would open fire. The Maoris had no alternative but to heed Grey's ultimatum and paddle away. Later they apologised to Grey and, as a token of respect, laid five greenstone mere's at his feet.


These incidents marked the turning point from tribal control/ lore in New Zealand to full British control/law that the Maoris had asked for on many occasions and agreed to in the Treaty of Waitangi. The British had not wanted to get involved in tribal warfare and had hoped it would sort itself out but with a rebel threat to Auckland, defiance to law, order and the British Sovereignty by the King Movement, the killing of settlers by the Hauhaus, and inter-tribal fighting, there was no alternative. A stand for British Sovereignty, law and order had to be made by the Governor with his Imperial Troops.

It must be remembered that the Maoris had been at war between themselves for hundreds of years for survival as well as to show their mana and strength. It was their way of life. To expect them to stop this tribal warfare overnight, especially now they had muskets that could settle old scores, would be an impossibility and would take time. Only a strong Governor with a force would break this pattern and bring law, order and unity between the people of New Zealand. Most tribes were peaceful and law abiding and became very good citizens as soon as the Treaty was signed. Only a few did not honour the Treaty of Waitangi and resisted British Sovereignty. It was very unfair to the tribes that did honour the Treaty and helped develop New Zealand, now to be forced by Government to pay compensation to those who did not. As the land was now governed under one law, the Imperial Government had to bring in the Imperial Troops to enforce law and order and to stop the fighting between the tribes. It was also thought that if the Troops were not brought in to stop the tribal fighting the Maoris would soon destroy themselves. Many Maori joined the Imperial Troops and fought alongside them in the land/Sovereignty wars as they did not agree with the "rebels" actions. There were eighty times more Maori killed in the tribal wars than in the land/Sovereignty wars of the 60's and 70's. Chiefs like Hongi killed his own countrymen just for the sake of blood or to settle old scores, now that he had muskets. The Imperial Troops were used only to gain peace and to enforce British Sovereignty, not grab land as many historians and activists lead us to believe.

The wars were very costly and were not the direct fault of the Imperial or Colonial Government. The Governor had to confiscate land conquered from the tribes who started the wars to meet the costs and to show that there was now one law for all. Many innocent settlers and their families also lost land as well as their lives during these wars but their ancestors have never received compensation or a Government funded Tribunal to hear their grievances as have Maoris.

As Sir Apirana Ngata stated in his book, The treaty of Waitangi- An Explanation, "Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravene the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi, but the chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the Sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority, war arose and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and the land was taken as payment. This in itself is Maori custom-revenge-plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.

Many of these confiscations, whether right or wrong have had full and final settlements reached with previous Governments and then honoured by the people of New Zealand for many, many years but are again before the Waitangi Tribunal to be re-negotiated. If anyone is to be responsible it should be the Imperial Government and not the Colonial Government as they had very little control over what happened in New Zealand at the time… a responsibility of Britain and not the people of New Zealand.

The Imperial Troops were always under the control of the Governor of the Imperial Government until 1870 when the troops were finally withdrawn. The Colonial Government had no control over the Imperial Troops who fought, conquered and confiscated the land which was then sold to the settlers by the Government. The Imperial Troops were used by Britain to enforce British Sovereignty over New Zealand, otherwise the British would have been defeated by, (quote) "a pack of uncivilised savages". In most conflicts with the Imperial Troops the Maoris were outnumbered 4 to 1 but with their modern fortified pas and their very clever and cunning methods of outsmarting the British they always seemed to escape with little loss of life. Until settlers assisted, the troops did not chase Maoris who retired to the King Country. The wars ended without a true victory to either side and, eventually, peace was achieved by this small group of Maori "rebels" accepting the advantages of British rule and Sovereignty. This was far better than being constantly at odds with the rest of the country, including their fellow countrymen.

After the withdrawal of the Imperial Troops in 1870, the Colonial Government formed a constabulary of many nationalities as well as many pro-Government Maori. These were used to keep law and order and to control the small "rebel" followers still causing trouble. In most cased the constabulary were commanded by ex-Imperial commanders, who had decided to stay in New Zealand. In 1872 the Maoris still owned about 75% of the North Island. Most of the land after this time was sold for a fair price by ancestors of present day Maori, who spent the money, leaving very little or nothing for their descendants. Over-all very little land was confiscated as most was returned or compensation paid.


From 1840 until 1852 New Zealand was controlled by the British Crown under a Governor. On the 30th June 1852 New Zealand's Crown Colony status ended with the passing of the British Parliament's Constitution Act granting limited self Government. This Act provided for a National General Assembly of an Elected House of Representatives, an appointed Legislative Council and the Governor who was to hold supreme authority.

The General Assembly met for the first time in Auckland on the 24th May 1854 and soon found that the real power still lay with the Crown Officials on the Executive Council, answerable only to the Governor.

Henry Sewell became the first Prime Minister on the 7th May 1856.

The official designation "Colonial" disappeared on the 25th November 1907 to be replaced by "Dominion of New Zealand". Governor became Governor General in 1917. Full and final autonomy and Sovereignty occurred on November 25th 1947 when New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster. Britain then enacted, at New Zealand's request, a Constitution Act authorising New Zealand to alter any of the 1852 Constitution Act provisions. Up until this time, the Colonial Governments were only "puppets on a string" to Britain. As Sovereignty over New Zealand was held by the British Crown until 1947, the Dominion Government could not make laws or pass Acts without their authority. Even today the Government can be overruled by the British Privy Council or expelled by the Governor General, the Queen's representative (Martin's note: The Privy Council has now been dumped, much against the wishes of most New Zealnders. Our new Supreme Court will be "The Waitangi Tribunal" in drag).


Today Governments conveniently hide behind "The Crown", when in need, not really knowing or admitting who or what it is. As it is no longer the British Crown, it can only be the people of New Zealand, the Government in perpetuity or the Queen. The question to be asked is, "should the Government in power at the time, sell or trade the Crowns/peoples assets or give large sums of money or buy assets for one group of citizens, in out of court settlements as it is doing, without first going to the people?"

The Waitangi Tribunal, funded by the Government, is controlled by the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act using the five Principals, which in many cases do not relate to the Treaty's true intentions or spirit that, "we are one people". The Tribunal hears only claims by people of Maori descent and is funded by the taxpayer with grants to the claimants to research and lodge their claims, also funded by the taxpayer. Non-Maori are not allowed to lodge claims, or in many cases, participate in the hearings which are usually heard on the marae. This Tribunal contravenes section 19 (1&2) of the Bill of Rights Act, as well as article three of the Treaty and therefore must be abolished. How can we be expected to honour one part of the Treaty if another part is being broken with the Government's blessing? (funding).

The question that must be asked is, how do we address these so-called wrongs, when the claimants' ancestors, through intermarriage helped create them?

After twenty years of negotiating and thinking that these grievances are being solved satisfactorily once and for all, Sir Graham Latimer now states in the Straight Furrow Magazine, dated the 21st March 1994, that "A lot of people feel this type of settlement is not possible, but it is possible to have a generation settlement. No-one can commit the children 25 years on". What he is saying is that every 25 years these settlements must be renegotiated.



· The Treaty of Waitangi is an inspired and benign, friendly document that all New Zealanders should cherish and no New Zealander should fear.

· The Treaty guarantees equality for all New Zealanders, that all will be treated with justice and accorded full rights and privileges of British subjects.

· That the Sovereignty of New Zealand is vested in Her Majesty the Queen.

· That the Chiefs and signatories to the Treaty fully understood the rights that they were forfeiting and transferring to British Sovereignty and did so willingly in order to become recipients of the protections accorded by the Queen's Government.

· That the simplicity of the wording within the preamble and articles of the Treaty leaves no room for misunderstanding or alternative meanings of the clauses. Reverse translations of the Maori text back into English in the 1860's shows that the Chiefs were fully conversant with the meanings of each article and that there was no ambiguity.

· The Chiefs, realising that the only hope for the survival of the Maori people lay in this course of action, wisely chose to make this gift available to their people. After 80,000 Maori had lost their lives through inter-tribal conflict in the short space of only twenty years it was time to make radical life-saving changes.


· Conniving and devious people, intent upon defrauding the people of New Zealand, decided to "re-interpret" what the Treaty could be construed to mean.

· They managed to isolate the preamble, such that it doesn't feature in any discussion related to the meaning or spirit of the Treaty and have subsequently and insidiously eliminated it from the document as a clause of no significance or relevance.

· They managed to get rid of articles 1 & 3, such that these do not feature to any extent in the nouveau, exploitative and twisted interpretations related to the "true intent" and purpose of the Treaty. For those advocating "Maori Sovereignty", the Treaty represents a significant blockade to their incentive...unless they can eliminate most of it's clauses and add in radically revised ones, then convince New Zealanders that the Treaty didn't mean what it clearly stated in 1840.

· They home in on part of article 2 and claim that it means anything and everything that is guaranteed to "turn a buck". The first half of Article 2 is the only area that gets any (albeit nefarious) mention.

· Without any consultation or input from the people of New Zealand, our Treaty was hijacked, tampered with, bastardised, added to without authority, turned into a so-called, "living document" that can be reinterpreted to exploit any newly arising financial opportunity, and shamefully used to plunder and dispossess all the people of New Zealand. What was given to us as a benevolent gift by the Chiefs has been turned into an instrument of torture, hardship, apartheid and slavery, detested by the vast majority of New Zealanders. The goodwill inherent in the Treaty in now in disrepute.

The foundation upon which the Treaty of Waitangi rests is "Magna Carta". The "common law" rights of The Great Charter are guaranteed by the reigning Monarch of Britain. This is the body of "law" and "human rights" that were offered, through William Hobson, by Queen Victoria, to the Chiefs of the Independent State of New Zealand in 1840. The only way that the Treaty of Waitangi can be nullified or declared "broken" is if the New Zealand Government deviates markedly away from the principles of Magna Carta, which principles underlie the Treaty of Waitangi. Continued access to full Magna Carta rights, as preeminent and supreme over all other forms of subservient statutory laws, rules, codes, regulations, policies, etc., is guaranteed by, The New Zealand Imperial Applications Act 1988.


Researcher Hilda Phillips has spent the last thirty years unravelling the cobweb of deceit woven by fraudsters/ opportunists… who have gone unchecked because of bungling, inept and inattentive bureaucrats/ politicians... resulting in the present legal "mess" and confusion surrounding Treaty claims. Hilda provides us with the following insights related to some of what went so horribly wrong:

From the time that Maori arrived in this country until 1840, they occupied and used land and territorial fisheries ONLY for so long as they could defend it against other warring tribes. Whatever governorship, kawanatanga or rangatiratanga chiefs may have then possessed could not protect, ensure, or guarantee (even their own) uninterrupted occupation of Maori "dwellings and places of cultivation".

Until 1840 "customary law", or, more appropriately, customary lore prevailed. This has been variously described as Maori "traditional rights", their "customs and usages", or - as now stated in the Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993 - "tikanga Maori customary values and practices".

A primary customary right was "kite": the right of discovery. But "ahi-mataotao" applied when the descendants of a territorial ancestor (for whatever reason) left the area and none of the progeny returned to keep the rights alive for a period of three generations. In other words, they had not practiced "ahi-ka": that is, they had not kept "the fire burning" by periodic occupation and use.

There were other "customary" rights, but "take raupatu" - the right of conquest - prevailed over ALL other pre-European "tikanga Maori customary values and practices". In pre-European times, Maori most certainly did not have any "spiritual" attachment to land, lakes, sea or foreshore.

Prior to 1840, there was no form of civil government external and common to all tribes, which could ensure "guardianship" of any territory (land, mountain, sea, foreshore, lake or river). The present Labour Government completely ignores a fact, which (rightly) should be common knowledge to every New Zealand schoolchild that - from the time they arrived in this country until 1840 - Maori occupied and used land and territorial fisheries only for as long as they could defend it against other warring tribes. Whatever form of customary title prevailed prior to 1840 was vested in the fighting strength of the tribes warriors. Until 1840 they "colonised" each other's tribal territory, and the vanquished were often enslaved or devoured.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi put an effective end to the Maori acquisition and loss of land by warfare and, for the first time introduced a system of law which enabled Maori - for the first time in history - to own land "undisturbed and for so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession", as guaranteed in the first part of Article II of the Treaty.


It should be common knowledge but, sadly is not, that where the Maori "places of residence and cultivation" were clearly recognised (particularly amongst themselves) their customary right of occupation and/or use - as it stood in 1840 - was confirmed with a registered propriety title "derived from the Crown". Although this "extinguished" their pre-European "tikanga Maori traditional values and practices", the newly-introduced system of land law brought about a transformation from land-occupation to land-OWNERSHIP. The newly acquired legal land titles were recorded in Land Registry Offices (I have personally sighted some of them, but it is only in the earliest records that the race and registered owner is recorded).

However (to my knowledge) from 1840 to 1865 such Maori-OWNED land had no statutory designation. The Native Lands Act 1865 introduced the term "Hereditaments" to denote "lands in the Colony which are owned by Maori". This was eventually changed to the term (just) "Land" in the Native Land Court Act 1894; and subsequently was changed again to "European Land" by the Native Land Act 1909. In today's race - conscious world it is difficult to believe that any government could be so foolhardy as to introduce the term "European Land" to denote Maori-owned land, but that is an irrefutable fact (which anyone who takes the trouble to read the Act can confirm).

It was not until 1975, that a Maori Affairs Amendment Act introduced the more appropriate term "General Land" to denote Maori-owned land subject to New Zealand's general land law. And it was not until 1980 that such Maori-owned land was officially recognised by the McCarthy Royal Commission's acknowledgement that there was "a very considerable amount" of such Maori-owned land which "is to be found in farms, in business sites and in town and country house sections".

As Maori-owned land has been so systematically ignored (especially by Parliament) it bears stressing that Maori are by no means as "landless" as the nation has been brainwashed into believing. The time is already long-overdue for Parliament to recognise and acknowledge that it is only since 1840 that Maori have been able to OWN land "undisturbed and for so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession"; and, what is more, own it collectively as well as individually anywhere in New Zealand. The transformation from "customary" land-occupation to legal land ownership is indisputable (but regrettably, ignored) proof that the Queen's guarantee in the first part of Article II of the Treaty of Waitangi has been honoured.

But there are two parts to Article II in the Maori as well as the English text of the Treaty - the Queen's guarantee and the Chief's "partnership agreement". This was violated, and however understandable that may be viewed in a historical context, it is nevertheless a fact, which has yet to be recognised and acknowledged - as it created a fertile legal ground for race-related claims.


All race-related land, and other, claims MUST be - and have yet to be - considered in the context of THE CHIEF'S "partnership agreement".

In the long-ignored second part of the Article II, especially in the Maori text, the Chiefs agreed that the Queen (or Her representatives) could purchase those pieces of land, which "the owner" was willing to sell". Yet all race-related land, and other, claims have yet to be considered in the context of THE CHIEF'S "partnership agreement" - because they sold land they did not own.

In 1840, most of the South Island was uninhabited, and even in the more populated North Island there were large tracts of unoccupied land between the territories of different tribes. These areas, officially referred to as "waste land" or "surplus land" were, in effect, tracts of "no man's land". Nevertheless, "nearly the whole of the South Island" as well as large tracts - which were not occupied or cultivated by any tribe, hapu, or iwi - were purchased, often repeatedly purchased, by the government:
As no purchase from one of the contending parties was held binding by the others, the Government eventually established a special Law Court in 1865 to deal with Maori-disputed claims both prior to and subsequent to the land sale. Maori disputed not only the right of other Maori to sell the tracts of "no man's land" they also laid claim to Government-purchased and European-owned land. The Land Court was intended to be a purely temporary measure "to remedy the invidious position of the Crown as arbitrator in land disputes".

But instead of fulfilling its function, the Land Court created problems Far more serious than those it was established to resolve. On June 7, 1886, The NZ Herald reported that Maori "were disgusted by the ease with which bogus claims were admitted in (that) Court". And on April 7 1888 the Herald reported that Maori had "numerously signed petitions praying for the Land Court to be abolished".

Five years later the Rees Commission confirmed that the Court had issued BOGUS titles to Maori after the land sale and - on that ill founded basis - "brought into existence a regular system of concocting false claims….in numerous instances perpetrating frauds successfully both upon Maori and European" (Appendix to the Journal of the House of Representatives1891 G1 pages xi, xii, and xviii).

In 1928 the Simm Commission found that the "confiscations" after the wars in the 1860's were of what legislation then called "Native Land", a term which applied to the "surplus lands of the Maori in the North Island….the ownership of which was unascertained". Nevertheless, the land was either purchased (in some instances yet again) or "returned" to Maori and - although the land may never nave been tribally occupied - the Land Court "determined the persons to whom the land should be granted" : AJHR 1928 1o, 18, 29 and 30.

In November 1973, Matiu Rata said in his introduction to a White Paper on Maori Affairs that the Government was "conscious" of the Maoris "many land grievances, some going back over many years, others are of more recent vintage, but most are no more than 6 or 7 years old", and (on page 9) he referred to the "artificial status" of the Maori Land Court, the jurisdiction of which "included questions of compensation".

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established and - by Parliamentary decree - the Chief Land Court judge became chairman of the Tribunal, thereby compounding the practice of "concocting false claims".

In June 1987, both the Tribunal and the then-called Department of Maori Affairs acknowledged, at least to the New Zealand Herald, that there is NO "comprehensive record" of WHICH TRIBES were represented by the Chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi or WHICH AREAS of New Zealand territory were occupied by them in 1840 (information which the NZ Herald has yet to publish). Furthermore, as the Waitangi Tribunal has acknowledged (somewhat obliquely, but acknowledged nevertheless) "Some Maori sold land they did not own" and the Land Court was established "to deal with the problem of suspect sellers"; but "difficulties have arisen from the failure of the Court to determine who should take title or to even record the basis for reasons for any selection or settlement": the Tribunal's Orakei Report pages 28, 29, and 34.

That such a situation exists is a blistering indictment of Parliament. The so-called "Maori Affairs" legislation is now embodied in the Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993. Section 131 (1) of this Act empowers the Land Court "to determine and declare the (racial) status of any parcel of land, whether or NOT that matter involves a question of law". This Act is administered by the Land Court, the Chief Judge of which is also the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Whoever the Minister of Treaty Negotiations has been, or is (at present Margaret Wilson) that person is negotiating multi-million dollar race-related "settlements" on thoroughly ill-founded ethnic, tribal, hapu, iwi criteria. Obtaining money under false pretences, under any other circumstances, would be a criminal offence; but apparently ceases to be when legalised by Parliament.

A situation which will be even more gravely exacerbated by the present government's proposal, which is to establish "a new and dedicated jurisdiction of the Maori Land Court to investigate Maori Customary rights in the foreshore and seabed". A proposal, it bears stressing, which would legally perpetuate the mistakenly Maori-named Land Court, which "brought into existence a regular system of concocting false claims" - at a crippling cost to the nation.


On page 9 of its publication Protecting Public Access and Customary Rights, the Government asks: "How did the legal case on the foreshore and seabed come about?"

The answer to that question has its genesis in the Native Land Act 1865 which established the Land Court. The term "Native Land" was coined by the government in 1860 to mean "the customs and usages of the aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand so far as the same are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity" (AJHR 1860 3E 6B page 4). The term applied to whatever "customary law (or more appropriately customary LORE) could be applied by the Court to Maori-DISPUTED claims both prior to and subsequent to land sales. But when the term "Native Land" was transposed into law, the Native Lands Act 1865 wrongly stated that the term "shall mean lands in the Colony owned by Natives". The term "Native Land", it bears stressing, denoted the legal status of land dealt with by the Court, and NOT the racial ownership. This error fathered what the Rees Commission found was a "mistaken system".

The Rees Commission recognised and acknowledged that, " for a quarter of a century the Native land-law and the Native Land Courts had drifted from bad to worse…from 1865 there were almost annual amendments to the legislation, sometimes even several amendments in the same year. In 1888 there were eight Acts passed, and in 1889 nine… (this) was and is the result of a mistaken system which Parliament determined to enforce…secrecy which was ever the badge of fraud was observed…and (as a result) it has exercised a baneful influence on all those who had anything to do with it. Other mistakes in legislation have produced disasters, but it is difficult to find a parallel to the evil consequences which have resulted in New Zealand as a fruit of a mistaken system.

"The pernicious consequences of Native land-legislation have not been confined to the Natives, nor to the European (to whom the law ALSO applied) ….the disputes thence arising have compelled the attention of the public at large, they have filled the Courts of the Colony with litigation, they have flooded Parliament with petitions, given rise to debate and very great bitterness… and while entailing very heavy annual expenses upon the Colony have invariably produced an uneasy public feeling.

The Court's decisions are never final…so complete has the confusion both in law and practice become that lawyers of high standing today and extensive practice have testified on oath that if the legislature had desired to create a state of confusion and anarchy in Native-land titles it could not have hoped to have been more successful than it has been. It is impossible within reasonable limits, to follow the windings and intricacies of those laws by which the legislature from the outset has been vainly attempting to continue an unsatisfactory system. The pages of Hansard are filled with discussions upon Native-lands. In numerous instances frauds have been perpetrated on successfully both upon Native and Europeans.

Evidence has been given by lawyers of repute that, owing to the many conflicting provisions of statutes and decisions by the Court of Appeal it is doubtful whether a single title resting upon these statutes and its many amendments can be upheld, so unstable is the foundation upon which they rest, so mistaken the principle which legislation has compelled the people to submit to, that the most sacred rights of property are jeopardised. It is no consolation to find that the same laws which thus injure the innocent and unfortunate in too many instances protect the wrongdoer".

But instead of taking appropriate action, Parliament perpetuated the "mistaken system" increasingly compounding it.

The Native Land Court Act 1894 separated the terms "Native Land" and "customary land" giving them contradictory interpretations. This statutory confusion was further compounded when the Native Land Act 1909 introduced the term "Native freehold land - a term which applied to bogus title certificates issued by the Land Court'.

The term "Native" was comprehensively changed to "Maori" by Part 1 section 2(4) of the Maori Purposes Act 1947. This exacerbated, rather than resolved, the statutory confusion when numerous Native Land Acts became embodied in the Maori Affairs Act 1953.

In its 1980 report to Parliament, the McCarthy Royal Commission stated in no uncertain terms that those subject to the jurisdiction of the Maori Courts "include of course, Europeans, the Government and others". The Commission went on to say that the Department of Maori Affairs had been associated with the Land Court since 1865, adding that "The Court was the Department". The Commission indisputably recognised that this judicial/bureaucratic establishment was MISTAKENLY Maori-named but did not acknowledge this irrefutable fact. The Commission also recognised, but did not acknowledge that - sanctioned by Parliament - this mistakenly Maori-named judicial/bureaucratic establishment had spawned numerous government funded satellite bodies, including the New Zealand Maori Council and the Waitangi Tribunal. Consequently, the Government gave the Maori Council authority to rewrite the so-called Maori Affairs legislation which is now entitled the Ture Whenua Maori Land Act 1993.

In March this year, Attorney-General Margaret Wilson acknowledged that Maori Land Court judges are appointed by the Minister of Maori Affairs. But she did not acknowledge that, whoever the Minister of Maori Affairs is (regardless of racial ancestry) that person in accountable for the Land Court which Maori wanted abolished over 100 years ago. And even more noteworthy, the Attorney-General (wittingly or unwittingly) did not acknowledge that since 1865, the Land Court has been mistakenly Native/Maori-named. This is an irrefutable fact, which Parliament has attempted to bury in a veritable jungle of legislation administered by judges who preside over a Law Court, alias the Department of Maori Affairs, alias Te Pune Kokiri/the Ministry of Maori Development. Viewed in a historical context, nothing - absolutely nothing - can justify or condone the continued existence of the so-called "Maori Affairs" portfolio.

As matters now stand, the Court of Appeals has referred a case involving a question of law back to the Court which fathered the land and ALL other race-related claims on thoroughly ill-founded ethnic, tribal, hapu, iwi criteria. Wittingly or unwittingly the Court of Appeals is condoning the existence of a racially mis-named Law Court which, for over a century, has outlawed law and justice to the advantage of every citizen of this country, regardless of their racial ancestry.

Justice will continue to be outlawed by the Government's proposal to establish "a new and dedicated jurisdiction of the MIS-named Maori/Land Court to investigate Maori customary interests in the foreshore and seabed".


In 1840 it all started out on a well-intentioned, firm footing and the future was looking rosy for everyone in this country. All it would take was some damned hard physical work, adherence to law, order and justice, as well as mutual respect and fair dealings between all of our people.

There were bound to be unresolvable issues, eternally dissident parties and some who would never comply to the overall consensus of opinion, shared by the cooperating majority who lived in New Zealand. At some point, as the years rolled on, New Zealand settled down and came of age. Within about half a century of the Treaty being signed New Zealand was a well developed, abundant and safe place to live for everyone. Just look at photos of scenes near the turn of the 19th to 20th century to see how far the fledgling little nation had come in 50-years. New Zealand continued to develop and rapidly improve through the 20th century and beyond. I fondly remember it as a great place to grow up, with its moderate climate and seemingly endless coastline, mountains, forests, lakes and rivers....the biggest park in the world to play in.

But alas, there are always some opportunists in every society who are so crooked, they can't lie straight in bed…and these mongrels have destroyed our Treaty by tampering with it, rewriting it or deleting its clauses without our permission. They've turned it into their "living document", the content and meaning of which can be changed to suit any new plundering or exploitation opportunity. The vultures and parasites, feeding on the life-blood of New Zealand, continue to find deep-set, profound, "hidden meanings" within the solitary sentence they've allowed to remain of the original, 1840 Treaty.

Most of this seems to have occurred since about 1975, after Europeans and other non-Maori were deliberately written out of the Treaty, with the introduction of the Treaty of Waitangi Act of Parliament 1975. What had formerly been rendered and well understood as, "and all the people of New Zealand" in Article 2, became exclusively, "the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof". Further to that, the Treaty document was combed and squeezed in an effort to extract hidden meanings. Professor Kawhura's new translation of the Maori text was substituted in to replace the understandings and meanings that had persisted and been adhered to, under law, for about 140 years. We find in Kawhura's reworked Treaty that New Zealand was to be "received" by the Queen and not "ceded". The Laws/Articles in the Treaty are "presented" and not "offered". Professor Kawhura also redefined "taonga" to mean something far more expansive that transcended the "physical" into the "spiritual" realm. William's (circa 1844) dictionary* translates taonga "as property and goods" and the official translation from the Department of Maori Development,"as personal property". Professor Kawhura decided it could newly mean, "all their treasures"...a seemingly small difference in meaning, but a vast difference in what can be prised from the taxpayer under the open-ended definition of, "spiritual treasure" (religion). *See also: Kendall and Lee's Grammar and Vocabulary (1820).

What things were understood to mean to the Chiefs and all others there present at Waitangi in 1840, can best be summed up by Missionary Henry Williams, who provided the final wording of the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi:

"We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in the suppression of wars, and of every lawless act; under one Sovereignty and one law, human and divine".

I really would like to know who the treacherous individuals were who "reinterpreted" and "rewrote" the new, 1975 English version of the "official" and solitary, signed Treaty document (originally written in Maori, such that it could be read and understood by the Maori Chiefs in 1840). The longstanding, well understood original document was recently transposed into this, "far more ethnically limited and exclusive" 1975 Act of Parliament. Whoever engineered this ruse and deception appears to have been working to a sinister hidden agenda, probably hatched by "big business interests", intent upon gaining access to New Zealand's nationally owned, tied up and otherwise unavailable, "resource wealth".

This initiated the era of exploitation and plunder wherein European and other non-Maori ethnicities, even though they had generations of family history in New Zealand, became, increasingly, second class citizens, obliged to pay massive reparations for, mostly, imagined and manufactured grievances or "customary rights" interpretations, based solely upon "race". Of the multi-billion dollar payouts or resource "giveaways" since the creation of the (circa 1975) Treaty Industry, only a meager few fat-cats within the greater population ever became the final recipients and beneficiaries of the extorted wealth.

Needless to say, these few hundred money grubbers have enriched themselves greatly in the process of stealing our Treaty and have turned our former system of "Equality" into one of "Apartheid". Their newly created, multi-billion dollar Treaty Industry came at a terrible, crippling cost to ALL (otherwise dispossessed) New Zealanders.

The tremendous unfairness and hardship that has been foisted upon all New Zealanders by these "nouveau elitist" reinterpretations of the Treaty are the very issues which should be laid before the Privy Council of Great Britain for redress. The newly dispossessed population of New Zealand requires a profound ruling by the Privy Council, related to the true intent and content of the Treaty, as fashioned and understood in 1840 and sealed by "custom and practice" in the affairs of New Zealand for the century and a half that followed.

Isn't it ironic that the leading advocate for the "dumping" of the Privy Council, against the wishes of the vast majority of New Zealanders, was Margaret Wilson, Attorney General and Minister of Waitangi Treaty Claims? Once the Privy Council has been axed, New Zealand will never be able to return to its former status of equality, as the "replacement" court, envisioned by Margaret Wilson, beyond and above our Court of Appeals, will always include a judge from the very biased, "Maori elitist/ big business" owned and operated, Waitangi Tribunal. Once the Privy Council are gone, so also, increasingly, are our rights to redress under Magna Carta...the foundation laws upon which the Treaty of Waitangi is supported and built. Our highest court will be a "corporate" based court, where rights related to "common law" will not apply and "statutes, policies, codes and regulations" can overrule traditional common law rights. The Privy Council are cognizant of and take into account "common law rights" in their rulings.


Here are the key players:

Chief Justice of New Zealand, Dame Sian Elias, who formerly worked with the law firm of Donna Hall, wife of Justice Edward Durie (Waitangi Tribunal Chairman). Dame Sian Elias is married to "big business mogul", Hugh Fletcher and is largely responsible for the evolution of the "Waitangi claims industry". In private practice Dame Sian dealt with Treaty-related issues, including acting as senior counsel in cases for Justice Durie's wife, Donna Hall, and others.

Edward Taihakurei Durie and Donna Hall, his wife have come under heavy criticism for years and have been publicly accused of running a major, very lucrative scam by such publications as "The National Business Review" (1999). Another publication related to the "Rich-List" for 2000 states, 'The Treaty of Waitangi settlement process had been kind to some Maori, including specialist treaty lawyer Donna Hall, wife of High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal chairman Justice Eddie Durie. Her earnings over several years from treaty settlement legal fees could be $10 million, said the rich list'.

The Waitangi Fisheries Commission chairman, Sir Tipene O'Regan, deputy Sir Robert Mahuta and former commissioner Sir Graham Latimer were in the $1 million to $5 million zone.

Another publication states,'ACT and its house organ the National Business Review got personal with its attack on the treaty claim process, targeting Waitangi Tribunal chairman chief judge Eddie Durie and his wife, lawyer Donna Hall. Initially the stories rehashed allegations Durie ghosted briefs of evidence Hall presented to the tribunal, allegations which had been dealt with in 1992 by a ministerial inquiry conducted by retired judge Sir Peter Quilliam. NBR quoted former tribunal director Buddy Mikaere saying he had found such briefs, and that "it was the starting point of a deteriorating relationship which got increasingly acrimonious over the next few years." The NBR failed to ask whether Mikaere had his own conflicts of evidence, such as letting a contract to his wife, historian Lindsay Head, or giving priority to funding for the claims of his own Hauraki tribe. NBR also alleged Durie dictated much of the 1995 review of the Crown Forestry Rental Trust by Hall and professors Margaret Wilson, Alan Ward and Whatarangi Winiata. The Wellington District Law Society reopened an investigation of Hall after a former secretary claimed Hall ordered her to forge the signature of an associate, St Clair Macintosh, on an amended statement of claim. Hall said NBR was mounting a smear campaign at the behest of supporters of the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission angry at her orchestration of urban Maori claims. Commission chairman Sir Tipene O'Regan denied any such vendetta, but confirmed the commission had helped NBR with parts of its research.

Margaret Wilson: Here are some quotable quotes concerning her and her track record.

"Margaret Wilson certainly has a significant role in the policy making process. I’d say her stamp has been over quite a few things that have been done by the current government. She’s probably not in the operations loop as far as I can see but she is very much in the policy loop."

By far the biggest looming concern about Wilson, however, is capacity to stack the bench of the new Supreme Court with judges sympathetic to Labour’s social and political agenda.

In a perceptive analysis of the inherent danger surrounding the proposed new court, National Business Review’s Jock Anderson pulled few punches recently:

It will be run by a woman and a Maori is guaranteed a seat.

Who else will make up the new five-judge Supreme Court will be decided by advisers hand picked by Attorney-General Margaret Wilson and rubber-stamped by Governor-General and former High Court judge Dame Silvia Cartwright.

One of those advisers will be former governor-general, Anglican cleric and Maori Sir Paul Reeves.

The court will be headed by Chief Justice Dame Sian Elias (53), with part-time High Court judge and Waitangi Tribunal chairman Justice Eddie Durie (62) a certainty to fill the role of a judge "well versed in tikanga Maori."

There is an expectation that an overly-gung ho Ms Wilson will extend political patronage and appoint people sympathetic to her views on politics, judicial activism, social engineering, middle-class guilt and white-man bashing.

When Ms Wilson looks outside the judiciary for new Supreme Court judges she can appoint anyone who has held a lawyer’s practising certificate for seven years.

That is the same criteria for appointing High Court judges.

It would allow her, for example, to appoint high-profile briefs such as corporate lawyer and professional company director James Farmer QC, former publishing darling and lawyer to Prime Minister Helen Clark Hugh Rennie QC.

It could also open the door for the appointment of other high-profile Maori lawyers such as corporate lawyer and former law commissioner Denese Henare, Treaty of Waitangi specialist Annette Sykes and Justice Durie’s wife and treaty grievance consultant Donna Hall, who failed at considerable personal cost in her August bid to sue The National Business Review for alleged defamation.

"I think you’ve got a series of major risks around Margaret Wilson and I guess choosing judges is one," agrees National’s McCully.

And like Murray McCully before him, the Maxim Institute director also has concerns about the reinterpretation of Waitangi.

"People are trying to insert all kinds of things into the treaty, but it’s a back reading into the treaty – it’s not what was intended. It’s sort of assuming a set of values today, a having become convinced of those values now ruling, they take those values and insert them back into the Treaty of Waitangi and say, ‘that’s what the treaty was saying’. It wasn’t saying that at all".


Prior to 1975 New Zealand was a relatively rich little country. Our policies since WWII had reflected reasonable frugality and thrift and we owned many S.O.E's (State Owned Enterprises). These included our telecommunications network, shipping transport including airways and railways, coal and mineral resources or reserves, forestry, fisheries, hospitals and medical systems, electricity and hydroelectric resources, national parks and tourism, etc. Each of these items and developed services were fully owned by the people and administered by the government, who had to account, on an annual basis, for development costs, maintenance or general expenditure of the S.O.E's..

Big business interests were anxious to move into the New Zealand economy and break up this "socialised block" of lucrative resources, such that they could take control of them. The catch-cry of American led capitalism was that "socialised" or government (people) ownership of such assets was inefficient and akin to "communism". In the capitalist world marketplace the derogatory label of pseudo-communists was leveled at those countries of the "West" maintaining a degree of public ownership of their assets...countries like Australia, New Zealand, Britain, France, Sweden or other of the Scandinavians, etc.

Between the middle sixties and about 1974, the influences of the American "black pride" movement took root in New Zealand and many groups like the Polynesian Panther Party started up. These activist wannabes imported all of the Americanisms, almost as a fashion statement, and searched for gripes to legitimise some sort of a cause. I well remember the the Polynesian Panther Party tent at the Ponsonby fair in 1974, with posters of black activists, Angela Davis and H. Rap Brown pinned to the back wall. The girls running the tent were wearing the big sunglasses and tight glossy red hair scarfs, typical of the American Negro women of the time. Inasmuch as I'd just returned from several years in the United States and was fully conversant with the "race riots" and issues of America's racial developments, I pressed one of the spokeswomen on how her group had anything in common with the Americans. In conversation, her futile attempts to proffer a basic explanation fell apart and I was able to see that her "cause" was nothing but a trendy affectation. About a month after arriving back from the States my brother was at a party where a hui was being held up front and the younger set was socialising out back. One young Maori guy, learning that my brother had just arrived in from the States, started up about Malcom X, the Black Panthers and all manner of gushy hero worship related to the black pride movement. My brother, in a reasonably inebriated state said emphatically, 'and what's any of that got to do with're Polynesian...if you walked up to a black man over there he'd think you were a Mexican and eat you'!

Out of this trendy Maori/ Polynesian flirtation with the black American cause, a formerly nonexistent racial division began to be "manufactured" in New Zealand. Most New Zealanders were utterly bewildered and appalled to see it arising. One of the catch phrases of the day, from very down-to-earth and sensible people, was that, 'racism is something that's created by people talking about it'. We'd been a very successful society, with few known racial animosities. The only racial tensions I was aware of, locally, existed between the various groups of recently arrived Islanders who had come down from Western Polynesia to live and work in New Zealand. By the time I was 19, I'd lived pretty much exclusively with Maoris for four full years, two years of which was in their homes. I'd been in attendance at the tangis and the other functions of the Maraes on innumerable occasions. We'd all been getting on very well, as far as I could tell, until the Americanisms were imported and a wedge was deliberately driven between us by the self-serving "money-grubbers", intent upon turning ill-conceived grievances into dollars.

Beyond 1974 the mood grew ever darker, as social engineers found more inventive ways to divide and rule. Big business was constantly pushing to break up and take ownership of our State Owned Enterprises and in the 20-years that followed, through treacherous collusion with, undoubtedly, "bought off" corrupt politicians, they stripped the cupboard bare, leaving us bereft of our wealth and well-being. One mechanism that seems to have worked very effectively for them is the creation of the Treaty Industry, which has "muddied the waters" and "confused the issue of ownership, as well as Sovereignty". The very powerful PR machinery of the Treaty Industry has, for years, dominated the media in an attempt to saturate our nation with "white man's guilt".


'In 1975 when the Waitangi Tribunal was established, it was soon found that it was difficult to establish Treaty claims using the full English and Maori texts of the Treaty of Waitangi, or the "official" translations. It was decided by the lawyer-led Labour Government and Maoridom, after ten years or so of struggling to prove a claim, behind closed doors and without public debate, to create Five "made to order" Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi. Although these Principles bear little, if any, resemblance to the Treaty of Waitangi (the Treaty has no such Principles), they were very quickly accepted into law and are now solely interpreted by the Waitangi Tribunal. These Principles are now used extensively as the basis for all Treaty of Waitangi claims, as well as local and Central Government legislation to benefit Maori only' (Ross Baker).

Principal 1:

The Government has the right to govern and to make laws.

Principle 2:

The iwi have the right to organise as iwi and under the law to control the resources they own.

Principle 3:

Principle 4:

Both the Government and the iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable cooperation on major issues of common concern.

Principle 5:

The Government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.

So what's wrong with these very nice sounding and noble "Principles"?...well nothing really, except, THEY'RE NOT THE TREATY OF WAITANGI.

So, what's now left of the original Treaty of Waitangi?...well nothing really, except one sentence in Article 2, WHICH HAS BEEN SO SEVERELY TAMPERED WITH IT DOESN'T, IN ANY WAY, RESEMBLE THE MEANING CONVEYED IN THE ORIGINAL TREATY.

All that the Five Principles do is provide a very fertile legal arena, "where anything goes". One legal precedent builds upon another in a rising crescendo of madness, and the original Articles, built into the real Treaty, don't any longer apply, such that the money-grubbing opportunists can run amok unhindered. Interpretations on how to apply the "Five Principles" are the exclusive domain of the very one sided Waitangi Tribunal and in this very biased arena there are no real controls or limitations imposed. So far the "Five Principles" have acted as the mechanism to extort about 8-billion dollars out of All New Zealanders, in only twenty years. This is what happens when opportunists and inventive liars are allowed to BREAK TREATIES.


By the mid-1960's the content and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi, after 125-years of faithful adherence to its Articles, was not in dispute or contention by New Zealanders. We didn't need analysts pouring through the Maori wording, trying to find alternative explanations or meanings. One perceived "chink in the Treaty armour", which the conniving opportunists attempted to exploit to the max, was that the "original, English language draft copy", penned by William Hobson or his secretary, didn't seem to exist anymore. Despite the fact that the Maori version was "back translated" into English on many occasions during the 1800's and always achieved the same, honest and long-understood meanings in the process, this factor was deliberately overlooked by "modern" opportunists wanting to create a "Treaty Industry". The meddlers also had access to Resident, James Busby's raw draft, which had, according to historical accounts, been upgraded by Hobson in line with the pre-assigned stipulations and requirements of the Colonial Office. Hobson had been fully briefed before coming to New Zealand and, unless basic Articles were accepted as binding upon the chiefs, the whole Treaty business was to be declared "null and void". The British were still very reluctant to get involved in New Zealand's tumultuous affairs in 1840 and if they did it had to be only on certain set terms....full Sovereignty ceded to Queen Victoria and all New Zealanders becoming British subjects with equal rights and standing under one law.

Much has been made of the "missing final draft", approved by Hobson and given to long-term Missionary and fluent linguist, Henry Williams at 4 pm of February 4th 1840. The process of translation into the Maori language endured through the night, and by about 9am of the 5th, the Maori version, based solely on the wording of Hobson's final draft, had been very carefully written and was being reviewed. The final Treaty document now existed in the Maori language and was ready to be explained to the chiefs at Waitangi, scheduled for that same day (5th of February at 10 am)... resulting in either approval and acceptance or disapproval and rejection. Initially, signing was tentatively scheduled for the 7th, as it was felt it would take the chiefs a couple of days and nights, at least, to discuss the matter in an ongoing hui.

The modern-day conniving opportunist argue that, in lieu of Hobson's final draft, which seemingly disappeared forever from history, the Maori meaning for such words as "taonga" can now be expanded to mean more than just "physical property and goods". It doesn't matter that for over 135-years it only meant "physical" possessions it could be upgraded to also include "spiritual possessions and treasures", which really opened up the bank vault doors for full on, unrelenting plunder of New Zealand. The opportunists, with their new found-old religious beliefs, went berserk, like sugar craving children at a "lolly scramble".