As has become more usual in the past 3 or 4 years, Waitangi Day 2022 has produced a regurgitation of claims that Te Tiriti must be honoured by the return to Maori of what was taken from them by later settlers branded as “colonialists”; and that the Treaty is a “partnership” that has been dishonoured, and its “principles” breached.
In earlier columns I have pointed out that the wording of the Treaty in both languages contains no reference to “partnership” or “principles”, and that, as probable first settlers who trace their ancestry to the waka (canoes), the Polynesians who arrived in these islands from Hawaiiki are themselves as much colonists as those of us non-Maori whose antecedents arrived in later centuries; and the fact of those waka rule out any claim that Maori are indigenous.
Today, I want to address five other elements of this ongoing korero (debate):
First, I assert that what a minority of Maori elite claim as “colonialism by imposition” (i.e. against their will) was in fact “colonialism by request” (or at least by the request of a large number of their chiefs). It is both interesting and revealing that the moaners never mention Te Whakaputanga, the group of Ngapuhi chiefs who in 1831 addressed a letter to Britain’s then King William seeking an alliance to overcome problems created by increasing European activity and the scant regard of some of these visitors for the niceties of civil behaviour. Nor do they mention problems arising among their own people from fighting to the death among themselves, often followed by ritual cannibalism, with the prior fatality rate sent soaring by the availability of muskets.
Read the official version of this here.
Fascinating, isn’t it, that this initiative was taken by Ngapuhi, the same iwi that has so far been unable to agree among its constituent hapu as to who should represent them in settling their substantial Treaty claim, thus denying themselves access to resources that other iwi such as Tainui, Ngai Tahu and others have turned to such spectacular advantage.
Second, you must read a column by the outstanding journalist Karl Du Fresne, once editor of former Wellington daily paper the Dominion Post, in which he spells out what decolonisation would cost those calling for it if we “go the whole hog”. Spellbinding stuff, I assure you.
Third, thanks to my membership of a chat group of well-informed colleagues, I can bring you these comments from a gentleman whose research I know to be absolutely thorough, and in whose judgement I have learned to trust:
Where land was judged to have been bought too cheaply by the settlers it was taken off the settler and given back to the Maori, who could then sell it again for a more reasonable price. Some land was sold up to five times.
There were two major hang-ups. One was in the concept of shared ownership among all members of a tribe so that all had to agree to the sale – but the total agreement was not always obtained. This still applies even now. I have two separate friends who have serious issues with this now in a couple of Maori land sale deals. The other was that some Maori did not understand the principles of “selling” – they thought loosely that it was some sort of payment for temporary use, so they would try and take it back later, often by force if the settler refused to give it back. Now, of course, they simply say that we “stole” it all and want the government to force us to give it back – and the idiot governments in the past have complied in all cases, many of which were absolute nonsense.
The tribes discovered that large hunter-gathering areas were no longer necessary for their support, while the variety of material goods and possessions of Europeans were attractive items much to be desired. A rapid transformation occurred of the entire tribal system of values. A veritable frenzy of land selling began, some chiefs travelling to Sydney to sell. Of course they encountered plenty of speculators ready to deal with them. The documents recording the transactions exist there today.
For just the South Island alone a summary of the number of pre-treaty purchases registered in the names of the buyers reveals the scale of this activity:
Nelson, Marlborough, Kaikoura: 44. Canterbury, West Coast: 6.
Banks Peninsula: 14. Otago, West Coast: 35.
Southland: 66. Stewart Island, Ruapuke, etc: 14.
plus a few unregistered sales. Reserves were set aside according to the rank of individuals: from 666 acres for principal chiefs to 73 acres for free men to zero for slaves.
Loud assertions today that land was “stolen” or “dispossessed” are hypocrisy – a mockery of the truth. Some specific examples of sales were thus.
Frenchman Charles de Thierry claimed to have bought 40,000 acres at Hokianga, reputedly by exchange with Hongi Hika (usually called Shongie) of several hundred muskets.
In the South Island, its tiny native population was concentrated in coastal villages near their scanty food supplies. In vast areas of the hinterland, any native who tried to settle would soon starve, as soon discovered by a remnant of Waitaha, said to have tried in the upper Waitaki. Any money or trade goods which white men offered was pure profit to eager sellers. Thus:
1. On 25th October 1839, Te Rauparaha of Ngatitoa sold all of the South Island north of 43º to the New Zealand Company. Sales such as this typically excluded “pahs, cultivation, burial places, and wahi tongoa” (this a term of uncertain meaning).
2. In February 1840, a Ngai Tahu group sold the central South Island from latitude 42º 40’ to about the mouth of the Rangitata River to the French Nanto-Bordelaise Compagnie. (Note the overlap!)
3. On 15th February 1840, Ngai Tahu sold almost all of the remainder of the South Island to Jones and Wentworth of Sydney. (To his credit, Johnny Jones came to Otago and became a genuine settler.)
There were likewise eager sellers in the North Island. Thus:
1. On 25th October 1839, Ngatitoa sold a fifth of the North Island, on a line from the Mokau River mouth to Castlepoint.
2. On 8th November 1839, Ngatiawa sold the same area (!)
3. On 16th November 1839, 35 Wanganui chiefs sold ‘Wanganui’ from Patea to Tongariro and Manawatu to the New Zealand Company.
4. On 15th February, 1840, a consortium of 85 Ngamotu chiefs, (one a woman) sold the Ngamotu, Taranaki Block to the New Zealand Company.
These are but examples of many, an 1878 letter from chiefs Ihaia Kirikumara and Tamati Tiraurax stating that some Taranaki land had been sold three times and records exist in one case for five sales(!)
It was little better than a free-for-all and a situation which no responsible government could allow to continue. Thus, on 30th January 1840, the day after his arrival, and in accordance with his instructions from the Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, Hobson issued a proclamation requiring all existing land claims to be proved and subject to confirmation “by Her Majesty” with all subsequent claims being “considered as absolutely Null and Void”.
https://kiwi-frontline.proboards.com/thread/4798/frenzy-land-selling-bruce-series
Fourth, a letter to the editor of the New Zealand Herald on 7 February, from Philip Lenton, of Somerville, Auckland, which reads:
David Seymour’s call to scrap the Treaty of Waitangi from NZ law could be considered at first sight to be at the best, badly timed, and at the worst, racist. However, with the benefit of consideration there is some merit in Seymour’s suggestion.
The intentions of the Treaty are, fundamentally, quite clear – that NZ should be one country, one people, all equal under the law, and all afforded equal opportunities in life. To that end, the Treaty has been an almost complete failure. Having both a European and a Maori version of the Treaty has of course been extremely counter-productive to that end. History shows that the NZ European community had scant regard for the Treaty, in its early years inflicting many wrongs and injustices on the Maori people.
In later years an effort has been made to right these wrongs; however, an ever-growing attitude of mea culpa by our law makers has led to an over-correction, with the pendulum having swung heavily in the other direction. As a result of that, the Treaty is now being quoted almost ad nauseam – as if it is the panacea of all ills. Unfortunately it is far from that: it could be in fact considered, in many ways, to be “not fit for purpose”.
Perhaps it is now time to revisit the Treaty and update it, not only to correct the obviously inadequate legal aspects of it, but to also make it relevant for today’s world – so that we can truly become “One People”, living together in harmony to the benefit if each and every one of us. That is what the Treaty was meant to achieve, when unfortunately written so badly, all those years ago.
Wise words, Mr Lenton!
Fifth: If the foregoing hasn’t got you worried, read this, just posted by Point of Order.
