Pre-Colonial NZ & European Settlement

Captain Cook and the ‘discovery’ of NZ³² John Wilson, “European Discovery of New Zealand - Cook’s Achievement.”

James Cook was a British explorer, navigator, cartographer and captain in the British Royal Navy. As the commander of HM Bark Endeavour, Cook provided the first recorded circumnavigation of New Zealand. Over three historic Pacific voyages he is credited with surveying, naming and recording many islands and coastlines on European maps for the first time in European records.³³ John Wilson, “European Discovery of New Zealand - Cook’s Three Voyages.” On his first voyage, Cook produced an extensive record of the country’s coastline, geography, indigenous people and its flora and fauna, which provided Europe with its first substantial knowledge of Māori people and life in New Zealand at the time of first European contact.³⁴ Wilson, “Cook’s achievement.” See section “Māori and European contact.” Under instruction to cultivate a friendly relationship with the indigenous people of any land he encountered, Cooks’ actions during that first voyage laid the groundwork for later links between New Zealand and Britain.³⁵ Wilson, “Cook’s achievement.” See section “New Zealand and Britain.” This was no coincidence, as the intent for many of these voyages was to prepare for such a future.

Tupaia, a Tahitian chief and priest who had come aboard the Endeavour during its stay in Tahiti, translated the exchanges between Europeans and Māori thanks to the similarities between Tahitian and Māori languages. While the British may have viewed Cook’s escapades in New Zealand as extraordinary, Māori regarded his expedition no differently than when other tribal groups encroached on their territory. Even with Tupaia’s guidance, misunderstandings arose over trade exchanges between both sides and violence occurred when the crew broke sacred restrictions Māori placed on areas of land.³⁶ Wilson, “Cook’s achievement.” See section “Māori and European contact.” When Cook departed from the island, Māori are said to have bade farewell to ‘Tupaia’s ship’ as the Endeavour disembarked, marking a notable discrepancy between Māori and European perceptions of the weight Captain Cook’s presence held at the time compared to his inflated legacy.³⁷ Wilson, “Cook’s achievement.” See section “The Māori perspective.”

The cultural history of New Zealand reveals an intense bond between Māori and the natural landscape and the arrival of James Cook to the shores of Aotearoa forever shifted the future of life in the Pacific because from that point on Western principles permeated the landscape. Those early moments of European ‘discovery’, which were embedded with the Western paradigm of ownership, resource extraction and economy, ensured that Māori would struggle to maintain control of their lands and waters for successive generations. Land was stolen from its guardians and distributed out to the expectant new arrivals and the resulting battle for ownership and stewardship over said land created lasting tension between Pākehā and Māori. Today, iwi still battle the Crown to reclaim land taken from their forefathers and only in the last 50 or so years has the Crown started to acknowledge its complicity and inheritance of the colonial theft that took place under the banner of the Western ideology.

Independent NZ & European Trade³⁸ Basil Keane, “He Whakaputanga – Declaration of Independence - Background to the declaration.”

A few decades into the 19th century, an independent Māori-controlled New Zealand was a frontier outpost of the British penal colony of New South Wales, Australia. As New Zealand’s trade and shipping expanded, relations between Māori and Europeans became more frequent, and while both parties benefited from positive work relations, occasional violence occurred.³⁹ Claudia Orange, “Treaty of Waitangi - Creating the Treaty of Waitangi.” Since British law did not extend to controlling British subjects living in New Zealand, during moments of tension, like when European residents called on the British government to intervene and maintain order, the Crown was slow to react. This frustrated Māori as well as European settlers and in 1831, 13 northern chiefs, assisted by missionary William Yate, sent a letter to King William IV requesting his protection. Soon after, James Busby was appointed as the official British Resident in New Zealand. When Busby arrived in 1833, without an army or police force, he quickly chose diplomacy, even if just in name, as the path forward.⁴⁰ Keane, “Background to the declaration.” See section “Appointment of the British Resident.”

Flag Dispute & Swelling British Influence

In 1830 a Hokianga-built ship, Sir George Murray, was seized by Sydney customs officials. The seizure occurred under the claim that because it was not part of a British colony, it could not sail under a British flag. Sir George Murray was part owned by Hokianga Rangatira (chiefs) Te Taonui and Patuone, the latter was on board the ship at the time of the incident.⁴¹ Keane, “Background to the declaration.” See section “United Tribes’ Flag.” In the aftermath of the seizure, James Busby recognized the need for a national flag and called together a group of northern chiefs to choose from a selection of three that missionary Henry Williams procured.⁴² Keane. Some Māori understood the benefits of off-shore trade for their own communities and were obliged to cooperate.

Meanwhile, British officials saw an opportunity to use that event to build up their presence in New Zealand at a time when both France and the United States were showing increased interest in the unclaimed territory. Also, they hoped that the new national flag might foster inter-tribal cooperation among Māori. On March 20th, 1834, the flag of the United Tribes of New Zealand or Te Kara was adopted by 25 northern rangatira at Waitangi and recognized by Britain (fig. 18).⁴³ Keane.

He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni
(The Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand)

The decision to adopt a flag quickly flowed into the drafting of He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni (He Whakaputanga) or The Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand. The document, drafted without authorization from Busby’s superiors in Britain, was signed by 34 northern chiefs at a meeting in Waitangi in October of 1835.⁴⁴ Keane, “Background to the declaration.” See section “The declaration is signed”; “Treaty Timeline - Page 1 - Introduction.”

He Whakaputanga included four articles.

• The First: declared the ‘whenua rangatira’ (independent state) and ‘rangatiratanga’ (independence/sovereignty) of the confederation.
• The Second: declared the ‘kingitanga’ (sovereign power) and ‘mana I te whenua’ (authority in the land) to be held by the chiefs collectively and also related to ‘ture’ or laws that must be agreed upon by the confederation through ‘huihuinga’ (congress).
  
• The Third: set in place an annual huihuinga to meet at Waitangi each October that would act as a parliament to frame laws, dispense justice, preserve peace and regulate trade.
  
• The Fourth: acknowledged the confederations duty of care towards Pākehā who had come to trade and stated that a copy of the declaration would be sent to the King. It also asked that the King remain as their protector and thanked him for acknowledging the flag.⁴⁵ Keane, “He Whakaputanga – Declaration of Independence - The Contents of the Declaration.”

Between 1834 and 1839, 52 Rangatira chiefs signed He Whakaputanga and in May of 1836, the British Crown acknowledged the document, thus granting legitimacy to the independent state of New Zealand.⁴⁶ Keane, “Background to the declaration.” See section “The declaration is signed.” The events that led to New Zealand’s independent status reveal that He Whakaputanga may have been signed at Waitangi, but it was rooted in the trade and status rivalry in Hokianga.

Independent NZ to a British Colony

Increased European Settlement without British Authority

In the early 1830s, The British government was reluctant to intervene on behalf of its colonial residents, but as British citizens became increasingly interested in staking their claim in New Zealand, it became preoccupied with their activities. That interest surfaced when the Crown noticed European speculators purchasing vast areas of land at the same time the London-based New Zealand Company (NZC) was strategizing for a settlement in New Zealand.⁴⁷ Orange, “Creating the Treaty of Waitangi.” See section “New Zealand before the treaty.”

In 1839 the prospect of British stakeholders relocating to the newly independent New Zealand proved imminent when the NZC dispatched a ship carrying several hundred settlers to the Cook Strait. In response, the British government reassessed its control over New Zealand and took action. Soon after, it appointed William Hobson, a naval captain, as Consul to an Independent New Zealand and as lieutenant governor to any parts of the country that Māori would ‘consent’ to becoming British. In that decision, the Crown paved the way for Hobson to negotiate for the sovereignty of New Zealand and establish a British colony. The suggestion to draft a treaty with Māori reached Hobson during his journey to New Zealand. It came from the governor of New South Wales, George Gipps. Many view He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tireni as a forerunner to the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi (New Zealand’s founding document) because it was the original document in which Britain formally recognized New Zealand as independent and included the clout of the 52 chiefs who signed in support. Nevertheless, with a precedent for negotiations set, the British set out to write a new document, this time an agreement on the status of an Independent New Zealand and the British Crown.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Treaty of Waitangi

Drafting & Translating

On January 29, 1840, Hobson, along with his secretary James Freeman and the British Resident James Busby, drafted The Treaty of Waitangi. Over the course of one evening, some records say a few days, the Treaty was translated into Te Reo by the missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward to become Te Tiriti o Waitangi.⁴⁸ Orange, “Creating the Treaty of Waitangi.” See section “Drafting and translating the treaty.” The English and Māori language versions that resulted contain fundamental differences which led to Māori and Europeans having different expectations of the Treaty’s terms. The discrepancies still remain in the Treaty and are the source of criticism and disavowal of the document’s legitimacy.

On February 5th, Hobson presented the Māori-language Te Tiriti o Waitangi at a meeting of 500 Māori at Waitangi. After a lengthy debate filled with descension on the potential effects the text posed to their chiefly authority, land and trade, the meeting of Māori concluded without resolution. Yet, on February 12th, 1840, 64 Rangatira still signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi at Māngangu in front of 3,000 people who gathered for the occasion.⁴⁹ Orange, “Creating the Treaty of Waitangi.” See section “Treaty first signed.” Afterward, several handwritten copies of the Te Tiriti o Waitangi were taken by British army officers and missionaries to be signed by Rangatira throughout the rest of New Zealand. These copies were revised and altered on a case-by-case basis in order to appease the will of the current signatory. In the end, more than 500 chiefs signed a version of The Treaty of Waitangi, nearly all of them the Māori-language copy.⁵⁰ Orange. “Creating the Treaty of Waitangi.” See section “Gathering further signatures.” Despite unresolved differences in the two versions, the signing of the treaties resulted in a formal declaration of British sovereignty over New Zealand by Lieutenant-Governor William Hobson in May of 1840. Ever since, the resolution of Treaty discrepancies has presented the people and modern government of New Zealand with challenges.

Māori & English Versions

The general consensus in New Zealand today is that the Treaty of Waitangi is less a formal legal document than a political gesture to reflect an agreement between the Crown and Māori to create a partnered nation state where all British and Māori are protected. A glossy view of history, but nonetheless, it was the foundational document for the country’s early colonial government and has remained a fixture in successive governments since.

Legally, there is just one Treaty, despite the differences between the two texts, and lawful references to the Treaty are careful to refer to the core concepts of the document rather than individual excerpts from either translation. Any question of the legality of decisions made under the Treaty must navigate a circumstance where the document is fully upheld by the consensus of New Zealand. The Waitangi Tribunal is the governing body that has exclusive authority to determine the meaning of the Treaty, in either text, and decide resolutions for issues raised about the discrepancies between them. Usually, those discrepancies are pertaining to land. The consequences from the Treaty over the last century have brought many cases involving Māori land rights to the Tribunal, though, cultural resource use and intellectual property law are increasingly being brought to its attention in recent years.

Kevin Prime has had a long career working with the Crown in New Zealand’s government and over the years he has often been called on to discuss the Treaty with his colleagues. “It is sort of interesting,” he noted, “I haven’t been a strong proponent of the Treaty of Waitangi but I’ve heard all the arguments. I find myself being appointed to all of these different boards and I’m supposed to be there to tell them about the Treaty and all, whereas I’ve not believed in it, I’ve not believed in settlements.”

As Kevin is far better equipped to discuss the Treaty than I, I asked him to share his response for when he is called on. “What I can concede is that when I read the Māori-version of the Treaty today I would still sign it, because the Māori-version is so different from the English version,” he warned. “In article one, the English version talks about ceding sovereignty, but in the Māori-version it talks about ceding kawanatanga. Now, kawanatanga is a transliteration of the word governorship. Māori would not have known what kawanatanga is and what they were ceding because they didn’t know what governorship meant. Governance and management, Māori would not have known that. To them they were not ceding sovereignty, they weren’t giving up their sovereignty, they were giving up this weird word called kawanatanga that they did not know what it meant.

In the second article, where it says you will be given absolute control of all your lands, your fisheries, your forests – taonga katoa... Every possession that you treasure, that’s what taonga is, it’s a treasured possession, and te tino rangatiratanga means absolute control. Rangatira, ranga means to weave, tira means group, so Rangatira means chief, someone who weaves or organizes groups. Rangatiratanga would be the action of being in control. So you have absolute control. And when you use the word tino in front of it, tino translates to very, like, very much. So you’ve given te tino rangatiratanga, absolute control of all these different resources.

In the third article, they were given...the intention was equal rights and the word they used was tikanga. That has been translated as rights, that you would be given the same rights as British citizens. But at that time tikanga would undoubtedly mean customs. So they would’ve understood that to mean that you were allowed your own customs, the same as the British are allowed their customs. That’s how I would have understood that sentence if you read the Māori version.”

So it stands that the Treaty of Waitangi and Te Tiriti o Waitangi sit atop a mound of miscommunication. Māori who signed Te Tiriti agreed to cede an invented concept of governance and management over their land to the incumbent Europeans while simultaneously maintaining absolute control over the resources that came from the land as well as their traditional customs. The Europeans, referencing the Treaty of Waitangi, believed the signers had agreed to relinquish their sovereignty in exchange for the customary use of the land, and the protections and benefits of equal rights to their British counterparts. Leaving the table with the same legal rights as the non-native arrivals was hardly cause for celebration, let alone justification for the brutality and injustice that followed.

“I’m often articulating [this all] to my colleagues in these different boards.” Kevin said. “But we meet with the minister and politically, you would lose votes if you adopted these ideas so I don’t think he’d risk that in an election year, which is next year. So, even though my recommendations are there I can’t see that they’d implement it.”

I considered the political ramifications of publicly adopting certain outlooks on the Treaty and asked Kevin for his recommendations, political consequences aside. “First, to recognize Te Tiriti o Waitangi, that would be the Māori version of the Treaty. Next, to acknowledge that Māori never ceded sovereignty, from the first article, they ceded kawanatanga, which was that transliteration for governance. Then, I would translate the third article...I personally think that if you want to be consistent, Māori talk about how the first two weren’t translated right yet they’ve accepted the principle of article three which is talking about equal rights. If you want to be consistent in your picking of a Māori translation, you should accept the Māori translation in the third one, which is talking about your customs and not rights. Māori would not have understood that as equal rights, they would have understood that as having your own customs the same as the British have their customs. That’s how I would have understood that at the time,” he said.

Post-Treaty NZ

Land Disputes & British Authority vs. Māori Rights

After the ratification of the Treaty of Waitangi, the British government quickly assumed authority over all Māori, even those who did not sign or participate in the drafting at all.⁵¹ Orange, “Treaty of Waitangi - The First Decades after the Treaty – 1840 to 1860”; “Treaty Timeline - Page 1 - Introduction,” While there may have been both an English-language and Māori-language version of the Treaty, the two texts did not hold equal weight in the eyes of the colonial officials left in power to uphold Britain’s end of the bargain. As expected, those officials almost exclusively referenced the English-version when making decisions in the early stages of colonial Parliament.⁵² Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “Crown views of the treaty.” Though Māori did not expect the British government to fully uphold its end of the agreement, they did expect their traditional chiefly authority to be recognized. However, since the English text placed less emphasis on maintaining the authority of the Māori chiefs, the traditional rights of chiefs were called into question only four years after the signing. British officials claimed that those rights conflicted with the Crown’s authority, and would therefore need to be limited.⁵³ Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “Māori views of the treaty.” Even if the Crown intended to honor the authority of the chiefs and the promises made in the Treaty, their minimal presence in New Zealand gave them little leverage when the first colonial Parliament in 1854, for fear of joint-power with Māori, refused to share their authority.⁵⁴ Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “Changing balance of power.” Their actions effectively barred Māori from taking part in political decisions nationally.

The handling of legal and land issues caused more tension than any other, especially when the protection and guarantees to Māori assured in the Treaty conflicted with British standards of conducting business. In the case of New Zealand, the standard for conducting business meant that British colonists would immigrate to New Zealand, buy up large tracts of land and develop settlements. Often, when the purchase of land was concerned, the British government chose to bypass the Treaty altogether. For example, they ignored guarantees when they validated the New Zealand Company’s questionable purchase of Māori land to found the city of Wellington.⁵⁵ Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “Crown views of the treaty.” Early on, Māori welcomed interaction with the colonists, but once it became clear that their land was being swept up swiftly, their attitude changed. Not long after the Treaty, European colonists arrived in the hubs of Auckland, Wellington and Nelson in large troves expecting to purchase land from reluctant Māori. Though tension was higher in these areas than in the more rural regions of the island, where Māori and colonists still had good relations, the precedent it set regarding Māori land ownership nationally was clear. The conflict between Māori and colonists escalated until it reached violence in Wairau in 1843 and in the 1845 Northland War.⁵⁶ Orange; “Treaty Timeline - Page 1 - Introduction.” See sections “1843 Wairau incident” and “1845-6 War in the north.”

The early conflicts in Wairau and Northland paved the way for larger ones down the road, but not before Māori called on the Crown to act. In 1847, for fear of further seizure of their uncultivated land, Waikato chief Te Wherowhero appealed to Queen Victoria. The Queen assured Te Wherowhero that the guarantees would be honored via a message delivered by governor George Grey.⁵⁷ Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “Māori views of the treaty.” With the Queen an ocean away, however, those assurances went unenforced.

Māori King Movement & War in Waikato

As European settlement in New Zealand expanded during the 1840s and 1850s, tensions between Māori and Pākehā over land worsened. By 1846, the Crown moved for all Māori land ownership to be “registered”, which allowed for it to be deemed unused or surplus and subsequently taken under Crown control. While the Treaty had already started to fade from settlers’ and officials’ consciences, arguments were made, notably by the acting governor George Grey, that the Crown reserved in the Treaty exclusive rights to purchase Māori land. Nevertheless, Crown agents quietly went about persuading Māori to sell their land so as to not rock-the-boat of their relations into more discontent. The agents often offered to pay a rate higher than the market price to ensure success.⁵⁸ “Treaty Timeline - Page 1 - Introduction.” See section “1846 Surplus land taken.” In response, many iwi strengthened their traditional tribal Runanga (councils) and some even formed alliances in an effort to solidify power. Tribes of the Tainui federation in Waikato even formed an alliance and called on other tribes to join them, hoping to create a unified front against the Europeans.⁵⁹ Orange, “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “The Māori King Movement.”

In 1858 the Tainui chief Te Wherowhero, who had already engaged with the political side of the conflict when he corresponded with the Queen a decade prior, was appointed head of the alliance, renamed Pōtatau and chosen for the first Māori King. The King Movement or Kīngitanga withheld land from sale in order to retain it and believed that it was possible for the Māori King and British Queen to reach a peaceful co-existence. That did not prove to be the case. Government officials in both colonial New Zealand and motherland Britain viewed the Māori King as a challenge to British sovereignty. Some went so far as to describe it as treasonous, comparing it to a Māori rebellion. This disagreement and tension led to more conflict between the Crown and Māori when, in 1861, the British government sent troops to invade Waikato.⁶⁰ Orange, “Treaty of Waitangi - Dishonouring the Treaty – 1860 to 1880”; “The First Decades after the Treaty.” See section “The Māori King Movement.”

After the war in Waikato, violence spread to the Bay of Plenty and beyond (fig. 19). In the eyes of nationalist Brits, the warfare was justified as a suppression of a Māori rebellion rather than an assertion of British supremacy. Successive governments continued to ignore the Treaty’s guarantees to protect land rights and by 1870 most of the South Island had been taken from Māori landowners, further fueling the distrust between the groups. By the mid-1870s, Māori were outnumbered by troves of European settlers and discussions of the Treaty had nearly disappeared from political and social dialogue. As settlement exploded in the North Island, legislation like the Public Works acts of 1864 and 1876 allowed the Crown to annex Māori land for roads, railways and other public infrastructure.⁶¹ Orange, “Dishonouring the Treaty.” See sections “War in Waikato” & “Lack of protection for Māori.”

Land theft on such a large scale was made possible by the actions of the government’s Native Land Court . The Native Land Court, still in operation today under the new banner of The Māori Land Court, converted tribally owned Māori land rights into Crown-granted titles which made the land easier to sell to Pākehā residents. By the 1890s, most of the North Island had been taken as well and the land loss continued through the 20th century.⁶² Orange, “Dishonouring the Treaty.” See section “Native Land Court.”

In this text are fragments of the grievances brought by the Treaty. Some, like those related to land seizure and reclamation are indisputable, but the consequences of British colonization codified into law through the Treaty manifest in each topic I discuss.

Contemporary NZ Government

New Zealand stopped being a colony when it was officially recognized as a British Empire dominion in 1907. At the time, very few New Zealanders craved full independence, and the shift had no legal or political effect. While the Statute of Westminster of 1931 removed London’s right to legislate for British dominions without explicit permission, New Zealand, under the leadership of Prime Minister Gordon Coates, did not ratify the Statute until 1947. The remaining provision of British Parliament to make laws for New Zealand died with the Constitution Act of 1986 and although the dominion status remains unbroken, the term is no longer used to describe the country.⁶³ “Dominion Status – Page 5 - What Changed?”

Today, New Zealand is a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system of government. New Zealand’s government involves two tiers, central and local, and includes nation-wide as well as regional and territorial governing bodies. Parliament holds legislative power and consists of the head of state and sovereign (Queen Elizabeth II) who is represented by the Governor-General (Dame Patsy Reddy), and the House of Representatives. People democratically elect Members of Parliament (MPs) to the House of Representatives every three years. The Prime Minister (Jacinda Ardern) is the head of government as the most senior minister and chair of the Cabinet, the main decision-making body of the government which itself is accountable to Parliament. At the local level, there are two kinds of government councils– the regional council that represents regional authority and the district council that represents territorial authority.⁶⁴ “New Zealand’s Central Government | New Zealand Now.” It is in local government where administrative bodies are charged with cooperating and engaging with communities and iwi representatives to ensure comprehensive governance.

In Northland, Te Kaunihera ā rohe o Te Taitokerau or the Northland Regional Council (NRC) is the regional governing body. The NRC is enabled by various acts of Parliament, like the Local Government Act of 2002 and the Resource Management Act of 1991, and led by elected regional councilors. Structured like a business, its council members oversee groups involved in waterway management, civil defense, biosecurity and pest control, land management, transportation and economic development, environmental planning and monitoring and most importantly community engagement and working with Māori.⁶⁵ “What We Do.” The three territorial authorities in Northland are the Far North District Council in Kaikohe, the Kaipara District Council in Dargaville, and the Whangārei District Council in Whangārei (fig. 2.1).⁶⁶ “Your District Councils.”

For this project, I worked with Te Papa Atawhai or the Department of Conservation (DOC), the public service department of New Zealand charged with the conservation of New Zealand’s natural and historic heritage. An advisory body, the New Zealand Conservation Authority (NZCA) is provided to advise DOC and its ministers. The entire country, both the North and South islands, is divided into districts, each of which has a regional DOC office and personnel. Alongside the DOC districts there are rohe (regions) that designate iwi (tribes) owned and occupied land. Māori occupy the role of kaitiaki of the land and DOC is tasked with working alongside iwi to protect and support the forest. DOC employs both Pākehā and Māori but, according to the Māori DOC employees with whom I spoke, equal representation has yet to be reached. The institutional inequity is revealed by Māori employees outnumbering Pākehā in lower level positions and vice versa the higher one looks into the administrative ranks.

Together, the local councils and iwi representatives interact with the Department of Conservation district area offices and private environmental trusts to make administrative and legislative decisions about land management in Northland. Invariably, Māori representation in governing bodies is unequal to Pākehā, but there exists a concerted effort to rectify the imbalance through appointing Māori to advisory committees and as liaisons and encouraging consultation with relevant iwi as part of resource consent applications.⁶⁷ “Te Kotahitanga - Working in Partnership.”