The tribal claim for water ownership
Iwi are now not talking about [water] ownership, Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group technical adviser Tina Porou told a water symposium in Havelock North on June 2, 2017. However, just two years ago her group took a roadshow around New Zealand garnering support for the steps iwi would take to gain ownership of water, which were to:
- Transfer of title to all Crown owned river and lake beds and title to the water column above to regional tribal groups.
- Title in fresh water consistent with Waitangi Tribunal rulings.
- Guaranteed allocation of fresh water for all marae and marae housing.
- Free water infrastructure for maraes and marae housing.
- Tribal participation at all levels of fresh water decision-making that may include tribal representation on councils, joint management agreements, and co-management of waterways.
- A $1-billion fund of public money to build the capacity of tribes to implement fresh water management and control.
- Tribal involvement in resource consents or an allocation of tradeable water rights.
It is not as though New Zealand is likely to run out of water. According to an Environment Ministry 2016 discussion document titled Next Steps for Fresh water, New Zealand has 145 million litres per person each year – six times as much as Australia, 16 times as much as the United States, and 70 times as much as China or the United Kingdom. We use only 2 per cent.
Interest in water in New Zealand increased as conversion of sheep and beef properties to dairy farming put pressure on allocation, water storage schemes came into vogue, and bottling plants exporting water to China began to appear.
In an effort to encourage more efficient allocation, the Sustainable Water Programme of Action, launched in 2003, raised the issue of the ownership of water. This resembled the way that the introduction of the quota management system raised the issue of the ownership of fisheries.
Whenever the issue of the ownership of a resource comes up, a Maori claim for a share of that ownership appears. We have seen this with fisheries, forests, even electromagnetic spectrum. The Maori claim to ownership of water rests on two arguments:
- A Maori claim to customary or aboriginal rights to water.
- A Maori claim that rivers are taonga, a treasure, and therefore are protected under Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi.
The Government position is that water is a public resource that the Government should manage. The Labour-led Government held this position in 2003. For this reason, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia claimed that the Sustainable Water Programme of Action was “just another foreshore and seabed catastrophe dressed up”.
The common law position is that there has never been ownership of naturally flowing water. The law recognised the rights of landowners to take and use water flowing over or under their land. Such water is not owned until it has been taken.
Where a waterway runs through an owner’s land, the landowner owns its bed and banks. If the waterway forms a boundary, each riparian owner owns the bed to the mid line of the waterway. The beds of all navigable rivers are vested in the Crown.
Section 21 of the Water and Soil Conservation Act 1967 extinguished all common law rights to water, and the sole rights to take, use, dam, divert, or discharge natural water was vested in the Crown.
The Resource Management Act 1991 maintained this position, giving the primary responsibility for managing freshwater to regional councils and unitary authorities. These bodies may establish rules to allocate water among competing uses such as town supply, irrigation, hydropower generation, environmental values, and recreation.
The Court of Appeal has recognised the common law doctrine of aboriginal title in New Zealand. Aboriginal title may be extinguished by the Crown exercising sovereignty. Where it has not been extinguished, aboriginal title will continue to exist provided that the relevant group maintains its traditions.
To advance the interests of all iwi in relation to fresh water through direct engagement with the Crown, the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group was formed in 2007. This group comprises the leaders of Ngai Tahu, Whanganui, Waikato-Tainui, Te Arawa and Tuwharetoa and reports to all iwi.
A change of Government on November 8, 2008, brought the Maori Party into a coalition with the National-led Government which brought in from the cold Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, a vehement critic of the Sustainable Water Programme of Action.
That helped put the issue of water ownership on the agenda for the new government.
The next step in exploring the way forward for water was the Land and Water Forum, an ostensibly independent group comprising 22 member entities in partnership with the Ministries of Conservation, Internal Affairs, Environment and Primary Industries. Environment Minister Nick Smith fronted consultation meetings.
The Land and Water Forum includes five iwi, four of which also belong to the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group.
To make the connection between the government and iwi over water more tangled, the National-led Government adopted the practice of meeting regularly with the Iwi Leaders Group in closed meetings.
Freshwater and reform of the Resource Management Act was discussed at eight meetings involving Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, former Agriculture Minister David Carter, Maori Affairs Minister Pita Sharples, former Environment Minister Amy Adams, Environment Minister Nick Smith, and Primary Industries Minister Nathan Guy.
By fostering close and personal relations with the main movers and shakers, the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group has had substantial input into water policy, both via the Land and Water Forum and through meeting directly with Cabinet Ministers.
There was one other group that has set itself up as the champion of Maori rights and that group is the New Zealand Maori Council.
The Maori Council has just one strategy and that is to go to the Waitangi Tribunal to get a favourable recommendation, and cite that recommendation in the High Court to get an injunction to stop the Government in its tracks.
This strategy was discovered during a standoff over forestry ownership in the mid-1980s, and again in the claim for a stake in commercial fisheries around 1990.
An opportunity for the Maori Council to launch their one and only strategy came in 2011, when the National-led Government in its second term prepared to partly privatise state-owned electricity generators.
In February 2012, the New Zealand Maori Council filed two claims with the Waitangi Tribunal, arguing that “Maori have unsatisfied or unrecognised proprietary rights in water, which have a commercial aspect, and that they are prejudiced by Crown policies that refuse to recognise those rights or to compensate for the usurpation of those rights for commercial purposes”.
Iwi leaders commissioned the Sapere research group to examine the benefits involved in giving iwi a share of the allocable quantum of fresh water, and in doing so, shifting the allocation system from the current resource consent regime to a rights-based regime.
The report, dated December 6, 2014, argued that to spend up to $52 million to change to a new regime, plus an annual cost of $30 million, the benefits would be: better “pricing” of water, awakening of sleeper consents, less costly droughts, reduced cost of resolving over-allocated catchments, reduced costs of conflicts, and Improved capital formation.
The report cited the allocation of shares in the commercial fishery as an example with a claim that the settlement iwi rights to fishery quota increased the value of quota by about 45 percent through removing residual uncertainty about the entitlement to fish.
Of course, a fair allocation of New Zealand’s commercial fisheries quota would have been to all New Zealanders, as would a fair allocation of water rights, although such concepts are kept well away from any discussion of rights allocations.
When the Sapere report was released, the Government would not move from its official position of no national settlement on water rights.
Addressing the assertion of iwi rights and interests in fresh water formed a substantial part of an Environment Ministry’s February 2016 discussion document titled Next Steps for Fresh Water.
This document introduced the terms “Te Mana o te Wai”, which sets principles proposed for the National Policy Statement for Freshwater Management, and “Mana whakahono a rohe”, which provides for iwi to enter into agreements with councils on how Maori can better participate in decisions on fresh water.
Both concepts were written into law through the Resource Legislation Amendment Act passed on April 6, 2017. This Act forces all councils throughout New Zealand into power-sharing agreements with local iwi.
Tradable water rights surfaced in discussion again with the emergence of opposition to exporting bottled water to China for no charge. An Ashburton group called Bung The Bore led by Jen Branje spearheaded the movement that drew much support from people in Havelock North, after a deadly water contamination there in 2016 forced many to buy bottled water.
Freshwater Iwi Leader Group technical adviser Tina Porou’s statement that iwi leaders are focussing on water responsibilities and use, mentioned earlier, diverts attention from the group’s detailed justification for water ownership, circulated two years ago, which demanded:
- Transfer of title to river and lake beds and the water column to tribal groups.
- Title in fresh water consistent with Waitangi Tribunal rulings.
- Guaranteed of allocation of fresh water for all marae and marae housing.
- Free water infrastructure for maraes and marae housing.
- Tribal participation at all levels of fresh water decision-making.
- A $1-billion capacity-building fund.
- Tribal involvement in resource consents or an allocation of tradeable water rights.
However, the Resource Legislation Amendment Act implements the demand for tribal decision making on water and involvement in resource consents.
The Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group appears to be proceeding within that framework, adding the new term Te Mana o te Wai to their public comments.
As a matter of interest, iwi water rights claimants routinely ignore 19th century sale and purchase deeds which show that the chiefs sold the water, along with rivers, lakes, and streams, trees, minerals, and all appertaining to the land or beneath the surface.
 Sustainable Water Programme of Action, Environment Ministry, http://www.mfe.govt.nz/more/cabinet-papers-and-related-material-search/cabinet-papers/freshwater/sustainable-water-0
 Fresh water, Iwi Chairs Forum. http://iwichairs.maori.nz/our-kaupapa/fresh-water/
 Maori rights in water, The Waitangi Tribunal’s Interim Report. http://maorilawreview.co.nz/2012/09/maori-rights-in-water-the-waitangi-tribunals-interim-report/
 The costs and benefits of allocation of freshwater to iwi, Sapere Research Group, http://iwichairs.maori.nz/our-kaupapa/fresh-water/
 Mike Butler, Deeds, half-truths, water rights, http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2012/11/mike-butler-water-rights-deeds-and-lies.html#more )
The total stupidity of the Waitangi Tribunal was full on display last week. I refer, of course, to the finding that Maori re-offending is a Treaty breach. It's bad enough that such reports are written let alone that we taxpayers must fund them.Read more
A horn wailed and men dressed as warriors danced at 2.45am in Wellington yesterday as the James Busby draft of the Treaty of Waitangi was quietly removed from public display.Read more
He iwi tahi tatou . . . . . we are now one people.
In the early 1980s the talented William James Te Wehi TAITOKO captured the hearts and smiles of New Zealanders.
Billy T James made us laugh, at ourselves, at him, at our differences and our similarities.Read more
It’s almost exactly 14 years since I first addressed the Orewa Rotary Club, and almost exactly 13 years since I came here as Leader of the National Party to give a speech which, for a time, turned “Orewa” from a place to a date, so that people spoke of “before Orewa” or “after Orewa”, rather than north of Orewa or south of Orewa!Read more
A report by the Waitangi Tribunal, two years ago, that argues the Ngapuhi chiefs of Northland did not agree to cede sovereignty is contradicted by statements made by chiefs at Waitangi, on February 5, 1840, and by the statements of more chiefs at Kohimarama in Auckland in August 1860.
Missionary William Colenso attended the Treaty debate among chiefs on February 5, 1840, and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi the next day and wrote an account of the events. He recorded statements by various chiefs, and these statements reveal that the chiefs understood the implications of ceding sovereignty as set out in Article 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi. (1)
Te Kemara, a chief of the Ngatikawa, said, "Health to thee, O Governor! This is mine to thee, O Governor! I am not pleased towards thee. I do not wish for thee. I will not consent to thy remaining here in this country. If thou stayest as Governor, then, perhaps, Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that—even hung by the neck. No, no, no; I shall never say 'Yes' to your staying. Were all to be on an equality, then, perhaps, Te Kemara would say, 'Yes;' but for the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down—Governor high up, up, up, and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm, a crawler—No, no, no.
Hakiro (son of Tareha, but who on this occasion appeared and spoke on behalf of Titore,* deceased, principal chief of the Ngatinanenane Tribe) arose and said, "To thee, O Governor! this. Who says 'Sit'? Who? Hear me, O Governor! I say, no, no. Sit, indeed! Who says 'Sit'? Go back, go back; do not thou sit here. What wilt thou sit here for? We are not thy people. We are free. We will not have a Governor. Return, return; leave us. The missionaries and Busby are our fathers. We do not want thee; so go back, return, walk away."
Tareha, chief of the Ngatirehia Tribe, said, "No Governor for me—for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! Thou high, and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low! No, no; never, never. I am jealous of thee; I am, and shall be, until thou and thy ship go away. Go back, go back; thou shalt not stay here.
Rawiri, a chief of the Ngatitautahi Tribe, arose and said (first sentence in English), "Good morning, Mr. Governor! very good you! Our Governor, our Father! Stay here, O Governor! Sit, that we may be in peace. A good thing this for us—yes, for us, my friends, Native men. Stay, sit. Do thou remain, O Governor! to be a Governor for us."
Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, said "O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us—a father, a judge, a peacemaker.
Eruera Maehe Patuone (the elder brother of Tamati Waka Nene) said, "What shall I say on this great occasion, in the presence of all those great chiefs of both countries? Here, then, this is my word to thee, O Governor! Sit, stay—thou, and the missionaries, and the Word of God. Remain here with us, to be a father for us, that the French have us not, that Pikopo, that bad man, have us not. Remain, Governor. Sit, stay, our friend."
In 1860, in an attempt to prevent the fighting in Taranaki from spreading to other regions and tribes, Governor Thomas Gore Browne held a conference of chiefs at Kohimarama, Auckland, in August of that year. Around 200 chiefs attended, more than at the gathering at Waitangi 20 years earlier.
Wikiriwhi Matehenoa of Ngati Porou said “We are all under the sovereignty of the Queen, but there have also been other authorities over us sanctioned by God and the Queen, namely, our Ministers”.
Horomona Toremi of Ngati Raukawa in Otaki said “You over there (the Pakehas) are the only chiefs. The Pakeha took me out of the mire: the Pakeha washed me. This is my word. Let there be one word for all of this island”.
Te Ahukaramu said “First, God: secondly, the Queen: thirdly, the Governor. Let there be one Queen for us. Make known to us all the laws, that we may all dwell under one law”.
Tamati Waka Nene, one of the leaders who signed at Waitangi, said “My desire when Governor Hobson arrived here was to take him as our Governor, in order that we might have his protection. Who knows the minds of the Americans, or that of the French? Therefore, I say, let us have the English to protect us. Therefore, my friends, do I say, let this Governor be our Governor and this Queen our Queen. Let us accept this Governor, as a Governor for the whole of us. Let me tell you, ye assembled tribes, I have but one Governor. Let this Governor be a King to us. Listen again, ye people. When the Governor came here, he brought with him the Word of God by which we live; and it is through the teachings of that Word that we are able to meet together on this day, under one roof. Therefore, I say, I know no sovereign but the Queen, and I never shall know any other. I am walking by the side of the Pakeha”.
It is clear by the words of these chiefs that they understood that cession of sovereignty meant that they would be under the sovereignty of the Queen. To them, the benefits of British government outweighed the liabilities of life before British rule.
The recommendation of the Waitangi Tribunal that the Ngapuhi chiefs of Northland did not agree to cede sovereignty is manifestly incorrect and provides further proof that the Waitangi Tribunal should be abolished.
1.William Colenso, The History of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, http://nzetc.victoria.ac.nz/tm/scholarly/tei-Stout69-t3-body-d2-d1a.html
2.Proceedings of the Kohimarama Conference, July 1860. https://paperspast.natlib.govt.nz/newspapers/MMTKM18601130.2.6?query=sovereignty
By David Round
Prime Minister John Key is indeed correct that most New Zealanders do want to live in a harmonious New Zealand but he was wrong about just about everything else he said in response to the launch of Hobson’s Pledge.Read more
By Andy Oakley
Recently on her Villainesse blog, Lizzie Marvelly suggested she could write a thesis on the many. many problems with Hobson’s Pledge.Read more
Hobson’s Pledge is clear that the Treaty of Waitangi did not establish any “principles” and all references to such “principles” should be removed from legislation.
Although the “principles” of the Treaty of Waitangi were referred to in the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, no one knew what they actually were – that was until the Appeal Court president, Justice Robin Cooke, created a summary for the 1987 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney General decision. Cooke’s six principles were:
- ‘[T]he Queen was to govern and the Maori were to be her subjects; in return their Chieftainship and possessions were to be protected, but . . . sales of the land to the Crown could be negotiated.’
- Because there was some inevitable potential conflict between those principles, both parties had a duty ‘to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith’ towards one another.
- The principles of the treaty do not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to follow its chosen policy.
- The Crown assumed a duty of protection towards Maori: ‘the duty is not passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.’
- The Crown has a duty to remedy past breaches: ‘the Crown should grant at least some form of redress, unless there are good grounds justifying a reasonable Treaty partner in withholding it – which would only be in very special circumstances, if ever.’
- The Crown had an obligation to consult with Maori in the exercise of kawanatanga. Justice Cooke was guarded, however, as to the practical extent of that obligation.
The Labour Government created its own set of Treaty principles. Justice Minister Geoffrey Palmer had a Treaty unit set up within the Justice Department create a 15-page booklet titled The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi that was adopted by Cabinet and published on July 4, 1989.
More principles were to appear. They included:
- NZ Maori Council to Court of Appeal 1987 – 10 principles
- Crown to Court of Appeal 1987 – 5 principles
- Waitangi Tribunal 1983-1988 – 12 principles
The first four core beliefs set out on our Homepage of this website are to do with the Treaty of Waitangi. Our beliefs are that:
- All New Zealanders should have the same rights, irrespective of when they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand.
- The Treaty of Waitangi is not in any meaningful sense New Zealand’s constitution.
- The Treaty did, however, establish three important points, namely that: a. in signing the treaty, chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown; b. that in turn the Crown would protect the property rights of all New Zealanders; and c. that “tangata maori” would enjoy the rights and privileges of British subjects.
- The Treaty of Waitangi did not create a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown.
This article gives a brief background to clarify the complicated issues surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi. We reproduce its three key texts, and show that all the Treaty actually says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including the right to possess property.
A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the nine copies of the Treaty at 34 locations around New Zealand between 6 February and 17 June 1840. The documents signed were written in the Maori language.
At the time, New Zealand was still part of New South Wales. It wasn’t until November 16, 1840, when the Letters Patent (commonly known as the Charter of 1840) was signed by the Queen, that New Zealand became an independent British colony.
The only signing at which an English text was incorporated was at Waikato Heads mission station on 11 April 1840. Five chiefs signed an A4-sized printed Maori text which was attached to an English text written on a large sheet of paper, and this large sheet was signed by a further 39 chiefs.
The larger piece of paper that had a Treaty text in English on it with a wobbly signature by Governor William Hobson, appears to have been used solely to collect the 39 chiefly signatures. These two texts were separated at some time and the English text was taken to be the official English text.
Problems associated with understanding the Treaty are 1. Differences between the official English text and Te Tiriti, and 2. The translation of the words “sovereignty” and “ownership”.
- Differences between the official English text and Te Tiriti, involving the inclusion in article 2 of the untranslatable word “pre-emption” as well as the words “lands and estates forests fisheries”, indicate that Te Tiriti was not translated from the official English text. These differences also mean that the official English text was not translated from Te Tiriti. This means there is an original draft in English that is not being used by the treaty industry, for whatever reason.
- The Treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. The word “sovereignty” in article 1 of the original Treaty draft was translated into “kawanatanga” in Te Tiriti, and the word “ownership” in article 2 was translated as “rangatiratanga”.
At 568 words, the official English text is much wordier than the 480-word Te Tiriti. The differences between the two texts led scholars to conclude that the final draft of the treaty in English had gone missing.
The apparent differences between the English and Maori texts and the use of the words “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” remained uncontroversial until 1983, when the Waitangi Tribunal looked into claims by Te Atiawa about the discharge of untreated sewage at Motunui in Taranaki. The Motunui report rediscovered the Maori language text of the Treaty.
A new back-translation of Te Tiriti by Waitangi Tribunal member and Ngati Whatua claimant Sir Hugh Kawharu redefined “kawanatanga” as “government” and “rangatiratanga” as “chiefly authority”
This created a Treaty that claimants say gave the Governor limited authority to govern British settlers only while chiefs could carry on being chiefs, retaining the right to govern themselves.
A further development occurred in 1989 with the discovery by the Littlewood family of a handwritten 386-word document in an envelope marked “Treaty of Waitangi”. Analysis confirmed that:
- The paper was manufactured prior to the treaty signing, having a W. Tucker 1833 watermark on it.
- The handwriting was confirmed by National Archives treaty researcher Dr Phil Parkinson in 2000 as being that of British Resident James Busby.
- In an official appraisal in 2006, historian Donald Loveridge said that the Littlewood text was either a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty or it was a copy of the missing final draft.
There is just one word that differentiates the Busby February 4 1840 Littlewood text from Te Tiriti and that is the inclusion of the word “maori” yes, lower case “m”, in article 3 to clarify that the ordinary people of New Zealand would be protected by the Queen and be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.
In 1840, the word “maori” meant “ordinary”. It was only after 1850 did “Maori” refer to a distinctive group of people.
It is helpful to publish the English and Maori texts in sequence for comparison, starting with the Busby February 4, 1840, draft, followed by Te Tiriti and the so-called “official English text”, both of which are appended to legislation.
Busby’s 4 February 1840 draft (the Littlewood treaty)
Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.
Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-
The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.
In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.
Signed, William Hobson
Consul and Lieut. Governor.
Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi Maori language translation 5 February 1840
KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira – hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani – kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga motu – na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e 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 atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.
Ko te tuatahi
Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake 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 nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.
Ko te tuatoru
Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga 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 Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira 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 o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.
The single variation between the Littlewood and Maori texts is the addition of the word “maori” in article 3, to clarify that the ordinary people of New Zealand, not just the chiefs, would be protected and be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.
The “official” English text
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 both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized 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 the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize 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 ceded to her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.
Article the First
The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.
Article the Second
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.
Article the Third
In consideration thereof 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.
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 fully to 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 signatures 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.
Governor Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman sent this version to the New South Wales Governor Sir George Gipps on 8 February, and sent a further “certified copy” composite version, with three printed Maori copies, to Gipps on 21 February.
Sharp-eyed readers will note that, strictly speaking, the official English text was not “done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February”, as the postscript reads, because the only treaty signed that day was the Maori text.
Great Britain’s vast empire in the 19th century brought contact with “natives” in numerous regions around the world. Enlightened attitudes in London on the rights of such inhabitants led to the practice of arranging treaties of cession rather than simply taking over the country by force.
The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand resulted from a number of drafts in which a standard treaty format was adapted to suit the New Zealand situation.
The high-sounding “official English text” taken from the first schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 resembles the rough draft notes of Busby’s rejected 3 February draft, which omitted a reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand”.
Because the Treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, the meaning and intent of the Treaty is clearly apparent in the English source document.
This means that there is no need for the Waitangi Tribunal to interpret the treaty for us.
The treaty agreement is simple. Through article 1, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the British Queen. Article 2 guaranteed to the chiefs, tribes and people of New Zealand that they owned what they owned and could sell what they owned to an agent of the Queen if they so wished. Article 3 confirmed that the ordinary people of New Zealand would be protected and would gain the rights of British subjects.
The scope of the Treaty is too narrow to be regarded as New Zealand’s constitution. A constitution is a body of established precedents according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed. The Treaty only concerns the cession of sovereignty and confirmation of the rights, as British subjects in the 19th century, which includes the right to possess property
And finally, the Treaty has no mention of any partnership between “Maori” and “the Crown”. None of the three texts has anything that could be construed to mean “partnership”.
 The “Littlewood Treaty”: An Appraisal of Texts and Interpretations, Dr. Donald M. Loveridge, Wellington, 2006. http://www.victoria.ac.nz/stout-centre/research-units/towru/Publications/Loveridge-Littlewood-1May2006.pdf