The Conference of Churches in Aotearoa New Zealand has prepared study material on constitutional reform. This will help us see the issues more clearly as possible forms of Treaty based constitutional arrangements emerge…

The Case for Constitutional Reform

Since early 1995 there have been indications that Maori protest action is reviving. So what’s at stake? An underlying theme is a call for a new structuring of political relationship between Maori and Pakeha: a call for Constitutional Reform. What is wanted is Constitutional Reform which will take as its starting point te Tino Rangatiratanga o te Iwi Maori. It is Tino Rangatiratanga which is the central fact affirmed in the 1835 Declaration of Independence, and upheld in Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. Neither the Declaration nor the Treaty is in any doubt that Maori exercise absolute authority over their own land and destiny.

In this country, the establishment of Westminster-style Government in the 1850s unjustly and progressively deprived Maori of the right to control their own land. The English Parliament, sitting in London, imposed the 1852 Constitution Act, in the name of the Crown. By this means, they transferred what they saw as their right of absolute political power to settler interests in this country.

In 1990, after more than a decade of discussion, research and careful monitoring of Government action, Te Runanga Whakawhanaunga i Nga Haahi o Aotearoa (the Maori ecumenical body) called on Maori and all people of goodwill to boycott the elections. As an alternative, Te Runanga suggested that people sign a Tino Rangatiratanga Register. This call was located solidly within a 150-year understanding that the Treaty, far from ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, in fact confirmed the Tino Rangatiratanga of Maori.

Te Runanga’s call also reflected the clear awareness that the imposition of Settler Government in the 1850′s by a Pakeha minority was in direct contravention of the Treaty. Given that our political system is poisoned at its source, the Runanga’s forbearance in proposing a Constitutional Conference to the two main Parties in 1990 is even more remarkable. This proposal received scant attention in the media, who were busy dismissing the boycott call, claiming it was the result of manipulation by ‘radicals’. It was rejected out of hand by both the then Prime Minister Mike Moore, and the Leader of the Opposition Jim Bolger. Their letters of response to the proposal were completely devoid of respect for the Runanga, or of any sense that they had anything to learn from the opportunity being offered them.

By contrast, the Executive of CCANZ and the then leaders of some of its member churches were very supportive of Te Runanga’s stand. They also called on their church constituencies to give serious consideration to the boycott call, and the reasons for it. Early in 1990 ten Church leaders had issued a joint statement on the sesquicentenary celebrations, which acknowledged the need for Constitutional Reform as part of the quest for a just future, based on the Treaty and on Maori status as Tangata Whenua. This imperative to do what is right is therefore not new. Nor will it go away.

The Royal Commission on the Electoral System, reporting in 1986, noted that the present system of Government effectively deprives Maori of a political voice. It recommended a process of consultation and dialogue to seek a solution to this. Te Runanga’s 1990 proposal for just such a dialogue was, like the Commission’s recommendations, steadfastly ignored by both Government and opposition.

The Maori Congress and the Wellington Maori Legal Services have both been calling for negotiation between Maori and the Crown to work out a new Treaty-based constitutional relationship and different options have been forthcoming. The Whanganui Iwi who re-occupied Mautoa Gardens in Whanganui clearly spelt out that their argument was with the Crown and was an issue of Maori sovereignty. They have called for Constitutional Reform.

The Anglican Church in New Zealand created a Constitution in 1857 based on the English Parliamentary system. That constitution was revised in 1992. The changes expressed a commitment to a Treaty based partnership in this country and partnership with the Anglican Church in Polynesia. This action shows that constitutional change is possible and that it can be invigorating to all involved. The Anglican model is one possible way forward.

The Methodist Church has been making changes in its decision-making committees in order to reflect a partnership between Taha Maori and Tauiwi. It now has a Council of Conference with ten Maori and ten Tauiwi meeting three times a year between national conferences. The Council is a policy- making body.

As we come to this discussion, it may be helpful to remember that the Westminster system of Government which we follow in this country has no natural claim to a place here. Indeed, many former British colonies which imported the same system have since abolished it. It is salutary also to observe that ‘our’ system of representative government doesn’t even represent us satisfactorily. The launching of a petition calling for 50:50 female : male political representation is a recent example of a group beginning to recognise this inadequacy.

In 1993 the Pakeha electorate in a reaction to an inadequate First Past the Post electoral system voted for Mixed Member Proportional representation. This modification of the Westminster system of government may well have been an improvement for the Pakeha electorate but did not address the underlying need for a new constitutional relationship which guarantees Te Iwi Maori their Tino Rangatiratanga.

A discussion of Constitutional Reform offers much to Pakeha, not only with respect to Treaty partnership with Maori. The more fundamental questions of how we are governed, by whom, for whom and why, should be on our agenda. It is time they were. It is time to “do justice, and walk humbly with God”.

A Tiriti Analysis of Proportional Representation:

Te Tiriti o Waitangi is the primary constitutional document of Aotearoa. The Maori version of Te Tiriti confirmed te tino rangatiratanga over all things Maori. It granted to the Crown kawanatanga, or limited power, for the exercise of control over new settlers. However, on the basis of the English text of Te Tiriti (or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty), successive governments have maintained that Maori ceded their sovereignty to the Crown. This has been the basis on which they claim their legitimacy. It is however incorrect, for Maori never relinquished their tino rangatiratanga, rather it was taken from them. Governments throughout our history have denied Maori their tino rangatiratanga.

The acid test of any constitutional reform in Aotearoa is whether it is Tiriti based, and in particular whether it recognises and confirms tino rangatiratanga. Clearly the present parliamentary system does not. Advocates of the change in the early 90’s to proportional representation argued that Maori would have more seats in parliament, but this still does not directly address the question of Te Tiriti and tino rangatiratanga. Under proportional representation the principle of ensuring that there is always a Tauiwi (all non-Maori people living in Aotearoa) majority in control will not be altered. For Maori, proportional representation only means more of the same.

Given the expressions of commitment to the Treaty of Waitangi made by our Churches, we are called to judge the adequacy of proportional representation in terms of Te Tiriti. When this is done proportional representation is found to be wanting, because it is not Tiriti based and does nothing towards restoring tino rangatiratanga.

Globalisation in its contemporary form heralds a new form of colonialism as the colonisation by countries during the Nineteenth and early Twentieth Centuries gives way to the colonisation by trans-national companies (TNCs) during the last half of the Twentieth Century. It is the goal of GATT and the other related agreements to make the world one single market with no barriers to the How of goods, services and capital. This is based on two ideals; that exports are good, imports are bad; and that free trade benefits all, provided every country is involved. In practice it will be the TNCs that will gain the most, as free trade will allow them to increase their profits by seeking new products and markets around the world, unhindered by regulations. Those who will lose the most are the underdeveloped countries and the indigenous peoples of the world who are already marginalised within their own countries.

The Uruguay round of the GATT talks included three new agreements covering services; General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATs) the related Trade Related Investment Measures (TRIMs), and Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Also being proposed is a “free trade policing organisation”, called the World Trade Organisation (WTO), to enforce the agreements after they have been ratified. TRIMs require the elimination of a range of investment controls such as requirements for local content, technology transfers, exchange restrictions, restrictions on foreign ownership etc. This would have the effect that after a phase-in period, foreign firms would be treated no differently from local ones. For example it would prohibit the use of domestic subsidises or quotas to protect the local entertainment industry. This agreement protects any patent for a minimum of 20 years, copyright for fifty years, and trade marks for seven years; the last two renewable indefinitely. TRIPs promote the commodification and privatisation of knowledge that has often been stolen from indigenous peoples. This move was condemned by an international conference of indigenous peoples who signed the Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples at Whakatane in June 1993. It declares, “that Indigenous Peoples of the world have the right to self determination; and in exercising that right must be recognised as the exclusive owners of their cultural and intellectual property.”

These GATT agreements have nothing to do with free trade but every thing to do with protecting the TNCs. Some of the consequences of this agreement are: that it would make it illegal for indigenous people to use traditional plants and medicines if they were patented; make it possible to patent life forms and human gene lines; and prevent governments from using compulsory drug licensing, drug importation from cheaper sources or generics to save money.

World Trade Organisation

Its responsibilities are to supervise the implementation of GATT agreements in member countries. All necessary steps must be taken to amend domestic laws so that they conform with the GATT and related agreements. The WTO can approve retaliation and other trade sanctions in respect of trade policies that are incompatible with GATT. In this context any country that seeks to impose environmental standards or controls above internationally agreed minimum standards may be guilty of restrictive trade practices and punished by sanctions. All member countries are entitled to participate in the WTO and have one vote, so in appearance there is democracy and equality between sovereign states. In practise this will be another arena of world politics that the rich countries of the North will dominate to the disadvantage of those countries without the political, economic, or military leverage.

Many of the changes required by GATT have already been implemented by the past Labour and present National governments with the consequent reduction in the health, wealth, and education of the average person, in particular the Maori. The GATT agreements will also mean that any policy return to self reliance though import controls and restrictions on foreign ownership etc may be punishable by international sanctions, in effect making the economic policies of structural adjustment irreversible. The agricultural export gains for NZ with the ratifying of GATT as promoted by the Government may not eventuate, and if they do they are unlikely to be sufficient compensation for the consequent loss of national sovereignty.

Treaty Implications

Manuka Henare says, “Maori as a nation (ie. Declaration of Independence) did not have any significant input into the GATT negotiations.” Jane Kelsey states, “Virtually every aspect of the GATT involves a serious conflict with Crown obligations and Maori rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.” These include:

• protection of taonga and wahi tapu from exploitation;
• control of land, forests, fisheries, waterways, ngawha, or pouamu;
• access to resources through customary rights or availability for return to tangata whenua as compensation;
• control of the indigenous knowledge of medicinal plants, waiata, whakairo, whakapapa.

Maori were not consulted or included in the government’s GATT negotiations. The government clearly formed the view that Maori had no legitimate interest in the Uruguay round. The Maori Congress in February 1994 expressed its concern at the lack of any negotiating mandate from Maori; the lack of information about the implications of the agreement or the offers being made by government; the incompatibility of Maori cultural concepts and values of reciprocity with the free trade model; the attempt of the powerful countries to continue to build their wealth on the spoils of colonisation. The mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga guaranteed in the Declaration and the Treaty embody the right of Maori to define and control what is of spiritual, cultural, economic and social significance to them. GATT seeks to commodify all their taonga into a form capable of exploitation and profit, and subordinates the authority of tangata whenua to the highest bidder. The government has chosen to ignore these implications. The irony is that the Crown, in asserting its sovereignty over Maori may now have lost its own sovereignty.

Throughout the process of drafting this declaration, the New Zealand government has opposed the right of indigenous peoples to self-determination. It has isolated itself among the several English speaking colonising powers, with USA, Canada and Australia all accepting the morality of this right to self-determination (although all three have now voted against the final Declaration, see more here).

The New Zealand government has sought to replace the right to self-determination with the much more limited concept of ‘self management’. It has stated, “Maori did not have a right to self-determination because we are urbanised and lack the defined territory in which self-determination vests.” However, in international law self-determination is a right inherent in peoples, not territory. The New Zealand government has also opposed he use of the term ‘peoples’, preferring the term ‘populations’. By labeling Maori as a population the government seeks to get around rights that exist in UN conventions such as those on civil and political rights, which are vested in peoples not populations.

The government has sought to ensure that the Declaration is consistent with domestic law, in an effort to protect the privilege of the majority, despite the Declaration seeking to create international norms and not domestic ones.

For more information, see the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues

Note:
self-de·ter·mi·na·tion
–noun
3. the determining by the people of the form their government shall have, without reference to the wishes of any other nation, esp. by people of a territory or former colony.
(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/self-determination)

The Meaning of Tino Rangatiratanga

The word rangatiratanga comes from the word rangatira, which is most often translated as chief. Rangatiratanga, which refers to chieftainship, approximates to oversight, responsibility, authority, control or sovereignty. The word tino is an intensive or superlative, meaning variously: very, full, total, absolute. So tino rangatiratanga approximates to total control, complete responsibility, full authority or absolute sovereignty.

The term tino rangatiratanga was used in the Declaration of Independence of 1835, which recognised Nu Tireni (New Zealand) to be a sovereign and independent nation where power and authority rested with the rangatira. The English version of that declaration stated that “all sovereign power and authority resided entirely and exclusively” in the rangatira.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840 also used the term tino rangatiratanga with the promise that it would be guaranteed to Maori. As Maori were still signing the Declaration of Independence up to six months before the Treaty, it is clear that the same meaning for te tino rangatiratanga was/can be applied in the second article of the Treaty of Waitangi. Further evidence for this can be found in the missionary translation of the Lord’s Prayer into Maori where the kingdom of God is translated as “rangatiratanga”.

In the words of the English translation of the Maori version of the Treaty, the Queen agreed to the rangatira and the iwi retaining full chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands, their villages and all their taonga including the Maori way of life. This interpretation means considerably more than “the full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands, estates, forests, fisheries, and other properties” in the second article of the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi. In terms of the Maori text the sovereign right of Maori was confirmed not ceded.

It is mostly the Maori text that Maori talked about, signed, and have understood. It was the Maori text that the Crown presented for signature. Furthermore it is a basic tenet of international law that in any bilingual treaty when the differences arise between two language versions, precedence is given to the text that is not in the language of the drafter. This is known as the rule of “contra proferentum”.

Rangatiratanga and Kawanatanga

The Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi clearly confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori (Article 2). It granted to the Crown kawanatanga (being a transliteration of the word governorship (Article 1)). Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga and, on the basis of its being guaranteed in the Treaty, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their tino rangatiratanga. What they gave to the Crown was limited power to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology.

Article 3 of the Treaty did not make Maori into British subjects. It recognised the continuing right of Maori to enjoy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British citizens enjoyed their own. This was reinforced in Article 4 (unwritten), which stated that the Governor would protect Maori ritenga or custom.

However, the English text of the Treaty which successive governments have relied on to this day for their legitimacy, or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty, assumes that Maori gave away all their sovereign power to the Crown. Such an idea would never have been acceptable to Maori. 200,000 Maori had no need whatever to concede any power to just 2,000 settlers. They signed the Maori text because they knew what it meant. Their tino rangatiratanga was retained.

On the incorrect assumption that Maori ceded sovereignty (tino rangatiratanga), successive governments have set about usurping tino rangatiratanga. The denial of the right of tino rangatiratanga since 1840 has been expressed in legislation, decisions of the Courts, and in attempts to rewrite the Treaty in the form of principles.

The Labour Government redefined the Treaty in 1989 with its ‘Principles of Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi’. In brief, these are:

1. The Kawanatanga Principle. The government has the right to govern and to make laws.

2. The Rangatiratanga Principle. The iwi have the right to organise as iwi, and, under the law, to control their resources as their own.

3. The Principle of Equality. All New Zealanders are equal before the law.

4. The Principle of Reasonable Co-operation. Both the government and the iwi are obliged to accord each other reasonable co-operation on major issues of common concern.

5. The Principle of Redress. The government is responsible for providing effective processes for the resolution of grievances in the expectation that reconciliation can occur.

While clearly evolved from the principles of the Treaty as defined by the courts, these were the principles propagated by the then Government as a matter of executive policy. The so-called kawanatanga principle reaffirmed the notion of cession of sovereignty by Maori and assumed that they gave up their right to self determination. Both of these have been constantly refuted by Maori. The so-called rangatiratanga principle redefined rangatiratanga as a concept of resource management that excludes ideas of social, economic or political power for Maori. Others of these principles limit rangatiratanga to a power subject to the authority of the Crown, require reasonable co-operation with the Crown and justify the imposition of English Common Law as a basis for equality.

National rewrote Labour’s set of Treaty principles in the early 90′s so they would conform to its policies and be more explicit. Kawanatanga now referred to the governments ‘right and responsibility to govern for the common good’. Rangatiratanga became ‘restoration of iwi self-management within the scope of the law’. In other words, recognition of tino rangatiratanga is strenuously denied.

Introduction

This paper indicates how the two foundation documents in the life of Aotearoa/New Zealand challenge a range of government policies. It also suggests a way into the future that takes the documents seriously.

Treaty claims settlements

When the Labour government came to power in 1984, it responded favourably to a growing call for the recognition of Treaty rights by Maori, adopting strong treaty rhetoric. However, when the desire by Maori for the return of land, forests, fisheries and waterways unjustly acquired in violation of the Treaty was seen to clash with Rogernomics, which envisaged their transfer to the private sector, it was clear that Maori and the Crown were on a collision course. As a result Labour distanced itself from its earlier position on the Treaty. Ever since, governments pursuing the liberal economic agenda have sought to rein in the Treaty settlements process.

Waitangi Tribunal

It is important to realise that the Tribunal was established as an instrument of the state, being a court of enquiry, with all its members appointed by the government. It is also subject to the findings of a higher judicial body. There was a time when it stressed the belief that Maori never ceded their sovereignty. Following the State Owned Enterprises case before the Court of Appeal in 1987 it has spoken of a cession of sovereignty that took place with the signing of the Treaty.

In 1993 government passed the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, which provides that the Tribunal shall not recommend that the Crown acquire ownership of any land or interest held by any person. This was unnecessary as the Tribunal can only make recommendations which the government is free to ignore except where a private owner has bought State Owned Enterprises land with full warning of the (remote) risk of resumption if the Tribunal so orders. This action makes it clear that the Tribunal is an instrument of the Crown that will be reined in should it threaten Crown interests. Despite protestations to the contrary, it is clear the Waitangi Tribunal is being increasingly marginalised by the government. Its desire for direct negotiation with iwi, the Sealord deal, the land bank and fiscal envelope, together with a cut off date for the lodging of claims, are all evidence of a sidelining of the work of the Tribunal. It has been struggling to retain a significant role for itself. It is clear that the Waitangi Tribunal cannot deliver mana I te whenua and tino rangatiratanga to Maori.

The fisheries claims and Sealord

Early in its term of office the National government declared a goal of settling all Treaty claims by the year 2000. In mid 1992 the government was presented with a means of putting an end to fisheries claims through the Sealord deal. The Crown’s view is that all Maori claims over commercial fishing are now deemed to be fully and finally settled. No case can be tested either before the courts or the Waitangi Tribunal. So the Sealord deal cannot be challenged.

Traditional Maori fishing rights were protected under section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act, which has now been repealed. Such rights will now be the subject of regulations determined by government. Tiriti fishing rights have been redefined to mean a share in a commercial fishing company driven by profit and which might have some trickle down benefit for some iwi, and the right to be consulted over various fisheries management decisions on the government’s terms.

Consultation will be with persons the government deems appropriate, with the government making up its own mind in the end. The nature of the consultation (or the lack of it) over the Sealord Deed of Settlement has been questioned by a number of Maori. Much of it was deemed commercially sensitive and therefore unable to be discussed with iwi. The Crown saw it as an opportunity to set in place some finite limit on the Treaty settlements process.

While Maori were successful in moving the settlement sum up from the $50 million the Crown wanted to settle for, and worked hard to get 50% of the quota allocation, it is significant that the Crown was able to do this for as little as $150 million – one third of the amount the Crown wrote off in the Bank of New Zealand transaction. Late in the day a clause was inserted into the Deed of Settlement by the Crown which stated, “Maori recognise that the Crown has fiscal constraints and that this settlement will necessarily restrict the Crown’s ability to meet from any fund which the Crown establishes as part of the Crown’s overall settlement framework, the settlement of other claims arising from the Treaty of Waitangi.” (This is the origin of the fiscal cap for Treaty claims settlements.)

The bill finalising the deal was rushed through parliament under urgency thereby preventing debate before a select committee. Today Maori are divided over how fishing quota will be distributed to iwi. The battle between mana moana and population based distribution is drawing energy away from other issues and pitting Maori against Maori. A classic case of the kawanatanga divide and rule strategy! Clearly the mana Maori motuhake and tino rangatiratanga of Maori with regard to fishing has been denied.

Fiscal envelopes

The latest scheme to achieve the government’s election promise involves what is called a fiscal envelope, which contains a sum of money that it is prepared to pay to settle all claims, widely believed to be $1 billion. Claimants will have to fight over the contents of the envelope, a policy that has its origins in the Sealord settlement. Given government commitment to budgetary restraint, Maori claimants will again be asked to accept less than just settlements.

A further aspect of the fiscal envelopes policy is the ‘land bank’, whereby surplus Crown properties will be used in land claims settlements. As these properties are notified, iwi will have just thirty days to lodge a claim. This is insufficient time for iwi to research a claim to that land, so further injustice may result. The government has also set a claims cut-off date of June 1996 after which no claims relating to last century, that are not registered with either the Waitangi Tribunal or the Crown will be considered. Many iwi lack the resources and organisation to prepare claims to meet such a deadline. Imposing an arbitrary cut-off-date will create further injustice for Maori. Meanwhile the government will claim it has acted in good faith, has demonstrated financial responsibility and has complied with its election promise. Any failure of the policy will be blamed on Maori. (Sealord revisited!) There is no mana Maori motuhake and tino rangatiratanga here.

Leaked papers outline Crown position

A draft of the government’s Treaty claims settlement policy contained in a leaked confidential document, indicates that settlements will be on the basis of how Maori used or proposed to use land and resources in 1840, rather than their present value. It will not compensate for the loss of potential from resources that had not been considered at that time. This rules out compensation for loss of resources such as coal, oil or geothermal energy, associated with land illegally taken by the Crown.

In considering such claims existing private rights to the resource will be protected, including leases and resource consents. This means all benefits will have been extracted from the resource by the time it is available for claims settlement. Conservation lands will not be readily available for settlements. In the case of Tainui this means they will not get land returned for land confiscated, as over half the Crown land in its area is in the hands of the Department of Conservation.

The fiscal envelope will contain a limited sum – the much guessed $1 billion. Affordability rather than justice on the basis of full compensation for resources taken unfairly will be the basis of settlement. The total amount will be further eroded by a number of items to be charged to the fiscal envelope. These include: gifted land reclaimed by former owners; the cost of the Sealord settlement; the full cost of land and resources returned; the current market value of government assets returned to claimants, including forestry settlements and land returned by order of the Waitangi Tribunal; the cost of landbanks, including their administration; the cost of claimants research, negotiation and technical assistance which have been reimbursed since 1992.

Maori reaction

A number of concerns have been identified by Maori. Tainui’s Bob Mahuta, responding to the content of the leaked paper, said it was “an attempt by the Crown to keep the sordid history of illegal confiscation swept under the carpet… there is not going to be a full and final settlement if they are going to adopt this approach.”

Taranaki’s claims research co-ordinator, Peter Adds, said, “with so many items coming out of the fiscal envelope there is no possibility of a one-off settlement… the notion of a fiscal envelope is one we are not prepared to tolerate… if they want to implement the things they say they are going to, there is no way iwi are going to be content to accept them.”

Concern has also been expressed over the exclusion of women and youth from the settlements process as well as from any benefits that may follow. Any form of full and final settlement means that rangatahi lose their generational Treaty rights. They have responded by forming groups to protest the whole process and the role of their leaders in entering into these deals. The role of middle aged to older Maori men and their claimed mandate to represent Maori in the whole process is increasingly being questioned. Another concern is that mana is being traded for money.

Annette Sykes has stated, “An important part of the future settlement process is that we are starting to be asked by the Crown to equate mana with money. The implication of this I find distasteful. For you can never satisfy the confiscation of taonga and wahi tapu with money or resources in kind.” Clearly kawanatanga is determined that it will be in control of the process and will seek to co-opt Maori to that end. There is simply no place for the recognition of mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga.

Privatisation of power

In Aotearoa/New Zealand, political and economic power has traditionally been in the hands of the state. Over recent years there has been an ideological shift seeking the privatisation of the power that was once the prerogative of the state. This has led to massive restructuring of state departments and agencies. In the process there has been a significant privatisation of power. The major shifts from state to privatised power have been:

• deregulation of the financial market so that market forces rather than the state drives the economy
• removal of trade protections, leading to the importation of cheap goods that leads to the crippling of local industries
• low inflation and the reduction of public debt as the major goal of fiscal policy, despite the enormous social cost of reducing government spending in areas of social welfare, housing, education and health
• commercialisation and privatisation of railways and forestry with massive staff lay-offs
• transfer of control over the country’s financial, telecommunications and transport industries to foreign ownership and control
• deregulation of the labour market (Employment Contract Act) has driven down real wages, left trade unions relatively powerless and contributed to high unemployment
• universal welfare provisions replaced by targeted benefits and minimal income support

These and other moves facilitated the privatisation of state power by the transfer of power over resources and decision making to private capital and private individuals. Jane Kelsey states: “If deregulation of the economy vested virtually unrestrained market power in the hands of international capital, withdrawal of the state from regulating market behaviour and social outcomes bolstered the ability of certain individuals to exercise economic, social, gender and cultural domination over others.” The state’s ability to shape economic policy is now limited. The determiners of our economic future are now located in off-shore financial centres.

Who suffers most from this transfer of power into the relatively invisible and unaccountable hands of private corporations and private individuals? It is Maori, women, the poor, the young, the old, unwell and differently abled. Their suffering had been lessened but not eradicated under the welfare state. But when cuts and adjustments were made to welfare, unemployment and health benefits in 1990 and 1991, there was widespread disillusionment and anger. Pakeha felt that democracy had been betrayed and the country traded off to big business. Many Maori felt betrayed by yet more empty promises to redress their grievances. They were being victimised by the latest variation of an economic and political system built on their continued oppression and stolen resources.

Constitutional Reform

Ironically the result of the efforts of the rich and powerful to diminish the sovereignty of Aotearoa/New Zealand has been the resurgence of nationalism both among Maori and Pakeha. Pakeha want a sovereignty based on the settler nation state, with power concentrated in the hands of the heirs of the original Pakeha settlers. While for Maori self determination lies in the mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Waitangi. However there is room for alliances to be formed and built on. Constitutional reform offers just such a prospect for a better and fuller life in Aotearoa/New Zealand for both Maori and Pakeha.

Our government seems to be concerned that self determination might be understood as guaranteeing the right to full independence as a separate state. This is part of a fear within some governments that self determination will lead to fragmentation of nations that would be a threat to world peace, security and economic stability. However as Professor Glenn Morris of the American Indian Movement of Colorado stated, “Global conflict and tensions between peoples and stales do not erupt because peoples are free to exercise their right to self determination, rather it is the absence of freedom and the denial of the rights of peoples to determine their destinies that provokes mistrust, tension and conflict … states must realise that if they had seriously and consistently respected the rights of indigenous self-determination at any point to the present, there would be little need for this (UN) Working Croup now.”

The position being taken by the New Zealand government is contrary to the mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga recognised in the Declaration of Independence and guaranteed in the Treaty of Waitangi. As Moana Jackson has said, “It is our belief that our people need to know of the statements being made at international fora by the New Zealand Government, especially when they clearly seek to deny us those rights which are consistent with both the Treaty and the developing consensus of international indigenous law … Indeed if the Declaration is to be a meaningful statement of international norms to which governments and indigenous peoples can refer, it is essential that the ideas propounded by the Crown be challenged.”

There have been a number of calls for a reassessment of the place of Maori in the political life of Aotearoa/New Zealand. The need for a consultative dialogue between Maori and the Crown regarding constitutional reform has been taken up by churches, iwi and a variety of Maori groups. The need for such dialogue has not been taken up by the Crown. The idea of a power sharing partnership that lies at the heart of political arrangements in this country is one that has unsettled successive governments.

Acknowledgments

In the preparation of this paper the analyses of Manuka Henare, Moana Jackson, Jane Kelsey and Annette Sykes have been particularly helpful and are gratefully acknowledged.

In 1831 thirteen rangatira of the north gathered at Kerikeri to sign a petition to King William IV. They requested the King be a “friend and guardian”, to protect them from foreign threat and the misconduct of British subjects already settled here. There was no question of handing over any autonomy to Britain. Those rangatira were clear in their desire to retain their autonomy and independence.

A national flag was adopted by twenty-five northern rangatira at Waitangi on 20 March 1834. The flag, an instrument for the registration of locally built ships, was used by Maori in their trading offshore, principally to Australia. More importantly it was an internationally recognisable symbol of Maori autonomy and nationhood. The flag gained widespread acceptance in other area (iwi) as a symbol of Maori sovereignty. Claudia Orange states “there was also talk of a parliament house and a passport system that included deportation of undesirable Europeans.”

On 28 October 1835 Busby assisted a group of thirty-three northern rangatira gathered at Waitangi to draw up the Declaration of Independence. It contained articles of confederation and declared the country to be independent. A confederation of tribes was formed to be known as the ‘United Tribes of New Zealand’. The rangatira declared their country to be an independent Maori state (he Wenua Rangatira) with all “sovereign power and authority residing in the rangatira in their collective capacities.” No legislative authority or governmental function could be exercised by other than the rangatira except as appointed by the confederation and acting under the authority of laws the confederation had enacted. They also petitioned King William IV “to be a parent to their infant state… its protector from all attempts upon its independence”. The Declaration used two significant terms: “te mana i te wenua” (the mana is the land) and “tino rangatiratanga” (full authority and control). Neither the mana nor the tino rangatairatanga in the land and its people would be transferred to any other power. Both terms assort that the sovereignty of the country lay firmly in Maori hands. Manuka Henare states “The Declaration was a statement by Maori to both the outside world and to themselves that these islands of Aotearoa and Te Waipounamu were to be an independent state.”

The declaration was signed by four more rangatira in 1836; three in 1837; two in 1838 and one more in 1839. Two notable southern leaders were amongst later signatories: Te Wherowhero Potatau of Waikato and Te Hapuku of Ngati Kahungunu. In effect the Declaration was being discussed and signed up to the time Te Tiriti o Waitangi was being drafted. This Maori initiative was a clear assertion of Maori sovereignty.

In later settler history the Declaration was presented as a somewhat fanciful event, organised by Busby for both Maori and British good, ‘the French are coming” being the catchcry. Such an interpretation legitimised ordered colonisation. However the Declaration had a more profound meaning to Maori, being an expression of their autonomy and independence. They have consistently referred to it in this way ever since. In the present day the document has begun to assume a wider significance. The Declaration has bee consistently referred to by Maori ever since. The Maori Congress in October 1993 called for universal recognition of the Declaration Of Independence of 1835. It launched an educational campaign by placing advertisements in Wellington’s two daily newspapers containing the full text of the declaration in both Maori and English.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi / The Treaty of Waitangi

Te Tiriti o Waitangi was initiated by Governor Hobson and first signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, then subsequently at the Wesleyan Mission station at Mangungu (with John Hobbs acting as interpreter). It was then taken to many other venues throughout the country, ultimately being signed by 482 rangatira. Historically it is of a different order to the Declaration of Independence. It was the initiative of a foreign power whose agenda was settlement of its nationals in this land. It was necessary in order to sanction colonisation. Like the Declaration it too was about mana i te whenua and te tino rangatiratanga, being an endorsement of the Declaration of Independence. Te Tiriti guaranteed Maori their tino rangatiratanga. In the words of the English translation of the Maori version, the Queen agreed to the rangatira and the iwi retaining full power and control (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands, their villages and all their taonga including the Maori way of life.

The Maori version of Te Tiriti confirmed tino rangatiratanga or Maori sovereignty over all things Maori in article 2. It granted to the Crown in article 1, kawanatanga, which is a transliteration of governorship. Maori would have been in no doubt as to the meaning of rangatiratanga, and on the basis of its being guaranteed in Te Tiriti, willing to sign it. In 1840 Maori had no desire and no need to give away their mana i te wenua and tino rangatiratanga affirmed just a few years earlier in the Declaration of Independence. What they gave to the Crown was limited power to control new settlers. That power was kawanatanga. In retaining tino rangatiratanga it was clear to Maori that their ability to control their own destiny was not diminished. In granting kawanatanga they saw that they would benefit from limited controlled immigration and the introduction of new technology. So Maori were to retain the substance of the land while the Queen was to have the shadow. Article 3 did not make Maori into British subjects. Rather it recognised the continuing right of Maori to en¬ joy their own laws, customs and lifestyle, just as British subjects enjoyed their own. There was some advantage however for Maori in being regarded as British. For instance it made travel overseas a lot easier. This was reinforced in article 4 which is part of the recorded tradition of the Treaty, where the Governor agreed to protect Maori ritenga or custom; also the choice of religion with particular reference to the Church of England, the Wesleyan Church and the Church of Rome.

However the English text of the Treaty which successive governments have relied on for their legitimacy, or their own unilateral proclamation of sovereignty, assumes that Maori gave away all their sovereign power to the Crown. Such an idea would never have been acceptable to Maori. 200,000 Maori had no need whatever to concede any power to just 2,000 settlers. They signed the Maori text because they knew what it meant. Their sovereignty was to remain intact.

When calling for recognition of the Declaration of Independence, the chief executive of the Maori Congress, Tu Williams, stated, the Treaty of Waitangi could not have been entered into without the Declaration, because treaties were made between nation states. He went on to say that both documents provide “a constitutional basis for a respectful relationship between the Crown and Maori tribes”.

On the incorrect assumption that Maori ceded sovereignty, successive governments have set about usurping their mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga. A significant step was the imposition and establishment of a Westminster style parliament in the 1852 Constitution Act, which deprived Maori of the right to control their own destiny by transferring power to the settlers. The denial of mana i te whenua and tino rangatiratanga has most recently been expressed in Treaty claims settlements policy, government social and economic ideology, electoral reform, republicanism, globalisation and GATT and in discussions on and government opposition to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

1846 – the British parliament passed a New Zealand Constitution Act which provided a complicated 3 tier system of Government – elected municipal corporations, two elected Provincial Councils and General Assembly, again with an elected House of Representatives and a nominated Legislative Council. Voting qualifications virtually disenfranchised Maori, so colonists gained full control of Government.

1867 – Maori representation Act. Four Maori seats were created mainly as a way of balancing North Island representation against demands of South Island gold miners forrepresentation. Franchise was granted to Maori males over 21 – free of property qualifications.

1872 - on the motion of a Maori member, two Maori were nominated to the Legislative Council – this remained until Legislative Council was abolished in 1950.

Section 71 of the 1852 Act provided for the setting up of districts within -which Maori laws, customs and usages not repugnant to general principles of humanity could be maintained “for the government of themselves, in all relations to and dealings with each other”. This could have provided for a form of internal autonomy – which Maori saw as an implementation of the tino rangatiratanga guaranteed to them in Article 2 of the Treaty.  The Maori King movement sought this form of autonomy in Waikato before the war and in the King Country afterwards. However this was never recognised by the Pakeha parliament despite efforts by the Maori members to pass an enabling private members bill. So this Section 71 was not allowed to be implemented and it was finally repealed in 1986.

1893 – Maori women as well as Pakeha women got the vote.

1910 – For Maori voting by show of hands abolished in favour of a declaration before a Returning officer. There was not yet a Maori roll.

1937 – The secret ballot, first used in the European seats in 1870 was applied to Maori seats. However rolls were not ready until the 1949 election.

1975 – Maori voters given the chosen option of the Maori and General rolls. Number on roll did not alter the number of seats allowed.

1986 – Royal Commission on Electoral System. Noted the failure to implement Section 71 of the 1852 Constitution Act and the “failure of successive Governments to recognise and give effect to the Treaty as a basis of constitutional government in New Zealand…”

After looking at the Crown’s proposals and finding them inadequate the Hui proposed an alternate approach. It reads as follows:

“Constitutional Change

Although the 1986 New Zealand Constitution Act officially set New Zealand free to decide its own laws and make its own constitutional arrangements, until recently there has been no move to make any major changes to the system imposed by the British parliament in the 1852 New Zealand Constitution Act.

A Treaty Based Constitution

The need for a clear constitution was reiterated at Hirangi. According to those making submissions Maori are not content to depend on the goodwill of successive Governments or to be exposed to inconsistent policies developed to suit the needs of Pakeha. Progress in one decade all too frequently must be revisited a decade later. Despite repeated calls for the Treaty of Waitangi to be entrenched as a constitutional document, it dangles precariously in front of Governments who have other agendas and often little sympathy with Maori aspirations. The Hui concluded that greater certainty was needed. As the nation gears itself for a debate on major constitutional reform (republicanism, a new flag, a N.Z. Honours system, the implementation of M.M.P.) it is an opportune time to develop a constitutional covenant based on the Treaty of Waitangi. Until this occurs Maori identity and security will forever run the risk of being compromised.

The Development of a Constitution for New Zealand

The terms of the Government’s proposals for the settlement of Treaty of Waitangi claims give little reason to believe that there has been any fundamental move away from a colonial mind set and towards a system of laws and policies which encompass modern New Zealand’s unique heritage and origins. Were it to be guided by a Treaty based constitution, the Hui considered that the Crown (or its republic equivalent) might not necessarily assume ownership over the beds of lakes or rivers or model a New Zealand common law exclusively on the British system or even conclude the sovereignty could not be shared between the Crown and Maori.

Maori organisations have long since entertained the possibility of shared political decision making and speakers confirmed that several Maori organisations are already considering the ways in which constitutional arrangements might give greater expression to the reality of tino rangatiratanga. The common aim is to enable Maori policy to be formulated by Maori, legislation which impacts on Maori to be approved by Maori and Maori representatives on national bodies to be appointed by Maori. A Maori parliament, a Maori house within a parliament, a Maori/Pakeha senate and a national Maori assembly have all been seriously proposed.

At the Hirangi Hui, however, there was agreement that what matters now is not so much the details of a Treaty based constitution or the flow-on constitutional arrangements but a commitment to a constitutional review jointly undertaken by Maori and the Crown for the purpose of developing a New Zealand constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi and, among other things, fully recognising the position of Maori as Tangata Whenua. Hui participants discounted the possibility of durable Treaty settlements without fresh constitutional guarantees and a final break with colonial laws and processes”.

(Pages 9 & 10 used with permission)

1835 Declaration of Independence
Colonial Office and British Government recognise NZ as sovereign state.

1840 Treaty of Waitangi
Treaty upheld Maori right to complete authority but was understood by Pakeha and the Crown as ceding sovereignty.

1840 Royal Charter
Division of country into three parts but never given political effect.

1840 Hobson’s Declaration of Sovereignty
Declared sovereignty over the South island by right of discovery.

1846 Constitution Act
Authority to establish representative institutions locally. Never fully implemented.

1852 Constitution Act
2-chamber legislature established. Powers limited by the British Colonial office and the Governor. Also, 6 one-chamber Provincial councils under the National Body established.

1852 Male voting qualifications established
Males over 21 with some property are entitled to vote. As most Maori held land in common they failed to qualify.

1854 First General Assembly opened
Auckland

1856 Appointment of First Ministry
This was under “Responsible Government” with Sewell as Premier of Pakeha minority government.

1858 New Provinces Act
Provinces defined on basis of population.

1860 Kohimarama Conference
Gore Brown at this conference attempted to isolate Taranaki following the Waitara Purchase, in preparation for making war on Taranaki. On the Maori side it reasserted the primacy of the Treaty.

1862 Native Lands Act
Removed the Crown’s right to pre-emption which had offered some protection to Maori land ownership.

1863 New Zealand Settlement Act
Provided for the confiscation of Maori land. Colonial Government also stated its intention to assume control of Maori affairs. Beginning of the Waikato Invasion.

1864 Native Reserves Act
Permitted long leases of Maori land for peppercorn rentals.

1865 Capital moved to Wellington
End of Waikato war

1865 Native Land Act
Set up the Maori Land Court to determine titles of Maori Land

1867 Maori Representation Act
Creation of 4 Maori seats. Maori markedly unrepresented. 4 seats for a population of about 50,000 compared with 72 European seats for a population of approximately 170,000. All adult male Maori entitled to vote.

This act was made necessary because of the war and the fact that the Maori Land Court had, by 1867, made inroads to collective titles thus making by default more Maori able to vote in the Pakeha electorates. To prevent an imbalance in Pakeha power, they established the 4 Maori seats, thus ensuring Maori were a permanent minority in the political system. 3 of the 4 were to be in the North to prevent giving the South Island more say, rather than having anything to do with population distribution.

1876 Maori seats made permanent
The Maori seats had been a temporary creation

1879 Triennial Parliament Act
Adult male suffrage established. Now all adult males can vote, regardless of property ownership.

1889 Plural voting abolished

1890 Elections
First election under one-man, one-vote system

1893 Women get the vote
Maori women vote under the same conditions as Maori men. Abolition of the provision of 1867 which allowed Maori who met the property qualification to vote in both constituencies.

1919 – 1951 Maori voting
Held the day before the election of European seats

1937 Secret balloting for Maori begun
Until 1910 voting in Maori seats had been by show of hands. Secret balloting for European seats had been established in 1870

1949 Maori Electoral Roll established
European roll had been established in 1852

1950 Legislative Council (Upper House) abolished

1956 Maori legally obliged to enrol
European enrolment made compulsory in 1924

1967 Maori can stand in European electorates
Unable to do so prior to this date

1975 Electoral Amendment Act
Provided for each Maori seat to be set after each census on the basis of the same population quota used to determine the number of general seats. Never came about because the National Government repealed it as soon as it was elected at the end of 1975

1984
On average every general electorate population group of 32,000 was represented by an MP but for Maori there was only 1 MP for every 72,500 people.

1984 Ngaruawahia Conference
Considered constitutional questions relating to the Treaty. Sponsored by Te Runanga Whakawhanaunga and NZ Maori Council.

1985 Runanga call to boycott the elections
Proposed a constitutional conference.

1992 Sea Lord Fishing Deal
Treaty Rights to Fisheries extinguished

1993 MMP Referendum

1994 Maori option for Maori or General roll
The process was challenged in the Courts. The Court ruled that the process fell short of what could have been done, but a re-run of the option was refused.

1995 Treaty Settlement proposals (Fiscal Envelope)
Treaty rights to be removed

1995 Hirangi Hui
In response to the “Government’s Proposals for the Settlement of Treaty Claims”. Proposed an alternate approach of constitutional reform based on the Treaty.

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.

A TRANSLATION OF THE MAORI TEXT

Signed at Waitangi, February 1840, and afterwards by over 500 chiefs

Victoria, the Queen of England, in her kind (gracious) thoughtfulness to the Chiefs and Hapu of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their chieftainship and their land, and that peace and quietness may be kept with them, because a great number of the people of her tribe have settled in this country, and (more) will come, has thought it right to send a chief (an officer) as one who will make a statement to (negotiate with) Maori people of New Zealand. Let the Maori chiefs accept the governorship (Kawanatanga) of the Queen over all parts of this country and the Islands. Now, the Queen desires to arrange the governorship lest evils should come to the Maori people and the Europeans who are living here without law. Now, the Queen has been pleased to send me, William Hobson, a Captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor for all places of New Zealand which are now given up or which shall be given up to the Queen. And she says to the Chiefs of the Confederation of the Hapū of New Zealand and the other chiefs, these are the laws spoken of.

THIS IS THE FIRST

The Chiefs of the Confederation, and all these chiefs who have not joined in that Confederation give up to the Queen of England for ever all the Governorship (Kawanatanga) of their lands.

THIS IS THE SECOND

The Queen of England agrees and consents to the Chiefs, hapū, and all the people of New Zealand the full chieftainship (rangatiratanga) of their lands, their villages and all their possessions (taonga: everything that is held precious) 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 IS THE THIRD

This is the arrangement for the consent to the governorship of the Queen. The Queen will protect all the Maori people of New Zealand, and give them all the same rights as those of the people of England.

William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor

Now, we the Chiefs of the Confederation of the Hapū of New Zealand, here assembled at Waitangi, and we, the chiefs of New Zealand, see the meaning of these words and accept them, and we agree to all of them. Here we put our names and our marks.

This was done at Waitangi on the 6th day of February in the year of our Lord 1840.

At a meeting before any of the Chiefs had signed the Treaty, Hobson agreed under questioning from the Catholic Bishop Pompallier to read the following statement which was a record of discussion on religious freedom and customary law, which the Bishop Pompallier had had with the Anglican Missionary William Colenso.

E mea ana te Kawana ko ngā wakapono katoa o Ingarani, o ngā Weteriana, o Roma, me te ritenga Maori hoki e tiakina ngātahitia e ia.

Translation:

The Governor says that the several faiths (beliefs) of England, of the Wesleyans, of Rome, and also Maori custom shall alike be protected by him.

This is sometimes referred to as the fourth article or protocol.

Treaty of Waitangi, an English Version,

Preamble

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 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 the 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 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 [Article 1]

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 [Article 2]

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 Preemption 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 [Article 3]

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.

(signed) William 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 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.

For a short history of the Treaty of Waitangi, see here