So I figured I'd fisk the Fitzmaurice-Brown fiction.
Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown [whose opinion piece excerpts appear in blue] is a law lecturer at the university formerly known as Victoria University of Wellington. Unlike him, I'll begin by defining my terms -- or at least the most important one: "Sovereignty":
If we drill down a level, that right to rule within a given territorial area came from the idea that the people within that territory were not subjects, but citizens, each of them holding some kind of rights. As this idea became better understood, it was realised that sovereignty is not a primary, freestanding right of "the state" or "the nation" as an entity in itself — it is a derivative right. It exists only because, and only to the extent that it does. protect the individual rights of the people living under that government. In other words: Sovereignty is downstream of individual rights, not the other way around.
This has a sharp corollary that we should spell out explicitly: sovereignty is conditional on being a rights-respecting government.
He continues however:
Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown lectures in law, but appears ignorant of even the first principles of the subject. In law, an earlier Article (which often sets the fuller context) generally takes precedence over later articles. And if Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown were to read that earlier Article, he would see those words "kawanatanga katoa," i.e., complete Government, which the te reo text (as translated by Te Tiriti's first translator) says "the chiefs shall surrender to the Queen for ever."
Sovereignty is the supreme authority of a state or governing body to rule itself without interference from outside powers. It typically includes a few core elements:
- Political authority – the recognised right to make and enforce laws within a territory
- Independence – freedom from control or dictation by other states or entities
- Territorial integrity – authority over a defined geographic area
- Self-determination – the capacity of a people or government to decide their own political status and course
So this is what's contested. And the opinion piece by Fitzmaurice-Brown begins with some of those basic assumption, especially those last four:
Moana Jackson once said that to accept that Māori surrendered sovereignty when they signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840 required “a profound suspension of disbelief.” As he put it, no country anywhere in the world has ever guarded its independence for hundreds of years only to then relinquish it. He argued that “to assume that is what our people did flies in the face of human history, let alone Māori history, where the notion of giving away the authority to make independent decisions is not just culturally inconceivable, it is politically impossible.”But there's an immediate problem. He talks about a "country" that "guarded its independence." A country? What country? There was no "country" here to claim independence, let alone to guard it. For hundreds of years -- those years that Jackson claims was spent "guarding" independence -- Māori was set against Māori as each tribe, iwi and hapu struggled, not for independence but for safety. For survival. If anything were guarded here it was tribal claims -- and, more accurately, they were not guarded but contested -- heavily contested. Tell the Te Rauparaha of 1820, for example, that he was guarding the independence of these islands and he would have laughed; he was not trying to guard the "country" as he warred his way from Kawhai to Kaiapoi, but to exterminate his enemies.
In a series of islands with no visible outsiders, even the idea of a "country" would have been absurd -- you might even say it would require “a profound suspension of disbelief.”
There is no historical disgrace in societies contesting territory over each other-- but for the sake of peace and prosperity and everything that's wroth living for, they do need to get over it. For centuries, Europe endured that struggle. The idea of "sovereignty," which Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown leaps over so quickly, came from the Peace of Westphalia (1648) which ended the massively destructive Thirty Years' War in Europe. The idea came from it that religious authority behind a throne, which created these endless wars, must be replaced with something "better": an idea of nationhood in which each state held supreme authority within its own territory — with no higher power (pope, emperor, or otherwise) entitled to override it.
In this idea, sovereignty was not contested, it was recognised -- even in its breach. Inter-tribal or inter-religious battles were replaced with a recognition of some kind of right. And some kind of peace flowed therefrom.
If we drill down a level, that right to rule within a given territorial area came from the idea that the people within that territory were not subjects, but citizens, each of them holding some kind of rights. As this idea became better understood, it was realised that sovereignty is not a primary, freestanding right of "the state" or "the nation" as an entity in itself — it is a derivative right. It exists only because, and only to the extent that it does. protect the individual rights of the people living under that government. In other words: Sovereignty is downstream of individual rights, not the other way around.
We are already several miles from Moana Jackson's historical assumptions. Territorial authority for him comes not from the consent of the ruled, but from the point of a taiha.
But even if we've disproved the idea that there was one "country" here to cede authority, we're still left with his claim that those several tribal leaders who did control territory here -- not by right, but by military power -- would not have given away that gradually crumbling authority. Whay would they when they were (apparently) all-powerful within their fiefdoms. Fitzmaurice-Brown cites Margaret Mutu in support of this idea:
Professor Margaret Mutu [he says] has pointed out the huge amount of evidence that casts further doubt on the myth of the cession of sovereignty. She states, for example, that in 1840 the Māori population numbered about 80,000, while the settler population numbered about 2,000. That the former would give up their sovereignty to the latter seems overwhelmingly unlikely. In some parts of the country, there were single-figure numbers of settlers when Te Tiriti o Waitangi was signed.And this is true, of course. And unanswerable ... unless you go back to that realisation that the territorial authority of each tribe and tribal leader was continually contested. Signing Te Tiriti was not simply handing over the sovereignty of 80,000 Māori to 2,00 settlers for unfathomable reasons. It was an exchange: giving up the notion of continuing and ongoing territorial struggle (highlighted by the horrific self-inflicted Butchers' Bill experienced under the Musket Wars) for this new idea promulgated mostly by missionaries (however imperfectly) of peace within a given territorial area.
The rangatira who signed Te Tiriti were the modernisers of their day. As Lyndsay Head explains, their signatures ceding sovereignty were entirely rational:
"In the 1830s northern Māori sought meaning in their post-contact experience through understanding how the foreigners ordered their world. This was a period of rational and intellectual response to European culture in which Christian teaching became a political primer for change. Consciously replaying the conversion of the barbarians, the missionaries taught that peace was the condition of political and social modernity — that is, of a European-style society.
"This impacted heavily on culture, because tribal histories were almost exclusively histories of war. Fighting was central to the social identity of Māori. [It set] up peace as the condition of modernity ...
"Their attention to the missionaries, and subsequent support for a treaty with the British, was not without history, but a response to lived change. By this reading, then, a possible basis of Māori citizenship was rational choice.
"The rationality of the chiefs has been obscured by the rationality of the British side of the Treaty, which entirely dominates the literature."
It would be nice if that rationality were respected rather than brushed over by the likes of Mutu and Fitzmaurice-Brown.
Nevertheless, the idea that Māori ceded sovereignty in 1840 has been unquestioned by many New Zealanders for much of our country’s history. In large part this has been because of the appearance of the term in the English text of the Treaty of Waitangi. Article 1 of the Treaty states that Māori signatories ceded “all the rights and powers of sovereignty” to the ‘Queen of England’. Case closed, right?
Well, no. The English text of the Treaty of Waitangi was never actually signed on February 6 at Waitangi, with every signatory on that day signing their name to Te Tiriti o Waitangi, the text in te reo Māori. Subsequently around the country, about 500 Māori leaders added their name to Te Tiriti, but about 92 percent of those leaders signed the Māori text. ...
Mr FB is right, of course. Rangatira signed the te reo text, after they heard an explanation of it by the translator Henry Williams. Several of those rangatira were readers, but even those wholly reliant on Williams would have heard him say, in describing the Treaty's Article 1, that "the chiefs shall surrender to the Queen for ever the Government of the country, for the preservation of order and peace." That was from the description of his translated speech which Henry Williams wrote about to Bishop Selwyn, 12 July 1847 [reproduced in Hugh Carleton's The Life of Henry Williams].So, what does the text in te reo actually say?
Instead of mentioning ‘sovereignty’ (as the English text does), article 1 of the Māori text gives the Queen of England the power of “kāwanatanga”, a transliteration of the English term ‘government’ or ‘governance’. Kāwanatanga was likely intended as a far more limited form of authority, primarily aimed at enabling the Crown to control and discipline its own settlers (who were largely beyond the control of the English legal system in Aotearoa).
Of course, they would have heard it in te reo, in which Williams translated the word "Government" as "kawanatanga katoa." That little word katoa is rarely mentioned by today's revisionists. And with good reason. Because, as Ewen McQueen observes, "it means complete, all-encompassing, totally, without exception."
It’s no wonder [that in 1840] it focussed the minds of the chiefs on the issue of Crown authority. ...Nowhere in the historical records do we find any indication that either the chiefs or the Pākehā protagonists understood anything other than that Kāwanatanga katoa meant the Crown was being established as the pre-eminent governing authority in the land. ...Te Kawenata Hou' (the 'Māori New Testament') ... would have had significant influence on how the chiefs understood the Treaty. ... In 'Te Kawenata Hou' the term rangatira is a general term for leadership. In contrast kawana is a very specific term used to denote governors who represent the authority of kings. To use [the] example of Pilate – as the kawana (governor) he represented the sovereignty of the Roman empire in Jerusalem. He had the authority to tax and to execute judgement. The local Jewish leaders who wanted Jesus crucified had to get his permission. Those leaders are described in Te Kawenata Hou as rangatira. From this the chiefs at Waitangi would have quickly understood what was being proposed in the Treaty. And it certainly did not involve them retaining 'absolute sovereignty'."
But, as everyone from Hugh Kawaharu to Matthew Hooton to Margarat Mutu to Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown would counter, what about "Article 2 of the te reo text [which] guaranteed that Māori would continue to be able to exercise 'tino rangatiratanga' over their whenua, kainga, and taonga katoa – translated by Sir Hugh Kawharu as their lands, their villages, and all their treasures.
This is the closest the te reo text gets to mentioning sovereignty [says Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown], but in the te reo text it is a power reserved for Māori, not for the Crown.
Why would they do that? As answer, the Article continues: "For the preservation of order and peace."
If you don't have Hugh Carleton's Life of Henry Williams (and why would you, it's poor reading even for historians) you can read Williams's transliteration of the te reo text on page 481 of Ned Fletcher's tome. Perhaps Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown could read (or re-read) it? Because it contains in only a few words the counter to the first two of his opinion piece's main points.
He continues however.
The evidence against the cession myth is further bolstered by another document, signed in 1835 – He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Nu Tirene: the Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand. Generally referred to just as He Whakaputanga, it is an assertion of Māori mana, sovereignty, and independence, addressed primarily to an international audience ...This is a pathetic claim, evidence only of the ability to grasp at straws. The Declaration was the idea of James Busby, the British Resident here desperate for something to do. Written by him, signed by thirty-four northern chiefs, it was formally acknowledged by the Crown in May 1836.
What did it say?
It asserted that sovereign power and authority in the land (‘Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua’) resided with Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of United Tribes, and that no foreigners could make laws. Te Whakaminenga was to meet at Waitangi each autumn to frame laws ....Te Whakaminenga, the Confederation of United Tribes, in which sovereignty was supposed to reside, never met to "frame laws" -- in fact it never met again. As the NZ History site acknowledges, For many, the Declaration was primarily a matter for Ngāpuhi, who were ninety percent of the signatories. For any other rangatira to travel to Ngāpuhi territory for any reason in 1835 was still to take your life in your hands, so it's not surprising no more came of it. Historian Paul Moon sees it as a ‘regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance.'"
It's only significance, having been recognised by the British Crown, was to ensure that any lingering claim to sovereignty derived from the Declaration was firmly expunged by Te Tiriti -- which is precisely the opposite of Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown's argument.
Persistent as ever, however, he continues:
The Kohimarama Conference began with then Governor Gore Browne recalling to those assembled (including more than 100 rangatira from Ngāpuhi in the north to Ngai Tahu in the south, who by then were mostly competent in English, and who could also enjoy translations into to reo):
The Conference itself concluded on 10 August 1860 with rangatira gathered there giving unanimous agreement that:
More recent scholarship suggests the cession of sovereignty (in the sense of all-encompassing power, including over Māori) may not have even been intended in the English text. That is a debate for another day ...Indeed, that alleged "recent scholarship" by Ned Fletcher is when I entered that debate in two opinion pieces at Newsroom not so long ago.
... but in the meantime, the myth of the cession of sovereignty persists. ... To return to Moana Jackson’s words about the suspension of disbelief, I would add that believing Māori ceded sovereignty in 1840 also requires a suspension of humanity. Put yourself in the shoes of the actual rangatira who signed Te Tiriti. If you assume the humanity of those leaders, if you assume they were intelligent, competent, and humane, you can’t possibly reach the conclusion that they just gave away everything that mattered to them and their people. It’s hard to think otherwise unless you believe Māori were unintelligent, incompetent, and inhumane.Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown began his opinion piece essentially suggesting that to see Māori ceding sovereignty made you dumb. To that he now adds that it makes you racist. What a vile person he must be.
If you assume the humanity of those leaders, if you assume they were intelligent, competent, and humane [he says, to repeat], you can’t possibly reach the conclusion that they just gave away everything that mattered to them and their people.
And of you think otherwise, he implies, you're a racist. Is this the lowest of the low? Of course an honest person can reach that conclusion. To cite just Lyndsay Head above, she argues it was precisely the intelligence, competence, and humanity of these modernising rangatira that recognised Māori citizenship within a British legal paradigm was, in 1840, a completely rational choice.
Does Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown answer that? Of course not.
Lyndsay Head's argument is only reinforced by what the signatories themselves were reported to have said in that first signing (as we can read in Colenso's account), and what they said about their signing two decades later in Kohimarama -- what Claudia Orange once called the renewal of a Covenant.
The Kohimarama Conference began with then Governor Gore Browne recalling to those assembled (including more than 100 rangatira from Ngāpuhi in the north to Ngai Tahu in the south, who by then were mostly competent in English, and who could also enjoy translations into to reo):
On assuming the Sovereignty of New Zealand Her Majesty extended to her Maori subjects her Royal protection, engaging to defend New Zealand and the Maori people from all aggressions by any foreign power, and imparting to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects; and she confirmed and guaranteed 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 to retain the same in their possession.The astute reader will notice that these are almost exactly the words to which Mr Fitzmurice-Brown objects -- that is to say, almost a recapitulation of the Treaty terms. No one rose to object.
In return for these advantages the Chiefs who signed the Treaty of Waitangi ceded for themselves and their people to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which they collectively or individually possessed or might be supposed to exercise or possess.
The Conference itself concluded on 10 August 1860 with rangatira gathered there giving unanimous agreement that:
the several Chiefs, members thereof, are pledged to each other to do nothing inconsistent with their declared recognition of the Queen's sovereignty and of the union of the two races ... [16]It was Apirana Ngata six decades later who reminded Māori that
The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty [mana] and the authority to make laws. ... it made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful.But perhaps they knew less about what they were agreeing to and signing than geniuses like Mr Fitzmaurice-Brown, and the intellectual giants who are sharing his work on social media.
Those ancestors were not stupid. They knew what they were about, and and had a pretty fair idea of what they were promised.
