He Whakaputanga – 150 years of silence

Posted on October 28, 2026 by Ewen McQueen

October 28th 1835 – the day when a number of northern Māori tribes signed a Declaration of Independence – He Whakaputanga. Five years later it was superseded by the Treaty of Waitangi. The same tribes, along with others, agreed to “give absolutely, to the Queen of England forever, the complete Government over their land”. For a century and a half after 1840, no-one disputed this. But not anymore.

In more recent years we have been told that He Whakaputanga still stands. The chiefs at Waitangi never ceded sovereignty. They only delegated some of their authority to be exercised through the Governor so he could manage British settlers. Māori remained fully independent.

This notion was first promoted by Dr Ranginui Walker in his 1990 book “Struggle without End”. He offered little historical evidence to support his claim. However, his views were picked up and repeated by other academics until they became accepted conventional wisdom. The best “latest scholarship”. Activists, media, and eventually the Waitangi Tribunal in its 2014 report on sovereignty, all followed suit.

This means that today one cannot affirm that the Treaty of Waitangi established Crown sovereignty over all New Zealanders, without He Whakaputanga being vigorously presented as evidence to the contrary. This is in spite of the text of the Treaty (in both languages) clearly stating otherwise.

It is also in spite of He Whakaputanga’s historical obscurity until relatively recently. Because for 150 years it was essentially invisible in public discourse in our country. Now it has become the defining statement of Māori political aspiration for nearly all on the political left.

Of course, we are now told any prior invisibility was merely due to Pākehā unconscious bias, or blindness to Māori perspectives. However, the historical evidence suggests that until recent years most Māori leaders suffered from the same lack of awareness.

The transcripts of the Treaty debates in 1840 do not record a single chief referring to He Whakaputanga. This silence is remarkable given the modern obsession with its apparent primacy. Indeed, if He Whakaputanga was the pre-eminent legal document under whose auspices the chiefs were delegating limited authority to the Governor, their lack of reference to it at Waitangi in 1840 is unusual to say the least.

In September 1844 over 20 chiefs gathered at Waimate North to discuss with the Governor the political crisis precipitated by Hone Heke’s flag-staff felling. The transcript of the hui shows nearly all supported the Governor and understood the Treaty as establishing Crown sovereignty over everyone in New Zealand. None mentioned He Whakaputanga. Indeed, Heke himself never suggested it was still in force.

In 1857 many chiefs gathered at a hui at Paetai in the Waikato to discuss the founding of the Kīngitanga. Again, no mention of He Whakaputanga. However, there was discussion about whether setting up a Māori King was contrary to the Treaty. Whether for or against the proposal, those gathered understood that the Treaty was supposed to have established Crown sovereignty throughout the land. But many were no longer happy with how that sovereignty was being implemented.

In 1860 over 200 chiefs gathered at Kohimarama to discuss the conflict which had broken out in Taranaki. There was no mention of He Whakaputanga. They did however point out problems with the Crown’s increasingly dubious actions in acquiring land. In spite of this, they unanimously resolved to recognise the Queen’s sovereignty in accordance with their earlier Treaty commitment.

In 1861 a letter was written by 170 chiefs of Ahuriri to the Governor seeking dialogue and peaceful resolution of the growing conflict. No mention of He Whakaputanga. Instead, they noted that the Queen’s authority had been accepted long ago, and that the issue at stake was land, not sovereignty.

In the following century Sir Apirana Ngata penned a detailed explanation of the Treaty in 1922. No reference to He Whakaputanga. And in the 1930s TW Ratana established a political movement seeking redress for Treaty breaches. Again, no mention of He Whakaputanga. He did however incorporate the Union Jack on the flag he flew during his travels.

Today on this anniversary of the 1835 Declaration of Independence, there will no doubt be reports of how important it has always been in our constitutional history. Even claims that the Treaty itself remains subservient to its authority. But those making such claims must explain the enduring silence on He Whakaputanga for a century and a half after the Treaty was agreed in 1840. Why was that?

They must also explain what multiple Māori leaders actually did say about the Treaty and Crown sovereignty over that time. On that question, the silence of recent years has been deafening.

Ewen McQueen
October 2026

Sources for historical references – “One Sun in the Sky”.

Copies available at www.onesuninthesky.com

 

Posted in NZ History, Treaty of Waitangi | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

NZ leaders lack moral clarity on Israel

Posted on October 7, 2026 by Ewen McQueen

Today commemorates three years since the homicidal psychopaths in Hamas invaded Israel and delighted in killing men, women and children. They laughed as they did so, exulted in their orgy of hate and violence, and excitedly phoned home to tell parents of how they had killed Jews with their own hands. Crowds in Gaza cheered. Sick.

Today I stand with Israel, and the Jewish community in our nation as they remember this horror. As do many New Zealanders with any degree of moral clarity. Unfortunately, that does not include most of our media and political elites. Last night’s leaders’ debate was another example of the total inversion of moral reality which has come to dominate the world over the last three years.

Just days after the attempted murder of hundreds of Israelis on an aircraft, and on the eve of the October 7th commemoration, Jack Tame’s foreign policy questions to Chris Hipkins and Christopher Luxon were straight out of the inversion playbook. Is Israel committing genocide? Will you recognise Palestine? Hipkins and Luxon dutifully trotted out the required condemnation of Israel, and naïve calls for peaceful co-existence with two states living side by side.

How do you live side by side with people who want to kill you?

That would have been a good question for Jack Tame to ask. And here’s some more. What would you do if your neighbour invaded your home, killed many of your family, and took some of your children hostage? And then when you went to rescue your children, your neighbour hid behind them and his own family, whilst continuing to attack you. If in spite of your reasonable efforts to avoid it, some of his family were harmed whilst you tried to rescue your children – who’s fault would that be?

Simple questions. But real questions. And moral clarity requires us to face reality.

What has happened in Gaza is catastrophic and tragic. But it wasn’t inevitable. It happened because of Hamas and their genocidal attack on October 7th.

The pro-Hamas protestors tell us October 7th didn’t happen in a vacuum. They are right. It happened in the context of a malevolent Islamic jihadist ideology which has sought the destruction of the State of Israel ever since it was re-established in 1948. It happened in the context of decades of Israel being willing to engage in dialogue, negotiation and even compromise for peace. And that willingness being met with decades of war, terror and intransigence.

The questions and answers on Israel in last night’s debate were a disgrace to our country’s name. We need leaders with the moral clarity to face reality on this issue. Sadly, there are few in sight.

Ewen McQueen
October 2026

Posted in International Relations | Tagged , , , , , | 12 Comments

Definition of Woman and Man Bill – a return to Truth

Posted on July 13, 2026 by Ewen McQueen

It should never have come to this. Our MPs debating the definition of a man or a woman. But the fact that it has, means we have arrived at a critical inflexion point. What happens next will determine whether we continue on a trajectory towards cultural psychosis on this foundational issue. Or whether we turn, to become grounded once more in reality.

The Legislation (Definition of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill has passed its first reading and is now at Select Committee with public submissions being considered. You can read my brief submission here.

The Bill will define a woman as an adult biological female, and a man as an adult biological male. It was introduced as a Members Bill by a NZ First MP and has the full support of that party. National and Act have supported it to this stage, but made no commitment beyond that. Many of their socially liberal MPs will no doubt wince at being required to show their true colours on this question. They will try and pretend its not really important. But it is. And the introduction of the Bill is a clear sign that ordinary New Zealanders want it dealt with.

Of course, for the parties on the left there are no qualms about taking a position on the Bill. All of them align strongly and openly against it. The usual accusations and slogans are employed – hate, bigotry, transphobia. All of them are repeated vigorously and at high volume. Because whenever reason is of no assistance, then volume must suffice.

And the noise levels from those opposing this Bill are also high because they know what it represents. It is not just about keeping men out of women’s changing rooms. It is about derailing the juggernaut of transgender ideology which has steamrolled across our society in the last ten years. We were told this movement was about compassion, inclusion, and celebrating diversity. And of course, we should have compassion for those struggling with gender dysphoria. But this movement has become something very different.

Transgender ideology not only means men in women’s and girl’s spaces and events. It means biological males usurping women and girls in sporting success. It means opposing voices being cancelled, de-platformed, or simply screamed at and shouted down. It means compelled preferred pronoun use across public sector and corporate bureaucracies. It means mothers being insulted by being referred to as “chest feeders”. It means schools and classrooms being adorned with symbols of transgender ideology by activist teachers. It means vulnerable young boys and girls being confused about their identity and led down paths of irreversible harm.

This is not compassion. It is child abuse. This is not liberation. It is totalitarian enforcement of speech and thought. This is not celebration of diversity. It is the normalisation of a delusional ideology.

The Legislation (Definition of Woman and Man) Amendment Bill if it passes will be a welcome reality check. But even if it does, there are other legislative rails this juggernaut has been running on in New Zealand. The Conversion Practices Prohibition Act 2022 and the NZ Births Deaths and Marriages Registration Act 2021 both contain provisions that facilitate and enforce transgender ideology. These also need to be repealed.

Because if these provisions remain, we will not arrive at a cultural inflexion point on this foundational issue, but rather at a point of cultural and legal confusion. And into that space will step activists and liberal judges who will be only too happy to provide “clarity” and reignite the trajectory towards delusion. Parliament needs to ensure that does not happen. This is not the time for equivocation. This is the time to return to truth.

Ewen McQueen
July 2026

Posted in Cultural Renewal, Protecting Children | Tagged , , , , | 3 Comments

The ANZACs who freed Palestine

Posted on April 24, 2026 by Ewen McQueen

NZ troops cross the Jordan River

It was 9th December 1917. The Jewish celebration of Hanukkah had just begun. It commemorated the liberation of Jerusalem from foreign occupiers in 165 BC. And now, over 2,000 years later, the Holy City was once again being liberated. Ottoman Turk soldiers were fleeing the city as Allied forces bore down on them. Forces which included some of the same ANZACs whom the Turks had defeated in Gallipoli. But in Palestine the tables had turned.

Indeed since early 1916 when the ANZACs had been evacuated from Gallipoli to Egypt and tasked with protecting the Suez Canal, the tide had turned against the Ottoman Empire. It had dominated the Middle East for centuries. But as the Australian and New Zealand forces switched from defence to attack, the Ottoman era in what was then known as Palestine, came to an end.

Together with British forces, the ANZACs swept up the Sinai on horseback and camels and fought fiercely against entrenched Turkish positions. Battles were fought in and around Gaza, Jaffa, Beersheba, Jerusalem, Jericho, Amman and Damascus. The Ottoman yoke was broken and an entirely new geo-political reality was created on the ground. Into that reality the Balfour Declaration of 1917 promised British support for a Jewish homeland.

A month after the Declaration, General Allenby, escorted by a bodyguard of New Zealand soldiers, made his formal entry into Jerusalem. He noted that many Jews who had previously been in hiding to avoid Turkish deportation, now appeared with great enthusiasm. The significance of the timing of the victory was also not lost on Allenby. He wrote:

…inasmuch as the liberation of Jerusalem in 1917 will probably ameliorate the lot of the Jews more than any other community in Palestine, it was fitting that the flight of the Turks should have coincided with the national festival of Hanukah, which commemorates the recapture of the Temple. (1)

For the New Zealanders who fought in the campaign there was the characteristic determination and courage shown so often by the sons of these shores. Lt Colonel Guy Powles records night treks in desert sandstorms to surprise the enemy; bayonet charges across bullet strafed land to capture strategic positions in Rafa, Beersheba, Amman; and the Kiwi captain who led a patrol vehicle behind enemy lines in pursuit of a notorious enemy agent. They rounded a corner on the road near Hebron, ran into the middle of a Turkish infantry company, continued at speed firing all the way, and later arrived in Beersheba to the astonishment of English soldiers guarding that town.

And of course there was also the classic Kiwi ingenuity. At one point the New Zealanders were stationed in Bethlehem, where the nearby ancient Pools of Solomon fed a Roman aqueduct which centuries earlier had supplied Jerusalem. With some smart work and modern technology, the Kiwi army engineers recommissioned the system. Powles records,

So in a short six months after our occupation the city of Jerusalem was in possession of a water supply of 280,000 gallons per day. Not since the days of the Romans has running water been so plentiful in the Holy City. (2)

The New Zealanders were also warmly received by local Christian and Jewish communities in the places they liberated. And unlike some other Allied forces the Kiwis were always welcomed back wherever they returned a second time. Powles records the Mayor of Jewish Richon le Zion sending a letter asking when they would return, and the Christian community of Bethlehem being greatly disappointed at their departure.

And so, as we come to another Anzac commemoration, there is also a history lesson for the New Zealanders who today chant “Free Palestine”. New Zealand has already played a decisive role in liberating the Holy Land. And in the Ottoman defeat the way was opened for those to whom the land was covenanted to begin their long-awaited return. The State of Israel they founded has subsequently become a flourishing and prosperous democracy. And just as Kiwi army engineers reopened the ancient water supply to Jerusalem, we can be proud that our nation played a part in reopening the ancient wells of promise and hope in that sacred land.

Ewen McQueen
April 2026

(1) Lt-Colonel C. Guy Powles, CMG, DSO, The New Zealanders in Sinai and Palestine, Whitcombe and Tombs Ltd, 1922, page 170

(2) Powles, page 225

Posted in International Relations, NZ History | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Zero Day comes for the Iranian regime

Posted on January 27, 2026 by Ewen McQueen

Last year reports emerged that Tehran, the capital city of Iran, was running out of water. One expert predicted that “zero day” was not far off. As the Islamic regime now enters its final days, it seems that prediction was also a harbinger of what comes for the Ayatollah and those who prop up his brutal rule.

And it is a day which cannot come soon enough. It is now becoming apparent that after the regime put the country into a communications black-out three weeks ago, it engaged in a brutal massacre of its own citizens. Security forces opened fire on huge crowds rallying in cities across the country calling for an end to the Islamic theocracy. Numbers killed are being reported at over 30,000. It was a bloodbath.

Relatives are now being forced to pay “bullet money” for the return of bodies – or sign fake declarations that their family members were actually security force volunteers killed by protestors. Hospitals are overflowing with injured, including many having being shot in the eye – a regime specialty, developed during the “Women, Life, Freedom,” uprising three years ago. And of course, thousands are in prison, many awaiting public hanging for daring to challenge the repressive rule of the Ayatollah.

In spite of all this the pro-Palestine mobs across the world including New Zealand are missing in action. No mass marches, no banners on motorway over-bridges, no calling for Iranian officials to be named and shamed, or boycotts and divestment from Iran.

And the New Zealand Government itself has been just as muted in its response. There has been no breaking off of diplomatic relations. The Iranian ambassador has not even been summonsed for a “please explain”, let alone expelled. There has been no call for the UN Security Council to urgently convene, investigate and sanction Iran. Nothing. At a critical moment in the history of the Middle East, and indeed the world, our Government has lost its voice.

In contrast, other western governments have spoken out loudly and clearly. In Europe there has been strong condemnation of the Iranian rulers and calls for sanctions and designating the IRGC a terrorist organisation. The US has openly said the time has come for new leadership in Iran, and is positioning significant military assets in the region.

And the Iranian diaspora across the world, including in New Zealand have not been silent. Over a thousand rallied in Auckland last week. Their energy was palpable as they chanted and sang in support of the uprising for freedom in their land. It was an honour to join them, and those we spoke to were grateful for our presence.

Disappointingly, not many other New Zealanders were there. Perhaps because, unlike Gaza, our mainstream media has not given wall to wall coverage of what is happening in Iran. It does not fit their approved Middle East victim-oppressor narrative. Israel targeting homicidal Hamas psychopaths and seeking the return of their hostage citizens is a “genocide” which needs to be on constant replay. Iranian civilians being intentionally slaughtered by their own Islamic rulers – not so much.

There is no excuse for our Government’s silence, and media disinterest. But for 90 million Iranians, hope rises regardless. Because for the regime in Tehran, zero day draws near. It cannot be avoided. For it is written – He brings princes to naught.

Ewen McQueen
January 2026

Posted in International Relations | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Recognising Palestine feeds jihadist ideology

Posted on September 22, 2025 by Ewen McQueen

The New Zealand Government must not recognise the so-called state of “Palestine” at the UN this week.

Doing so at this point would be a reward for barbaric Hamas terrorism and their complete intransigence in refusing to release the hostages they continue to hold in utterly appalling conditions. There is no doubt that the destruction that is happening in Gaza is a tragedy. However it is a tragedy caused by the intransigence of Hamas. And every time more international pressure is applied to Israel, the less likely Hamas are to negotiate or surrender.

The unconditional recognition of Palestine this week by the UK, Canada and Australia, without even requiring Hamas to first to release the hostages is incomprehensible. It doesn’t just represent a total loss of moral clarity. It displays a complete naivety about dealing with terrorist jihadists. It is not a “practical plan” towards peace as the UK Prime Minister described it. It is a free political gift to the vicious barbarians in Hamas, that requires absolutely nothing from them in return.

New Zealand must not participate in this futile virtue-signalling. Instead we should be standing strongly in support of Israel as the only truly democratic and free nation in the Middle East.

Only when the malevolent influence of Hamas and other jihadist forces is broken and detached from the hopes of the Arab people who live in Gaza and the West Bank will there be space for genuine dialogue and negotiation. The sort of dialogue and negotiation that Israel has been willing to engage in for decades – but which has always been thwarted by the jihadists. The ones who promote the genocidal slogan – from the River to the Sea…

It is time to destroy this ideology – not to feed it.

Ewen McQueen
September 2025

Posted in International Relations | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

Treaty Principles Bill Submission

Posted on April 10, 2025 by Ewen McQueen

The Treaty Principles Bill is expected to fall at its second reading in Parliament today. I confess to having struggled with how to respond to the Bill. There were aspects of it which I very much appreciated. In particular that it invited open public debate on how to interpret the Treaty – something which until now had been a closed narrative, tightly controlled by the liberal establishment in our country. Now ordinary New Zealanders were going to get their opportunity to have a say.

I also appreciated the fact that the Bill was an attempt to reconnect modern understanding of the Treaty with its historic roots. The dual-sovereignty paradigm of Treaty interpretation of recent decades has strayed far from those roots. It is a paradigm based primarily on assertions, loudly repeated in the echo chamber of modern “scholarship”, and bears little relation to what the actual historical evidence clearly shows. The Bill attempted to rectify that.

However, whilst the proposed principles of the Bill were a fair reflection of how all parties understood “Kāwanatanga katoa” in 1840 (i.e. Crown sovereignty over all New Zealanders), the Bill was less successful in capturing the historical essence of Article Two of the Treaty. “Tino rangatiratanga” dealt with chiefly authority (within the context of overarching Crown sovereignty). This was a collective right, but the Bill’s attempt to couch it in language framed in terms of individual rights missed the mark. As such I had to conclude it needed significant amendment on this front before I could support it.

You can read my full submission here Treaty Principles Bill – Submission Ewen McQueen

Ewen McQueen
April 2025

Posted in NZ History, Treaty of Waitangi | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

The day the Garbage spoke

Posted on November 13, 2024 by Ewen McQueen

Washington DC

One result in the US election last week spoke volumes. The final count in the State of Washington DC was Harris 93% – Trump 7%. It was a result which highlighted the yawning chasm between the beliefs and values of the elite governing class – and the majority of American citizens. In the nation’s capital, the ruling class of bureaucratic, political, business and media elites remained firmly ensconced in their own self-virtuous world of woke. But outside in the rest of America, the Garbage spoke.

In the heartland rural and industrial working class States, they spoke. They refused to be gas-lit and cowed into thinking they were bad people for still believing in the American dream. They refused to accept that allowing millions of people to flood into their country illegally was a good idea. They didn’t buy into economic and climate policies making them worse off and their nation more dependent on foreigners. They didn’t celebrate with their President as he danced on the Whitehouse lawn with men wearing dresses.

And most of all, they didn’t believe the years-long barrage of media indoctrination that Donald Trump was somehow the reincarnation of Hitler. They claimed the right to make their own judgement – and on November 4th they did. Trump returned with millions more votes than both prior elections, and won more States than his first victory in 2016.

There is a lesson here for all the liberal elites who in recent decades have manoeuvred themselves into the cultural and political high places of many western countries. Democracy doesn’t belong to them. The question is – will they listen?

In our own nation it seems they are not. Last year New Zealanders threw out the most liberal government in our history, and placed in our Parliament a centre-right coalition which included some robust conservatives in the NZ First and Act parties. And yet the liberal elites have continued on their woke ways.

In the bureaucracy there is the Solicitor General who tried to revise Crown prosecution guidelines so they were no longer colour blind. And the Law Commission which continues to push for the legal enforcement of gender ideology. There are the Police who started registering hate crime incidents against individuals, when there are no such laws on our statute books. And the teachers in New Plymouth who banned a young man’s well considered contribution from the school speech contest, because it might offend some students. In the corporate world there are the HR departments pushing pronouns into everyone’s email signatures, and requiring staff to complete compulsory e-learning modules on the full range of diversity topics.

And of course there are the New Zealand media elites, continuing in their attempts to gaslight us on multiple fronts. Apparently we need to understand that “men” can have babies – and it is a wonderful thing. And we also need to understand that views about sovereignty and the Treaty which were accepted by nearly all New Zealanders for 150 years are now misinformation, racist and divisive. Indeed our national broadcaster TVNZ has on repeat the constant refrain that the new government is “attacking” the Treaty and Māori. Never mind that since coming to office it has continued to spend millions on Māori broadcasting, language, and cultural courses, as well as progressing three more Treaty settlement deals through Parliament.

All this shows the liberal ruling elite in our land, much like the 93% in Washington DC, won’t be giving up in a hurry. However eventually they will not be able to out-manoeuvre the sheer people-power of our democracies. And there are already signs of hope. Our Parliament now has some robust anti-woke voices. Our media landscape is now seeing new platforms facilitating alternative views. And some of our young people are clearly determined to think for themselves, and not be silenced. The swamp is beginning to drain…

Ewen McQueen
November 2024

Posted in Cultural Renewal, International Relations | Tagged , , | 4 Comments

Giving legal force to gender ideology

Posted on November 5, 2024 by Ewen McQueen

The Law Commission wants the Human Rights Act 1993 amended to make it unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of gender identity and expression. Earlier this year their team of highly paid taxpayer funded lawyers and bureaucrats produced a 200 page “Issues Paper” on the matter. Their employment on this exercise was apparently money well spent. The new Minister of Justice, Paul Goldsmith, certainly gave no instruction to the Commission to cease work on the matter.

The Issues Paper identified 80 different questions that ostensibly needed to be addressed. Public submissions were then invited on these questions. Of course this was a classic case of where the questions, determine the answers. As I noted in my response to the Commission,

…the entire paper is written in such a way that the ideology of gender fluidity is presented as an established paradigm and the only questions needing to be asked are how to work out the details of its legal enforcement. This effectively shuts out any contrary views from those who find it difficult to identify a point of engagement with your paper at a more foundational level.

However if you made it to the end of the prescribed questionnaire, the final question did open a slight door for wider comment. It asked – are there any other issues relevant to this review or options for reform that we have not identified or anything else you would like to tell us? I offered the following observation,

This review ignores the foundational question of what is true about sex and gender. As noted earlier it pre-supposes that the ideology of gender fluidity is true and something that should be normalised in New Zealand law. As such it risks giving legal force to a falsehood.

A very large number of New Zealanders do not agree with this approach. And they are increasingly concerned that the propagation of this ideology is seriously undermining their fundamental rights to freedom of expression, conscience, religion and political opinion. This review has given very little consideration to such concerns. The only time these rights are mentioned is primarily in the context of how it is justifiable to limit them, rather than how to uphold them.

More importantly many New Zealand parents are increasingly concerned about the impact that the promotion of the ideology of gender fluidity is having on their children, and indeed all the children of New Zealand. At best it is causing confusion, and at worst it is causing serious harm to our children. The Law Commission should seriously reflect on its role in normalising this ideology by undertaking this review. The suggestion that this ideology should be given significantly increased influence in our culture by gifting it the legal powers discussed in this issues paper is profoundly misguided.

The final point in my comment above is the key problem here. Any change to the Human Rights Act will give gender ideology legal force in our culture. This empowerment will make it far more difficult to resist its promotion and propagation across multiple domains including academia, business, sports and education. For instance it is currently NZ First policy to remove the teaching of gender ideology from schools, and to ensure publicly funded sports bodies do not allow gender rules to compromise fair competition. However if the Commission’s proposals for the HRA are implemented, any such policies are likely to be deemed discriminatory and challenged as unlawful.

One wouldn’t be so concerned if this was just the isolated thinking of a bunch of elitist and woke bureaucrats, unlikely to see the light of day. However given Prime Minister Luxon’s public record of support for the “diversity” agenda, there is a real chance that the Commission’s proposals will indeed be implemented. The silence of his Justice Minister on this matter certainly doesn’t bode well…

Ewen McQueen
November 2024

Read my full submission on the Law Commission Issues Paper here

Posted in Cultural Renewal, Protecting Children | Tagged , , , , , | Leave a comment

Kāwanatanga katoa was the fundamental question at Waitangi

Posted on October 22, 2024 by Ewen McQueen

A recent NZ Herald opinion piece continued the modernist narrative that in 1840 the chiefs did not agree to Crown sovereignty. Here is the alternative view I sent them, which they declined to publish…

Matthew Hooton wrote in the NZ Herald last week that “There’s no doubt that both Māori and Pākehā in 1840 understood tino rangatiratanga to be a bigger deal than kāwanatanga”.1 However whilst this is undoubtedly the modernist position on how we should interpret the Treaty, the historical evidence suggests something very different.

Article One of the Treaty states that the chiefs agreed to “give absolutely to the Queen of England forever, the complete Government (Kāwanatanga katoa) over their land”. This is the late Prof Sir Hugh Kawharu’s back-translation of the Māori text into English.2 Whilst many today prefer to ignore the strong and clear meaning of this Article, the chiefs in 1840 were under no such illusion. They quickly grasped the essence of what it meant. The British Crown would become the pre-eminent governing authority in these islands. Yes, their chieftainship over their lands and villages would be protected. But only within the context of the over-arching sovereignty of the Crown over all New Zealanders – including them.

How do we know this? Because they told us. We have historical accounts of the debate at Waitangi that record what various chiefs said. In particular William Colenso’s account is generally accepted as an accurate description of proceedings.3 It shows that the idea of coming under Crown authority was indeed a very big deal for the chiefs. In fact Kāwanatanga katoa was the prime focus of discussion and debate. And that little word katoa is an important clue as to why. It is rarely mentioned. But it means complete, all-encompassing, totally, without exception.4 It’s no wonder it focussed the minds of the chiefs on the issue of Crown authority.

Colenso’s notes showed many chiefs were initially reluctant to sign the Treaty, precisely because they understood it would establish an authority above theirs.  Tareha replied to Hobson “We only are the chiefs, rulers. We will not be ruled over. What! thou, a foreigner, up, and I down! No”.5  Another chief, Te Kemara, opposed the Treaty because it would mean “the Governor to be up and Te Kemara down”.6 Other chiefs expressed similar sentiments both at Waitangi and other locations around the country where the Treaty was signed. In the Hawkes Bay one chief, Te Hapuku, even drew a diagram showing the Queen above the chiefs.7

These chiefs clearly did not see the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga as allowing them to retain unqualified chieftainship or “absolute sovereignty”, as Hooton and the modernists suggest. And taunts from local Pākehā settlers that the Treaty would make them slaves certainly wouldn’t have encouraged that idea.

In the face of such taunts the chiefs sought counsel from trusted Pākehā advisors. The French Catholic missionary Pompallier was, unsurprisingly, not an enthusiastic advocate for the Treaty. However he advised the chiefs that the decision was up to them, and the key question was “whether it is preferable for you to recognize and obey a great European chief, rather than to live as you have lived until now”.8 Henry Williams, the Anglican missionary who translated the Treaty, met with many on the evening before the signing. He later wrote that he explained again the Treaty, clause by clause, and how it meant “they would become one people with the English…  under one Sovereign, and one Law, human and divine”.9

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. This was the key question under debate. This was what the chiefs had to agree to – or not. The significance or meaning of the Article Two guarantee of tino rangatiratanga hardly even featured in the proceedings. Of course it was important. But it wasn’t the main question at stake.

As it transpired, after initial reluctance and doubt, most chiefs agreed to the Treaty. They did so not because of assurances of “equal partnership”, but because they were persuaded of the benefits that Crown authority would bring. These included law and order, peace between tribes, and increased opportunity for trade. Tāmati Wāka Nene for instance acknowledged Hobson would become “our Governor” and urged him to remain as “a father, a judge, a peacemaker”.10  Many others likewise invited Hobson to stay as Governor for both Māori and Pākehā. One was Tāmati Pukututu who accepted Hobson as “a Governor for me, for us, for all.” 11

These statements clearly don’t fit with the modernist narrative that the chiefs only agreed to the Governor having authority over Pākehā. However they are the historical facts. Hooton and the modernists need to engage with them, rather than ignore them. They also need to stop offering shallow interpretations of Te Kawenata Hou (the Māori New Testament).

It is true that this document would have had significant influence on how the chiefs understood the Treaty. In the 1830s Christianity had been widely accepted among Māori. Tens of thousands of copies of Te Kawenata Hou had been printed, and were eagerly sought. Hooton would have us believe it contributed to the chiefs understanding of rangatiratanga as “absolute sovereignty”.

However 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 Hooton’s 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”.

As we debate the future of the Treaty in our constitution we need truth-telling about our history. The assertion that in 1840 the chiefs did not agree to Crown sovereignty being established over all New Zealanders does not reflect the historical evidence. It is certainly true that the Treaty affirmed chieftainship. But any discussion about how to implement that today needs to align with the original Treaty vision. That involved chieftainship under Crown sovereignty – not in place of it.

References

1) Matthew Hooton, “Act achieves total victory on Treaty Principles bill”, NZ Herald 13.09.24

2) waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz – Prof Sir Hugh Kawharu Maori translation of Treaty

3) William Colenso “The Authentic and Genuine History of the Signing of the Treaty of Waitangi”, published in 1890 based on notes Colenso took at the time

4) Te Aka Maori-English Dictionary – maoridictionary.co.nz

5) Ibid Colenso page 24

6) Ibid Colenso page 17

7) Claudia Orange “The Treaty of Waitangi” 1987, page 81 – Te Hapuku’s diagram

8) Waitangi Tribunal “He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti: The Declaration and the Treaty” Wai 1040, 2014, page 368

9) Caroline Fitzgerald (ed) “Te Wiremu – Henry Williams: Early Years in the North”, Huia Publishers, Wellington, 2011, page 317

10) Ibid Colenso page 27

11) Ibid Colenso page 21

Posted in NZ History, Treaty of Waitangi | Tagged , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments