Perjanjian Waitangi

Latar belakang

Pada awal abad ke-19, penduduk Māori begitu terganggu dengan perangai dan niat para peniaga, pemburu-pemburu paus dan anjing laut yang tiba ke negara ini, terutamanya di Bay of Islands. Teknologi senapang lantak yang diperkenalkan telah mengurangkan pendudukan orang Māori secara drastik nya melalui beberapa perang yang berlaku pada awal abad ke-19. Pada tahun 1831, tiga belas rangatira daripada hujung utara negara bertemu di Kerikeri untuk mengutus surat kepada Raja William IV memohon perlindingan ke atas tanah mereka. Secara telitinya, ketua-ketua ini meminta pertolongan Perancis, "puak Marion", di mana ia merupakan surat pertama yang ditulis orang Māori meminta campur tangan British. Kerajaan British bertindak menghantar James Busby pada 1832 menjadi Residen New Zealand. Pada 1834, Busby membuat sebuah draf dokumen yang dikenali sebagai Perisytiharan Kemerdekaan New Zealand di mana ia ditandatangani beliau dan 35 orang ketua puak Māori utara di Waitangi pada 28 Oktober 1835, menetapkan ketua-ketua tersebut sebagai wakil sebuah proto-negara di bawah nama Puak-puak Bersatu New Zealand (United Tribes of New Zealand). Dokumen ini tidak diterima dengan baiknya oleh Pejabat Jajahan di Britain, dan suatu persepakatan dibuat untuk membentuk polisi baru yang perlu untuk New Zealand.
Pada May hingga Julai 1836, seorang pegawai Tentera Laut Diraja British bernama Kapten William Hobson, diperintahkan Richard Bourke untuk melawat New Zealand melakukan penyiasatan terhadap dakwaan huru-hara di jajahan tersebut. Hobson mencadangkan dalam laporannya bahawa New Zealand diletakkan bawah kedaulatan British dalam skala kecil sepertimana peranan Syarikat Teluk Hudson di Kanada. Laporan Hobson itu diserahkan kepada Pejabat Jajahan dan dari April hingga Mei 1837,  Dewan Pertuanan mengadakan sebuah suruhanjaya rahsia terhadap keadaan pulau-pulau New Zealand (State of the Islands of New Zealand). New Zealand Association (kemudiannya Syarikat New Zealand), para mubaligh serta Tentera Laut Diraja menghantar surat kepada suruhanjaya tersebut. Suruhanjaya ini mencadangkan sebuah perjanjian yang bakal dimeterai dengan orang Māori.
Historian Claudia Orange claims that the Colonial Office had initially planned a "Māori New Zealand" in which European settlers would be accommodated, but by 1839 had shifted to "a settler New Zealand in which a place had to be kept for Māori" due to pressure from the New Zealand Company which hurriedly dispatched the Tory to New Zealand on 12 May 1839 (arriving in Port Nicholson (Wellington) on 20 September 1839 to purchase land) and plans by French Captain Jean François L'Anglois for a French colony in Akaroa.
On 15 June 1839 new Letters Patent were issued to expand the territory of New South Wales to include the entire territory of New Zealand, from latitude 34° South to 47° 10’ South, and from longitude 166° 5’ East to 179° East. Governor of New South Wales George Gipps was appointed Governor over New Zealand. This was the first clear expression of British intent to annexe New Zealand.
Captain William Hobson was called to the Colonial Office on the evening of 14 August 1839 and given instructions to take the constitutional steps needed to establish a British colony. Historian Paul Moon believes the instructions were written by Sir James Stephen, then head of the Colonial Office. However, T. Lindsay Buick in his landmark 1914 book 'The Treaty of Waitangi:or how New Zealand became a British Colony', clearly reproduces written instructions drafted by Edward Cardwell of the Colonial Office (Cardwell later became Viscount Cardwell and was most noted for his reforms of the British Army after the disaster of the Crimean War). Hobson was appointed Consul to New Zealand. He was instructed to negotiate a voluntary transfer of sovereignty from Māori to the British Crown as the House of Lords select committee had recommended in 1837. Hobson left London on 15 August 1839 and was sworn in as Lieutenant-Governor in Sydney on 14 January, finally arriving in the Bay of Islands on 29 January 1840. Meanwhile a second ship, the Cuba, had arrived in Port Nicholson on 3 January with a survey party to prepare for settlement. The first ship carrying immigrants arrived on 22 January – the Aurora.
On 30 January 1840 Hobson attended the Christ Church at Kororareka (Russell) where he publicly read a number of proclamations. The first was the Letters Patent 1839, in relation to the extension of the boundaries of New South Wales to include the islands of New Zealand. The second was in relation to Hobson's own appointment as Lieutenant-Governor of New Zealand. The third was in relation to land transactions (notably on the issue of pre-emption).
Without a draft document prepared by lawyers or Colonial Office officials, Hobson was forced to write his own treaty with the help of his secretary, James Freeman, and British Resident James Busby, neither of whom was a lawyer. Historian Paul Moon believes certain articles of the Treaty resemble the Treaty of Utrecht (1713), the British Sherbo Agreement (1825) and the Treaty between Britain and Soombia Soosoos (1826). The entire treaty was prepared in four days. Realising that a treaty in English could be neither understood, debated or agreed to by Māori, Hobson instructed missionary Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate the document into Māori and this was done overnight on 4 February.

Perbahasan

Pada 5 Februari salinan perjanjian dalam kedua-dua bahasa telah diletakkan sebelum perhimpunan ketua-ketua utara di dalam marquee yang besar di halaman di depan rumah Busby di Waitangi. Hobson membaca perjanjian itu dengan lantang dalam bahasa Inggeris dan Williams membaca versi Māorinya. Ketua ketua Māori ( rangatira ) kemudian membahaskan perjanjian itu selama lima jam, sebahagian besarnya telah dicatat dan diterjemahkan oleh pencetak stesen misionaris Paihia, William Colenso. Rewa, seorang ketua Katolik, yang telah dipengaruhi oleh Uskup Katolik Perancis Pompelier, berkata, "Orang Māori tidak menginginkan seorang gubernur! Kami bukan orang Eropah, memang benar kami telah menjual sebagian tanah kita, tetapi negara ini masih kita, ketua-ketua kita yang memerintah tanah nenek moyang kita ", Moka 'Kainga-mataa' berpendapat bahawa semua tanah yang tidak dibeli oleh orang Eropah tidak boleh dikembalikan. Whai bertanya: "Semalam saya dikutuk oleh seorang lelaki kulit putih, apakah itu akan menjadi perkara yang akan berlaku?". Ketua Protestan seperti Hone Heke, Pumuka, Te Wharerahi, Tamati Waka Nene dan abangnya Eruera Maihi Patuone menerima Gubernur. Hone Heke berkata, "Gabenor, anda harus tinggal bersama kami dan menjadi seperti seorang bapa, jika anda pergi, maka penjual Perancis atau rum akan membawa kami kepada orang Māori, bagaimana dengan anda, sebahagian daripada anda memberitahu Hobson untuk pergi. akan menyelesaikan kesukaran kami, kami telah menjual banyak tanah di sini di utara Kami tidak mempunyai cara untuk mengawal orang Eropah yang telah menetap di atasnya Saya kagum mendengar anda memberitahu dia untuk pergi! peniaga-peniaga dan peniaga-peniaga untuk pergi bertahun-tahun yang lalu? Terdapat terlalu ramai orang Eropah di sini sekarang dan ada anak-anak yang akan menyatukan kaum kita ". Uskup Katolik Perancis Pompelier, yang telah menasihatkan banyak Maori Katolik di utara mengenai perjanjian itu, menggesa mereka supaya sangat waspada terhadap perjanjian itu dan tidak menandatangani apa-apa. Beliau meninggalkan selepas perbincangan awal dan tidak hadir apabila ketua-ketua menandatangani.<P.Lowe.The French and The Maori.Heritage.1990.>
Selepas itu, ketua-ketua kemudian berpindah ke sebuah sungai yang rata di bawah rumah Busby dan padang dan perbincangan terus larut malam.

Makna dan pentakrifan

Perjanjian tersebut ringkas dengan sebuah mukadimah serta tiga perkara. Mukadimah perjanjian tersebut menyatakan bahawa Ratu Victoria "berhasrat mendirikan sebuah Kerajaan Sivil yang teguh", dan mengundang ketua-ketua puak Māori menyetujui perkara-perkara berikutnya. Perkara pertama dokumen perjanjian ini versi bahasa Inggeris mengurniakan kedaulatan "Ratu England" (United Kingdom sebenarnya) ke atas New Zealand. Perkara kedua menjamin ketua-ketua Māori "pemilikan Tanah, Estet, Hutan, Perairan dan milik lain mereka eksklusif dan tidak terganggu" secara sepenuhnya. Ia juga menetapkan bahawa orang Māori akan menjual tanah mereka kepada Mahkota British sahaja. Perkara ketiga menjamin hak sama yang dipegang warga British yang lain ke atas semua orang Māori.
The English and Māori versions differ. This has made it difficult to interpret the Treaty and continues to undermine its effect. The most critical difference revolves around the interpretation of three Māori words: kāwanatanga (governorship), which is ceded to the Queen in the first article; rangatiratanga (chieftainship) not mana (which was stated in the Declaration of Independence just five years before the Treaty was signed), which is retained by the chiefs in the second; and taonga (property or valued possessions), which the chiefs are guaranteed ownership and control of, also in the second article. Few Māori had good understanding of either sovereignty or "governorship", as understood by 19th century Europeans, and so some academics, such as Moana Jackson, question whether Māori fully understood that they were ceding sovereignty to the British Crown.
Furthermore, kāwanatanga is a loan translation from 'governorship' and was not part of the Māori language.  The term had been used by Henry Williams in his translation of the Declaration of Independence of New Zealand which was signed by 35 northern Māori chiefs at Waitangi on 28 October 1835. The Declaration of Independence of New Zealand had stated 'Ko te Kingitanga ko te mana i te w[h]enua' to describe 'all sovereign power and authority in the land'.
There is considerable debate about what would have been a more appropriate term. Some scholars, notably Ruth Ross, argue that mana (prestige, authority) would have more accurately conveyed the transfer of sovereignty. However, it has more recently been argued by others, for example Judith Binney, that mana would not have been appropriate. This is because mana is not the same thing as sovereignty, and also because no-one can give up their mana.
The English language version recognises Māori rights to "properties", which seems to imply physical and perhaps intellectual property. The Māori version, on the other hand, mentions "taonga", meaning "treasures" or "precious things". In Māori usage the term applies much more broadly than the English concept of legal property, and since the 1980s courts have found that the term can encompass intangible things such as language and culture. Even where physical property such as land is concerned, differing cultural understandings as to what types of land are able to be privately owned have caused problems, as for example in the foreshore and seabed controversy of 2003–04.
The pre-emption clause is generally not well translated, and many Māori apparently believed that they were simply giving the British Queen first offer on land, after which they could sell it to anyone. Doubt has been cast on whether Hobson himself actually understood the concept of pre-emption. Another, less important, difference is that Ingarani, meaning England alone, is used throughout in the Māori version, whereas "the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" is used in the first paragraph of the English.
The entire issue is further complicated by the fact that, at the time, Māori society was an oral rather than literate one. Māori present at the signing of the Treaty would have placed more value and reliance on what Hobson and the missionaries said, rather than the words of the actual Treaty.
Māori beliefs and attitudes towards ownership and use of land were different from those prevailing in Britain and Europe. The chiefs saw themselves as 'kaitiaki' or guardians of the land, and would traditionally grant permission for the land to be used for a time for a particular purpose. Some may have thought that they were leasing the land rather than selling it, leading to disputes with the occupant settlers. A northern chief, Nopera Panakareao, also early on summarised his understanding of the Treaty as "the shadow of the land is to the Queen, but the substance remains to us.", even as a British official later remarked that the Māori would discover that the British had acquired "something more than the shadow.". Nopera's later reversed his earlier statement – feeling that the substance of the land had indeed gone to the Queen; only the shadow remained for the Māori.

Kedudukan Perundangan

Perjanjian itu sendiri tidak pernah disahkan atau dikanunkan sebagai undang-undang statut di New Zealand, sungguhpun ia muncul dalam koleksi perjanjian berwibawa, dan kadang-kadang disebut dalam cebisan undang-undang yang khusus. Terdapat dua titik utama perdebatan perundangan mengenai Perjanjian:
Sama ada atau tidak Perjanjian tersebut adalah cara yang Mahkota British mendapat kedaulatan ke atas New Zealand, dan
Sama ada atau tidak Perjanjian tersebut mengikat Mahkota .

Sovereignty

Although the Treaty was considered to be Māori consenting to British sovereignty over the whole country, the actual proclamation of sovereignty was made by Hobson on 21 May 1840 (the North Island by treaty and the South by discovery – Hobson was unaware his agents were collecting signatures for the Treaty in the South Island at this stage). This was in response to New Zealand Company attempts to establish a separate colony in Wellington. The proclamation was published four months after the signing of the Treaty, in the New Zealand Advertiser and Bay Of Islands Gazette issue of 19 June 1840, the proclamation "asserts on the grounds of Discovery, the Sovereign Rights of Her Majesty over the Southern Islands of New Zealand, commonly called 'The Middle Island' (South Island) and 'Stewart’s Island' (Stewart Island/Rakiura); and the Island, commonly called 'The Northern Island', having being ceded Sovereignty to Her Majesty."
In the 1877 Wi Parata v Bishop of Wellington judgement, Prendergast argued that the Treaty was a 'simple nullity' in terms of transferring sovereignty from Māori to Britain. This remained the legal orthodoxy until at least the 1970s. Since then, legal commentators have argued that whatever the state of Māori government in 1840, the British had acknowledged Māori sovereignty with the Declaration of the Independence of New Zealand in 1835. Therefore, if both parties had agreed on the Treaty it was valid, in a pragmatic if not necessarily a legal sense.
There has been some popular acceptance of the idea that the Treaty transferred sovereignty since the early twentieth century. Popular histories of New Zealand and the Treaty often claimed that the Treaty was an example of British benevolence and therefore an honourable contract.
The Waitangi Tribunal, in Te Paparahi o te Raki inquiry (Wai 1040) is in the process of considering the Māori and Crown understandings of He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga / The Declaration of Independence 1835 and Te Tiriti o Waitangi / the Treaty of Waitangi 1840.  This aspect of the inquiry raises issues as to the nature of sovereignty and whether the Maori signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi intended to transfer sovereignty.

Legislation

The English version of the Treaty appeared as a schedule to the Waitangi Day Act 1960, but this did not technically make it a part of statute law. The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 established the Waitangi Tribunal, but this initially had very limited powers. The Act was amended in 1985 to increase the Tribunal membership and enable it to investigate Treaty breaches back to 1840. The membership was further increased in another amendment, in 1988.
Although the Treaty has never been incorporated into New Zealand municipal law, its provisions were first incorporated into legislation as early as the Land Claims Ordinance 1841 and the Native Rights Act 1865. Later the Treaty was incorporated into New Zealand law in the State Owned Enterprises Act 1986. Section 9 of the Act said that nothing in the Act permitted the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi. This allowed the courts to consider the Crown's actions in terms of compliance with the Treaty (see below, "The Principles of the Treaty"). Contemporary legislation has followed suit, giving the Treaty an increased legal importance.
The Bill of Rights White Paper proposed that the Treaty be entrenched in the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, however this proposal was never carried through to the legislation, with many Māori being concerned that this would relegate the Treaty to a lesser position, and enable the electorate (who under the original Bill of Rights would be able to repeal certain sections by referendum) to remove the Treaty from the Bill of Rights altogether.
In response to a backlash against the Treaty, politician Winston Peters the 13th Deputy Prime Minister of New Zealand (and founder of the New Zealand First Party) and others have campaigned to remove vague references to the Treaty from New Zealand law, although the New Zealand Māori Council case of 1990 indicated that even if this does happen, the Treaty may still be legally relevant.

Claims for redress

During the late 1960s and 1970s, the Treaty of Waitangi became the focus of a strong Māori protest movement which rallied around calls for the government to "honour the treaty" and to "redress treaty grievances." Māori expressed their frustration about continuing violations of the treaty and subsequent legislation by government officials, as well as inequitable legislation and unsympathetic decisions by the Māori Land Court alienating Māori land from its Māori owners.
During the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical (pre-1992) claims. Setakat September 2008, there have been 23 such settlements of various sizes, totalling approximately $700 million. Settlements generally include financial redress, a formal Crown apology for breaches of the Treaty, and recognition of the group's cultural associations with various sites.

Public opinion

While during the 1990s there was broad agreement between major political parties that the settlement of historical claims was appropriate, in recent years it has become the subject of heightened debate. Claims of a "Treaty of Waitangi Grievance Industry", which profits from making frivolous claims of violations of the Treaty of Waitangi, have been made by a number of political figures, including former National Party leader Don Brash in his 2004 "Orewa Speech". Although claims relating to loss of land by Māori are relatively uncontroversial, debate has focused on claims that fall outside common law concepts of ownership, or relate to technologies developed since colonisation. Examples include the ownership of the radio spectrum and the protection of the Māori language.
The New Zealand Election Study of 2008 found of the 2,700 voting age New Zealanders surveyed, 37.4% wanted the Treaty removed from New Zealand law, 19.7% were neutral and 36.8% wanted the Treaty kept in law. 39.7% agreed Māori deserved compensation, 15.7% were neutral and 41.2% disagreed.