By Alex Steenstra, Ph.D.
Economics Dept., 1 University Blvd.,
Eastern Oregon University, La Grande, Oregon 97850
(541)962-3371; alex.steenstra@eou.edu

Introduction

The indigenous peoples of the United States and New Zealand have in common the British government’s nineteenth century policy to conquer and settle newly acquired lands. The Crown did not look at the indigenous populations as a source of labor (slavery), instead they desired title to the lands and the unrestricted use of natural resources. From the Crown’s perspective, all indigenous peoples looked the same and a single policy of treaty settlements would curtail the expenses of war, pacify tribes, and allow for the settlement and development of the land. In New Zealand this resulted in The Treaty of Waitangi¹ (1851) which was to include all Maori tribes and land. Due to the size of the United States, one treaty could not cover all tribes and as a result many treaties were signed with individual tribes. Treaties in both countries were broken and tribes have made attempts to address the breaches of the governments’ promises in courts. This paper will compare and contrast tribal and governmental approaches to treaty settlements in the United States and New Zealand and identify some potential impacts of settlements on the natural environment.

Historical Context in the U.S.

U.S. Indian policy was centralized in the federal government to better coordinate its objectives and has been cyclical in nature due to changing attitudes towards the Indian people. Before declaring independence from England, the British colonies’ main concern was to keep pace with the advancements of Spain and France in trade and land settlements. The threat of the French and Indian Was on the colonies’ resources and existence convinced the British to coordinate its efforts and nationalize Indian policy. In 1763 the Royal Proclamation centralized authority over Indian affairs and from that point on, Indian lands could only be obtained and settled with the consent of the Crown through negotiations with tribes.

The Indian policies of the United States sought to gain an acknowledgment of submission from the Indians by formulating a single, coordinated national Indian policy. The constitution of 1789 endeavored to correct the flaws of the Articles of Confederation in sharing sovereignty with the States in Indian affairs by delegating to Congress exclusive power over Indian affairs. Congress was committed to deal with the Indians within their territory with “utmost good faith” and to formulate “laws founded in justice and humanity . . . for preventing wrongs being done . . . [and] for preserving the peace and friendship with them.”

To preserve the peace and obtain Indian lands, a policy of negotiating treaties made practical and economic sense because it attempted to avoid costly wars. Negotiations, however, implied and recognized Indian sovereign powers and an indigenous transferable title to land². Negotiated treaties established reservations with well-defined borders which were mostly ignored by the people living on the frontier.

Pressures from the pioneers forced the government to formulate a policy that would satisfy the increasing land needs for the pioneers and protect Indian tribes from annihilation. Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson exercised the greatest influence in the development of federal Indian policy which has lasted in the twenty-first century. President Jefferson viewed Indians as being “equal in body and mind” and his Indian policy was based on coexistence and gradualism. The objective was to change the Indian into the image of the white man through the process of civilization which believed to take several generations (Gibson, 281; Wrone, 98). Transforming the Indian hunter to a civilized farmer would reduce the natives’ land needs and bring peace.

President Jackson described Indians as “a degraded brutal race of savages, whom it was the will of God should perish at the approach of civilization” and “subjects of the United States with no sovereignty of their own.” Indian nations, Jackson argued, “retarded progress and for their own good the ‘unhappy race’ must be moved from civilization (Wrone, 99). To legitimize the dislocation, The Indian Removal Act was passed in 1830 which marked the beginning of forced removal of Indian from tribal lands to reservations.

Since the Jacksonian era, federal Indian policy has oscillated between the Jeffersonian and Jacksonian philosophical attitudes towards the Indians. In 1887, Congress passed the Allotment Act to make available surplus reservation lands to non-Indian settlers. The Act remained into effect until 1934 and reduced American Indian lands from almost 3 billion acres in 1500 to 48 million (Gibson 506). With the momentum of the New Deal, the Wheeler-Howard Bill or the Indian Reorganization Act (IRA) was passed. The IRA has as it objectives to promote cultural pluralism or self-determination, improve Indian education, and access to health care, train and produce tribal leaders, encourage economic development, and repeal the General Allotment Act.

The full potential of IRA, however, was never realized since political opposition and the financial burden of World War II caused it to be under funded. Many politicians argue that true self-determination should include the full liberation of Indians and the termination of the federal government’s relation with the Indians. The termination policy lasted till 1961 when John F. Kennedy initiated the “self-determination” policy to develop Indian economics and reduce their dependence on the federal government. Today’s Indian policy avoids the extreme measures of termination but uses similar self-reliance arguments to justify smaller budgets in fulfilling treaty obligations.

Table 1:Cyclical Phases of Principal U.S. Federal Indian Policies

1760-1788	Origins of National Policy	28
1789-1828	Coexistence	39
1829-1886	Removal and Reservatio	59
1887-1932	Assimilation	45
1933-1945	Reorganization	12
1946-1960	Termination	15
1961-1991	Self-determination	30
1992-Present	Self-reliance	-

Historical Context in New Zealand

New Zealand Maori policies have followed a similar pattern as U.S. Indian policy. The so-called Declaration of Independence was signed in 1835. In March 1834, the Crown’s representative, General Busby held a meeting at Waitangi with several Maori Chiefs an instituted a national flag in order to allow ships built and registered in New Zealand to fly the Independent Tribes flag and be recognized according to maritime law. In October 1835 Busby called for a second meeting to counteract the French attempt to set up an independent state at Hokianga. Over thirty northern Chiefs signed the Declaration of Independence and were called the Confederation of United Tribes.

In August 1839 the British Government sent Captain William Hobson to New Zealand with orders to annex a part of New Zealand and place it under British rule. Hobson was to sign Maori chiefs to a treaty that would accept British sovereignty. Under the treaty, the Maori and their land were to be protected from land speculation and the interests of the 2,000 settlers already established in New Zealand were to be secured. In the treaty, Maori would retain possession of their lands and fishing areas while accepting the new Colonial government's pre-emptive right to purchase land. All sale of land by either Maori or European would be transacted via the government. In addition, Maori would accept the sovereignty of the Queen and were guaranteed the same rights and privileges as those of all British subjects. Hobson promised the tribes that all land which had been unfairly bought would be returned to the tribes and that all land transactions made before 1840 would be investigated by a Land Court. The Treaty of Waitangi (Waitangi means weeping (or noisy) waters) was signed on February 6, 1840. Not all tribes were in favor of the treaty and not all Maori chiefs were present at Waitangi to sign the treaty. Hobson traveled around the north and south islands to gather additional signatures. It was not until the September 3, 1840 that the final signature was obtained. Over 500 Chieftains signed the treaty but a number of important Chiefs did not sign the Treaty. In May 1840 Hobson declared British sovereignty over New Zealand.

Although the Treaty stated that the individual Maori tribes should have undisturbed possession of their lands, forests, fisheries and other taonga (treasures) and that Maori land could only be sold to the Government, under pressure from settlers the government gradually ignored terms of the settlement and allowed non-Maori to settle on tribal lands. This development led to the era of the New Zealand Land Wars (1845-1865). The legacy of the Land Wars continues today but the battles are fought in courtrooms and around the negotiation table. A number of major historical treaty claims have been settled since the 1980s, generally with a formal apology by the government, the exchange of money and return of Crown-owned land.

What followed next is a series of Native Land Courts that continued the gradual loss of tribal owned and controlled lands. In 1862 the New Zealand Parliament passed a Native Lands Act which allowed settlers to buy Maori land themselves. The Act allowed Maori a large role in deciding land ownership. Eleven Maori were made judges these local of the court system. However, in 1865 the localized system was replaced with a centralized system that was mostly controlled by Pakeha (non-Maori from European decent) and based on the settler’s legal system. The Maori judges were demoted anddid no longer have a decisive role in the court. It was not until 1923 that a judge of part-Maori descent was appointed again.

During that time, Pakeha judges convened courts in towns often times far removed from lands under dispute. Distance and the amount of time (often months) to investigate claims discouraged or made it unfeasible for many Maori to attend the court proceedings. Any individual, whether a rightful owner or not, could apply for investigation of title. This forced whole communities into court, because it only considered evidence presented to it on the day. If customary owners boycotted proceedings, or were simply unaware their lands were under investigation, the land could be awarded to others. Even successful claimants often found that it was so expensive to secure title (including court fees and payments to lawyers, interpreters, surveyors, etc.) that they had to sell some of the interest in the land they had been awarded. Debt entrapment became a standard technique of unscrupulous land speculators.

The complexity of Maori customs relating to land ownership and succession were ignored by the court in favor of a simplified set of Pakeha rules. Variations in tribal customs were mostly ignored as were the customary dispersement of resource rights among several groups attached to a single plot of land. This often increased tensions among tribes appearing in court, forcing them to compete for exclusive rights to lands they might once have shared.

The Native Land Court undermined tribal ownership. The results of the court were to convert customary Maori title into lands held under grant from the Crown and to remove "communalism" and encourage the sale of Maori lands to the settlers. A new Native Land Act in 1873 stipulated that every owner was to be listed on the titles, but title could no longer be awarded to hapãu (subtribe) or iwi (tribe), as was theoretically possible under the 1865 Act. The new law therefore took individual ownership even further. Each named owner was free to sell their interests without reference to other owners. There was no legal basis for multiple Maori owners to act as a group until 1894. Many communities found that their land was now a series of paper titles owned by unaccountable individuals. The only thing they could effectively do with their land was to sell it.

The government continued the aggressive pursuit of tribal lands by obtaining title through purchase of acquisition for public works through the early twentieth century. Immigration and the need to improve the infrastructure of New Zealand were the driving forces behind these developments. This largely stopped around the end of World War I. By the early twentieth century nearly seventy-five percent of the North Island had passed out of Maori ownership. In the South Island, where most land had been acquired by the Crown before 1865, Maori retained less than one percent. Not all of this land had been sold. Under the Public Works Act of 1864 and subsequent laws, Maori (and European) lands could be acquired for roads, railways and other public works, sometimes without compensation. It appears that in many instances Maori land was especially targeted for compulsory acquisition in preference to nearby Pakeha land.

The period 1950-1974 was characterized by urbanization and assimilation of Maori. It also marked the beginning of Maori protests. During the late 1970s the Treaty of Waitangi became the focus of strong Maori protests as decisions by the Land Court and unfavorable legislation continued to separate Maori from their land and gave momentum to the protest movement. Maori called for honoring the treaty and to address treaty grievances. Increased pressure and exposure to violations of the Treaty of Waitangi resulted in the Treaty of Waitnagi Act in October 1975. It confirmed and called for the observance of the principles of the Treaty. The Treaty received the royal assent and the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear claims of Treaty violations. During the early 1990s, the government began to negotiate settlements of historical claims. As of February 2006, there have been twenty settlements with compensation paid of approximately NZ$700 million. Settlements generally include financial redress, a formal Crown apology for breaches of the Treaty, and recognition of the tribe’s cultural association with the land.

The New Zealand government announced in 1989 the following Treaty Principles:

1.The principle of government (the kawanatanga principle).

2. The principle of self-management (the rangatiratanga principle).

3. The principle of equality.

4. The principle of reasonable cooperation.

5. The principle of redress.

The principle of government or the kawanatanga principle gives expression to the right of the Government to govern and make laws but is subject to the principle of self-management. The principle of self-management or the rangatiratanga principle guarantees to iwi Maori the control and enjoyment of those resources and taonga that it is their wish to retain. This principle recognizes the right for iwi to organize as iwi and, under the law, to control the resources they own. The principle of equality constitutes a guarantee of legal equality between Maori and other citizens of New Zealand. This means that all New Zealand citizens are equal before the law. Furthermore, the common law system is selected by the Treaty as the basis for that equality, although human rights accepted under international law are also incorporated. The principle of reasonable cooperation establishes a relationship and a partnership between two peoples. Duality and unity are both significant. Duality implies distinctive cultural development while unity implies common purpose and community. The relationship between community and distinctive development is governed by the requirement of cooperation, which is an obligation placed on both parties by the Treaty. Reasonable cooperation can only take place if there consultation on major issues of common concern and if good faith, balance, and common sense are shown on all sides. The principle of redress provides a process for the resolution of grievances arising from the Treaty. This process may involve courts, the Waitangi Tribunal, or direct negotiation. The provision of redress, where entitlement is established, must take account of its practical impact and of the need to avoid the creation of fresh injustice.

In the history of the treatment of Maori tribes, these principles were largely ignored. However, the most recent developments offer a sharp contrast to U.S. Indian policy. These New Zealand developments offer suggestions and hope for an alternative approach in U.S. Indian policy. The New Zealand government explicitly acknowledges historical grievances and in attempting to resolve outstanding claims, the Crown avoids the creation of further injustices. The Crown has a duty to act in the best interest of all New Zealanders and as settlements are to be durable, they must be fair, sustainable, and remove the sense of grievance. There is an emphasis on making the resolution process consistent and equitable between claimant groups, however, nothing in settlements will remove, restrict or replace Maori rights. Settlements will take into account fiscal and economic constraints and the ability of the Crown to pay compensation.

Table 2: Cyclical Phases of Principal New Zealand Maori Policies

Era	Policy	Number of Years
1800-1838	Coexistence	38
1839-1844	Treaty of Waitangi	5
1845-1865	Land Wars	20
1865-1949	Native Land Court	84
1950-1974	Assimilation	24
1975-1988	Settlements	13
1989-Present	Reconciliation	-

Motivation for Settlement

This section will briefly consider the motivation for settlement for the two peoples. The Maori, in most cases, are seeking resolution over land and other natural resources that were taken in breach of government’s promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi. This would legitimize further the Treaty and preserve rights granted under the treaty. They seek protection and the granting of full economic and cultural self-determination, economic development, and socio-economic issues. Maori are seeking to protect management authority. Although every claimant croup’s experiences and issues are unique, there are many commonalities in grievances, including:

• The Crown unjustly confiscated Maori Land in the 1860s
• The Crown didn’t keep promises to set aside Maori reserves but instead sold or leased land to settlers.
• The Crown claimed it had bought land that Maori tribes didn’t believe they had sold.
• The Crown bought land from Maori who didn’t have the right to sell it.
• The Crown didn’t protect access to Maori burial grounds and other sacred sites.
• The Crown granted title to the New Zealand Company or settlers when they hadn’t legitimately bought the land.
• The Native Land Court era resulted in large-scale alienation of Maori land
• Maori land was taken for public works and then not used for those purposes.
• The New Zealand Government seeks to maintain its sovereignty, settle the disputes equitable, look out for the interests of all New Zealanders, and minimize the financial redress exposure. Political realignment is also a consideration as well as the prevention of international exposure of human rights abuse.

Issues of Law

Treaty is a contract. By signing treaties the Crown implicitly recognized that indigenous rights existed to land and natural resources prior to the signing of a treaty. Settlements are not a precursor for co-management of natural resources. They reconfirm existing rights, environmental guardianship, and customary use of natural resources. Competing interests and confusion over resource management has come about through environmental protection legislation. The EPA in the US and the Ministry of the Environment in New Zealand actively sort to manage natural resources, as do state and local governments, even if they do not own them.

Table 3: Objectives in Treaty Settlements

Objectives	Indian Tribes	Maori Tribes	Non-Indians	Pakeha	US State Govt.	NZ Local Govt.	US Fed Govt.	NZ Govt.
Preserve Rights	X	X					X	X
Preserve Entitlements	X	X
Tribal Sovereignty	X	X					X	X
Economic Development	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Protect Tribal Environment	X	X
Modify Laws & Policies	X	X	X	X	X	X	X	X
Protect Management Authority	X	X			X	X	X	X
Protect Endangered Species							X	X

Summary of Settlements

Settlements over Indian water rights have been reached in the U.S. In additional research I will compare and contrast those settlements with the 25 settlements that have been reached in New Zealand with a cost of more than NZ$7.5 billion (see table 4).

Table 4: Summary of NZ Settlements

Year	Claimant	Location	Value (NZ$)
2004	Ngati Rauru		$31 million
2004	Te Arawe Lakes	Central North Island	$10 million
2004	Ngati Rangitane o Manawatu	Manawatu	$8.5 million
2004	Te Ati Awa	Wellington	$34 million
2004	Ngati Tuwharetoa	Central North Island	$10.5 million
2004	Ngati Awa	Central North Island	$42.4 million
2004	Ngati Mutanga	Taranaki	$14.5 million
2004	Ngati Whatua	Auckland
2004	Te Arawa	Central North Island	$10 million
2003	Ngati Tama	Northern Taranaki	$14.5 million
2003	Ngati Ruanui	Southern Taranaki	$41 million
2002	Te Uri o Hau	Northland	$15.6 million
2000	Pouakani	Central North Island	$2.65 million
1999	Ngati Turangitukua	Central North Island	$5 million
1998	Ngai tahu	South Island	$170 million
1996	Te Maunga	Tauranga	$129,000
1996	Rotoma	Rotorua	$44,000
1995	Waimamakuku	Hawkes Bay	$375,000
1995	Waikato/Tainui Raupatu	Waikato/King county	$170 million
1994	Ngati Whakaue	Rotorua	$5.2 million
1993	Hauai	Northland	$716,000
1992	Commercial fisheries for all Maori	Nationwide	$170 million
1991	Ngati Rangiteaore	Rotorua	$760,000
1989	Waitomo	Waitomo Caves	Transferred ownership of the caves

Map of Settlement Areas

(for full-size map, go to: http://nz01.terabyte.co.nz/ots/DocumentLibrary/CompletedTreatySettlements.jpg)

Conclusion

Although the approach to Indian policy and Maori policy have similar roots, the developments in the two countries are quite different. In the U.S., disputes over resources and land are either settled in court or through settlements, as in New Zealand, but they lack the following elements which are part of all Maori settlements:

1. Crown Apology.
The historical basis of the claims, those matters the Crown acknowledges as breaches of the treaty and its principles, and the working of the Crown’s apology.

2. Financial and commercial compensation.
Transfer of commercial assets. For complex settlements smaller sub-groups may be employed to look at types of assets. Valuation questions settled.

3. Cultural Redress.
Resources management, access to traditional food and resources, relationship with the Crown is resolved.

4. Text both in Maori and English.

The incorporation of these elements into U.S. Indian treaty settlements would go a long way to alleviate tensions, distrust, fear, and to improve the relationship between Indian tribes and the U.S. government. Indian water rights settlements for example are in English only, lack a government apology, may or may not include financial compensation, and cultural redress. It is the lack of a coherent approach that characterizes Indian treaty settlements in the U.S. The development of treaty principles by the U.S. federal government would go a long way in providing much needed clarity and reconciliation for past wrongs.

It should not be concluded that there are no issues with the treaty process in New Zealand. Many settlements are seen as tokenistic by Maori and they argue that they do not reflect the true loss of resources. Settlements, however, do address issues of cultural and resource loss by helping to establish better relationships with government departments and make way for alternative economic development. Pakeha, however, think that the government is overly generous and there are issues relating to authority in co-management systems. Treaty settlements are complex, emotional, and require some financial redress. The New Zealand approach offers the hope for better solutions and relationships between the indigenous and non-indigenous peoples.

REFERENCES

Alver, Dora. The Maori and the Crown: An indigenous People’s Struggle for Self-Determination. Westport, Connecticut; Greenwood Press, 1996.

Articles of Confederation, 1789. http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Articles_of_Confederation.

Gibson, Arell M. The American Indian; Prehistory to the Present. Lexington; D.C. Heath and Company, 1980.

Prucha, Francis P. Documents of the United States Indian Policy, second edition. Lincoln; University of Nebraska Press, 1975.

Treaty of Waitangi — Tiriti o Waitangi?February 6^th, Waitangi, New Zealand, 1840.

The Royal Proclamation - October 7, 1763.

Wheeler-Howard Act - Public No. 383, 73d Congress, 1934.

Wrone, David R. “Indian Treaties and the Democratic Idea.” Wisconsin Magazine of History 70, no. 2 (1986-1987): 83-106.

Appendix A

Treaty of Waitangi*
(English Text)

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:

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole sovereigns thereof.

Article the Second:

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of 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:

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.

Treaty of Waitangi*
(Maori Text)

Preamble:

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.

1. 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,
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.

Key Differences:

Preamble:

The preamble of the English version states the British intentions were to:

1. Protect Maori interests from the encroaching British settlement
2. Provide for British settlement
3. Establish a government to maintain peace and order.

The Maori text suggests that the Queen's main promises to Maori were to:

1. 1. Provide a government while securing tribal rangatiratanga and Maori land ownership for as long as they wished to retain it.

Article the First:

In the English text of the Treaty, Maori leaders gave the Queen "all the rights and powers of sovereignty" over their land.

In the Maori text of the Treaty, Maori leaders gave the Queen "te kawanatanga katoa" – the complete government over their land.

Article the Second:

In the English text of the Treaty, Maori leaders and people, collectively and individually, were confirmed and guaranteed "exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties".

In the Maori text of the Treaty, Maori were guaranteed "te tino rangatiratanga" – the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands "wenua", villages "kainga", and all their property/treasures "taonga katoa".

In the English text of the Treaty, Maori yielded to the Crown an exclusive right to purchase their land.

Maori agreed to give the Crown the right to buy land from them should Maori wish to sell it

Article the Third:

In the Maori text of the Treaty, the Crown gave an assurance that Maori would have the Queen's protection and all rights - "tikanga" - accorded to British subjects.

This is considered a fair translation of the English.

* From the Treaty of Waitangi Website www.treatyofwaitangi.govt.nz.

1. For the full text version of The Treaty of Waitangi see Appendix A.

2. It is important to point out that from the federal policy to negotiate with tribes it was officially recognized that Indians did not get their rights from the Constitution; they existed before the discovery of the American continent.