That in signing the Treaty of Waitangi,
the Maori Chiefs did not cede sovereignty
completely and absolutely to the Queen.
The truth is that Waitangi and elsewhere chiefs who spoke made it crystal clear that by signing they would become subordinate to the Queen – put very simply: they ceded sovereignty.[iii]
The diametrically opposite statement is made by Anahera Herbert-Graves: "'He Whakaputanga [Busby's 'Declaration of Independence'] 'declared our sovereignty'.” Take your pick! Ominously, she writes "My generation have already trained our successors"[v] which means that yet another set of young people will be infected by the falsehoods which she espouses.
Amongst those who make false statements about it are:
Having mistranslated "kawanatanga", this body does the same for "rangatiratanga"and further compounds this perversion of the truth by omitting to say that Article 2 applied to ALL the people of New Zealand - "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani".
Given that a library has ample opportunities to establish the truth if it chooses and indeed an obligation to the public to do so, this statement can only be construed as a deliberate falsehood.
When this serious state of affairs was drawn to the attention of Greg Morgan of the library, he ignored it.
Anne Salmond - who claimed[vii] that "kawanatanga ... was not a plausible stand-in for Crown sovereignty" and that in 1860 the chiefs could not remember what they had signed 20 years earlier.[viii] (Strange that, when many claim they know what Kupe said, 1000+ years ago!)
She omits saying that whatever tino rangatiratanga meant, under Article 2, it applied to all the people of New Zealand.
Peter Stephens (aka Pita Tipene)[x] who said, a little differently, "The Crown, or what we call the settler government, acquired sovereignty by guile."
Sammy Phillips (aka Haami Piripi) - who said[xi] "nothing existed that showed Ngapuhi ceded sovereignty".
As spokesmen for Ngapuhi, these latter two have a clear obligation to find out and state the truth. That they fail to do so shows clearly that their motives need to be questioned.
In advertising a book "50 Shades of Green" "contributed by the Nelson Environment Centre", Barlow mistranslates Article 2 of the Treaty. He then says "Its pretty emphatic that Maori never ceded sovereignty" - a classic case of deducing a false answer from a false premise.
Yet she says[xiii]: the Treaty "promised to respect the existing authority and law of the country while governing the new settlers according to British law." This is so flagrantly untrue that it is hard to accept that it is not a straight lie. At the very least it is dereliction of duty in her appointed role to make such a false statement.
An almost rabid blog by so-called DigitalMaori claims[xv]:"Maori sovereignty was established in 1835 at the signing of the Declaration of Independence and was not ceded to the Crown as the Government would have us believe."
a "partnership" between the Queen
and Maori tribes.
Tariana Turia is another who stated this falsehood as if it were a matter of fact (twice in the same article - typical of Nazi techniques) [xxiii]: "the Crown and tangata whenua entered their partnership at Waitangi" and "whanau, hapu and iwi [are] partners to the Tiriti - ... between the Crown and Maori."
Sharleen Baird,who calls herself a "Treaty trainer" states that "Maori have legal rights to co-governance of NZ ... iwi groups legally should be equal partners"[xxiv] From a "Treaty trainer" responsible for telling the truth, this is another falsehood.
Danny Keenan, with a doctorate in history, wrote that Maoris are a "sovereign treaty partner:[xxv] Incidentally, Keenan also made the false claim that "In the 1860s Maori paid most of the country's taxes", a claim refuted by John Robinson who established that they paid only about one-fortieth of the total.[xxvi]
Anna-Marie White parroted the usual falsehood[xxvii] about "the special rights of Maori as the indigenous people of New Zealand and partners under the Treaty of Waitangi".
The late Jim Nicholls in seeking exclusively for Maoris, a free slice of the valuable high frequency radio spectrum[xxviii] "What we are seeking is the Crown to halt its process and consult in a meaningful way with its iwi partner".
Aaron Authier: "The Treaty is a partnership between the Crown and Maori".[xxix]
That the Treaty of Waitangi is not
a straightforward and simple document.
This statement is in direct contradiction to the truth.
However, it has not stopped Geoffrey Palmer and others from establishing themselves very comfortably as "Treaty consultants".[xxxi] This man, and others too, would nevertheless entrench this “vague” document as the basis of a written constitution – clear evidence of his muddled thinking.
The truth is that the word "fisheries" occurs nowhere in the Treaty but only in a bogus, so-called "Treaty in English" composed by Hobson's pompous secretary Freeman.
That the peaceful occupation of the cult centre of
Parihaka by Government forces in 1880
was "the holocaust of Taranaki history".[xxxiv]
Keri Opai, a Maori language teacher in New Plymouth, who said the same in a Waitangi Day interview with Kim Hill.
That Ngai Tahu were "dispossessed"
of lands whose value "lay between $12 and $15 billion" [xxxv]
and that "people lost 96% of their land and resources".[xxxvi]
In the first place, Ngai Tahu repeatedly sold much of the South Island, both before and after 1840.
Second: while the value of that land today may lie between the figures quoted, around 1840 most of it was virtually worthless to the few surviving Ngai Tahu living in a few squalid villages around the coast.[xxxvii] The hard cash and goods they received when they sold were practically a gift.
Again, most of the North Island, much of it worthless to Maoris, was sold freely by the tribes, sometimes more than once.
Land was confiscated from rebel tribes, to pay in part the cost of suppressing those rebellions by which the rebels dishonoured the Treaty. They were informed in advance that it would be, in accord with early Maori custom "tikanga".[xxxviii] That it occurred was their own fault. Much was returned subsequently. A nett 1.4% of the land remains so.
That in recent "Treaty Settlement" operations,
Ngai Tahu were entitled to $170 million in real estate
and other assets, with further "top-ups" in due course.
Geoffrey Palmer said that such expectations were unreasonable and would not be met: "The idea that somehow hundreds of millions of dollar are going to change hands in a short period of time ... is, I'm afraid, idle and the reason it is idle is that the country can't afford it and it won't happen and in any case I don't know of any authoritative adjudication anywhere that would suggest it ought to happen."[xxxix] (Note that the real reason he fails to mention is that so many of the claims are false.)
He also ignored the careful study of the Ngai Tahu submission to the Tribunal by Alan Everton.[xl]
Prior to the awards, Everton found that "The short answer is that the [forthcoming] settlement is a swindle ... based on 'principles' which have been formulated by a crude re-writing of New Zealand history" and "any settlement of Ngai Tahu's claims based on [the tribunal's] report will be nothing short of a fraud".
In conniving in this abuse of history, the Ngai Tahu advocates, including, the Waitangi Tribunal and the responsible minister, the since-convicted Doug Graham all stand guilty of deceiving the people of New Zealand, in other words of promulgating falsehoods.
That Article 2 of the Treaty
applied only to Maoris.
M L Tankersley who ignores her predominantly European ancestry and continues[xliii] :"Maori retained ... everything that they considered to be treasures - which was far more that just their land, forest and fisheries that are referred to in the English version." She blatantly twists the 1840 meaning of “taonga”.
Sue Gee makes the pernicious and unfounded claim that "Maori have special land rights and many customary rights".[xliv]
That "taonga" meant more
than 'ordinary property' in 1840.
Another is Hugh Kawharu who says[xlvi] "'Treasures': 'taonga'. As submissions to the Waitangi Tribunal concerning the Maori language have made clear, 'taonga' refers to all dimensions of a tribal group's estate, material and non-material."
Such unsworn testimony is entirely worthless and can only be construed as a dishonest way to obtain material advantages by appeal to the corrupt Tribunal.
That Freeman's bogus treaty
was in any way an "English
version" of the Treaty.
That Hobson's final treaty draft in English of
4th February 1840 (the so-called 'Littlewood treaty') was
no more than a translation of the Treaty from Maori.
That the Maori owners of
Tongariro National Park did not
gift it to the nation.
Te Heu Heu responded "that is the best thing to do ... a gift forever from me and my people".[xlviii]
A deed was drawn up, signed by him and his principal co-chiefs and ratified by the Native Land Court.
As Mike Butler says this "appears to involve a blatant and self-serving reinterpretation of history".
Events in New Zealand may be a sideshow on the world stage but if these promulgators of falsehoods are not recognized by all reasonable New Zealanders, and strong action taken to counter them, we are exposing ourselves to what may become nothing less than a civil war.
Tuhoe have already come close to inciting it.[l]
Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".