Thursday, June 3, 2021

Tony Sayers: The Report of Matike Mai Aotearoa


It is the name of the Independent Working Group On Constitutional Transformation.

It sounds like a quasi-official body but it is not.  It is an offshoot of the Iwi Chairs Forum and is funded by the J.R. McKenzie Trust. It is chaired by Professor Margaret Mutu. Moana Jackson is the convenor.

Their mission was to prepare the framework for what has morphed into the He Puapua proposal.

If you are still in the dark, this is a Maori driven agenda to replace our present form of Government, using a radical restructure, that is comprised of a Maori Government and a Government for Non-Maori.

The Maori Government will hold a power of veto over many of the other government’s functions, but there is not a reciprocal power of veto for the non-Maori Government and they talk of equality.

In effect, The Government for non-Maori cannot function without Maori approval.

In short ‘Two Governments for One Country’ this sounds like a recipe for trouble down the line.

The Working Group for He Puapua was commissioned by Te Puni Kokere on the Ardern Government’s watch.


The purpose behind me writing on this issue is to shine a light onto the thinking that lies behind  MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA  and subsequently He Puapua.

I liken this article to holding up a mirror for Maori Separatists to take a look at themselves, from the outside looking in.

In view of the bombshell document: He Puapua, and the revelation that the ordinary Kiwi in the street had no idea that this plot had been festering under their noses for a considerable time, I now see it as imperative that as many authors as possible draw the attention of the public to as much pertinent information as possible, prior to the next Parliamentary Election. This is in the hope that voters will make informed decisions about how to place their votes, to protect their futures and the futures of their children.

The laying down of arms at the end of the last war between Maori and Europeans was not regarded by Maori as the end of their struggle, as they infer in their document: MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.

What the Pakeha has mistakenly believed to be a time for recovery, has been in fact, a breathing space before the next confrontation.

Maori have laid down the taiaha, but have now armed themselves with the law book and the pen. They have excelled in this respect, just as they adapted their traditional methods of warfare against muskets and artillery, they have adapted to the new battlefield, namely the conference room and the court room. I admire their acumen.

They are in every respect a tenacious opponent, but I should also caution them that their opposing team has similar qualities and access to the same tactics, so they should not expect an easy home-run.

As a ‘Pakeha’ I bear no malice towards Maori, as I bear no malice toward my opponents on the sports field.

They have their objectives and I am in opposition. If I was a Maori, I too might have been brainwashed into thinking as they do.

My contempt is reserved for those non-Maori, who defect to the opposing side through undermining their own side from within. I refer to them as ‘white ants’. They are identified by their carved bone pendants and frequent substitution of English words with Maori words. 

Maori have stepped into the International forum and have learned about politics in its many forms. Some of their number have had contact with communist countries, and have learned the arts of destabilisation and the political value of propaganda. Their recruitment of ‘Useful Fools’ is evidence of those learnings.

Feudalism was the traditional structure of Maori governance before 1840, and democracy does not sit well with their aspirations. The alliance of Maori radicals with Jacinda Ardern, is a marriage of neo-Marxists. 

It is clear from the stance taken by those who have created MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA, that they follow the ‘revisionist’ interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi. They, on one hand, seek the benefits of being British Subjects, whilst on the other hand, regard themselves as a separate entity, who never ceded sovereignty to the Crown.

Ceding of sovereignty was a core function of the Treaty, and it was a prerequisite for Maori, in order to become British subjects, with the protection that it provided.

Any tribe that refutes ceding sovereignty should not be able to make claims under the Treaty if they did not sign it, so they need to decide where they stand.

Many people would be sceptical of the suggestion that Maoris who signed the treaty, did not cede their sovereignty to the British Crown. The British would have abandoned the treaty idea, had Maori not ceded the perceived sovereignty. The treaty was more about legitimising Britain’s annexation of New Zealand in the eyes of other powers, who also had their eye on New Zealand at the time. USA, France, Germany and Russia.

If you want to be pedantic, at the time of the Treaty signing, there was no Maori Sovereign around, so how could they cede a non-existent sovereignty?

Their sovereign did not show up until the Kingite Rebellion of the 1860s, so they do have a point.

Let’s compromise and say that they ceded the perceived sovereignty.

Anyway, Maori at the time, signed and chose to be under the protection of the British Crown in preference to any other foreign power. I mean, they could have continued to live in their professed ‘Utopia’ where they killed and ate their neighbours and temporary allies/partners, or else come under the delicate ministrations of the Germans or the Russians. Look at what the Germans dished out to the natives of Namibia in Africa. Would Maoris still have what they enjoy under the British Crown today? So that’s signing the Treaty and ceding sovereignty dealt with.


The objective of this article is to take a brief look at the document entitled: “The Report of MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA”. Henceforth I will abbreviate it to MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA.  I say a brief look, because the document comprises 125 pages, so I will attempt to give readers a sample of the train of thought that runs through it.


(Pg 11).  “We believe that 2040 would be a good year to set as a goal for some form of constitutional transformation”.

·        This is the target set for implementation of He Puapua.

In MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA , The Maori Separatists complain about the lack of progress towards Maori-centred objectives and the Crown being the dominant ‘partner’. The foundation for their thinking is based upon the position that they did not cede their sovereignty Ie: twisting history and twisting of the treaty, so of course they will be opposed. Most people prefer the truth.

Let us take a look at some excerpts from MATIKE MAI AOTEAROA:

(Pg 14). The Terms of Reference do not require the Working Group to draft a substantive constitution. That was rightly seen as a matter for further discussion after the initial Working Group process is completed. Neither were we asked to give detailed consideration to practical structural issues such as the franchise, the costings, the possible jurisdictional issues, nor the relative merits of a written or unwritten constitution. Those matters were discussed but often as part of a general kōrero about what was meant by a Tiriti-based constitution or the more philosophical debate about how to balance the authority of rangatiratanga and kāwanatanga”.

·     This section simply states the scope of the Working Group’s objectives, which is basically to set up the skeleton of what is to be fleshed out in subsequent phases. The focus being on the balance of power between Maori Authority and the Government/Crown.

·     A balance should be viewed as 15% of power to 15% of the population and 85% of the power to the remaining 85% of the population, on the basis of 1 person equals 1 vote. This is at odds with the Maori concept of ‘Co-Governance viewed as: the Maori 15% of population get 50% of power and the non-Maori 85% of the population get 50% of the power. Such a view highlights the ambition of the Maori Separatist Movement.


 (Pg 7). This Report uses the term “constitutional transformation” rather than “constitutional change”.

·     Playing with words. They both mean alter. Transformation is gradual, change is immediate.

Either way, the intent is to govern the country the Maori Way, whether gradually or rapidly.


(Pg 7). One of the submissions received by the working group raised the topic of ‘The ongoing implications of the emigration of our people overseas’.

·        This is indeed a significant matter for Maori to address.

         I can see two negative effects from a Maori stand-point:

-     Firstly, the more intelligent, independent, confident and entrepreneurial young Maoris are eager to see other countries, but might not return to New Zealand, and represent a loss to their people;

-     I have spoken with a number of Maoris in Australia. Some of mixed-race marriages, who say they left “to get away from Maoris”. Perhaps they have a point. What does this say about the vaunted Maori Culture and political direction? They are concerned for the futures of their children in a divided nation.


-    It is periodically reported in Australian newspapers that Maori Gangs are a large part of the illicit drug distribution network in Australia, on the Gold Coast in particular. Clashes between Maori gang members and Aboriginals have occurred around Darwin. This does not endear them to the Australian public.


-     Under Australian Federal Law sections 116 and 501: Kiwis, whose activities in Australia are of a criminal nature are deported to New Zealand, and quite rightly so. Although NZ does not have a reciprocal arrangement. From what I have seen, it appears as though the majority of this cohort are Maori.

This does the Maori image no good at all on the international stage.

Indeed, in this regard, Maori need to make decisions for Maori and take some responsibility, without blaming the white-man and colonisation.


(Pg 8). “It also recognises, as our people did, that there will be opposition to the ideas presented and that more work needs to be done”.

·     This statement acknowledges that non-Maori elements of the population will not be happy with what Maori propose.

Is this because they accept that there is incompatibility with what they propose and what non-Maori expect. The Maori minority wish to impose disproportional dominance over the majority.

How many non-Maori would not oppose that!

(Pg 8). that prior to 1840 Iwi and Hapū were vibrant and functional constitutional entities. That is, they had the right, capacity and authority to make politically binding decisions for the well-being of their people and their lands”.

“well-being of their people    

·        This is portrayed as though Maori Ariki were infallible seers. In reality, their decisions also lead to Utu, which was the foundation for the demise of many iwi, through deaths from inter-tribal warfare and the loss of their tribal estate to the victor tribe. Yes, confiscation of land was also a Maori customary practice, and part of their Tikanga, along with enslavement.


Their decision-making prowess also resulted in the decimation of their population through hunger, due to the disruption of agriculture because of war, and also because raids by their enemies upon their patakas left them without food. Is this what is meant by ‘vibrant and functional’. Is this what is meant by ‘well being of their people’.


Today Maori have attempted to paint a picture of pre-1840 Maori existence as being some sort of Utopia. This is nothing more than propaganda.


(Pg 8). On this matter our people were clear – they were fundamentally relevant because they all express the right for Māori to make decisions for Māori that is the very essence of tino rangatiratanga”.

·     ‘The right for Maori to make decisions for Maori’.

No worries, even the most extremist right-wing Pakehas would agree with that, as long as the decision applies only to Maori.

A problem would arise when elements of Maori decisions impinged upon the rights of non-Maori.

Introducing Tikanga to replace existing law for starters. I will not elaborate at length, since the list of potential scenarios would be extensive, but as a quick example is: having to pay for a Cultural Survey before you can erect a garden shed in your own back-yard, in the Auckland Region. Have to check for those pesky taniwhas again.


(Pg 8). “For that reason this Report does not consider in any great detail the contrary views that the Crown has maintained since 1840, and especially its presumption that Iwi and Hapū ceded sovereignty in Te Tiriti”.

·     In other words, these Separatists are ‘hell bent’ on pushing through their agenda, regardless that their twisting of history and twisting the interpretation of the Treaty by the Waitangi Tribunal, is not acceptable to the Crown.


(Pg 8). “the participants’ belief that a constitution had to be based on certain values. For example the equality provided for in Te Tiriti was itself seen as a value”.

·     “Equality”. Hooray! We agree on something. As long as Maori are not ‘more equal’ than everyone else.


(Pg 8). “Others related to constitutional conventions such as transparency and mechanisms to ensure that the authority of Māori was not subordinated to that of the majority”.

·     This translates, that in the event that Maori disagree with the majority, which is often, that the Government will not have the final say. Yes, that sounds like a recipe for peace – not.

Oh! I get it! The Court will decide. Yep! And they will use Tikanga. Simple – Maori win again.


(Pg 9). ‘The underlying kaupapa behind each model is that tikanga and our own history always recognised the independence of each Iwi and Hapū”.

·     This gets interesting. Laws within laws. Not only do we have to abide with varying codes of tikanga from rohe to rohe, we also have to be conversant with multiple kawas from village to village.

Ahaaaaa! This is why we must learn Te Reo.

Will each Rohe have its own police force, and each village its own wardens?

That is one way of solving Maori unemployment. But who pays for that – need you ask?



 (Pg 9).                                             Now to the Guts of it.

We call those spheres of influence the “rangatiratanga sphere”, where Māori make decisions for Māori and the “kāwanatanga sphere” where the Crown will make decisions for its people”. “The sphere where they will work together as equals we call the “relational sphere” because it is where the Tiriti relationship will operate”.

·     “Māori make decisions for Māori -  the Crown will make decisions for its people”.  “Its People! ! !”  Wow!
Here it is, Maori do not consider themselves as subjects of the Crown. (But they want the Treaty).   
So, Maori now view it as Maori people and the Government’s people. 
Maori Government and Government-Government.
That is not what the Treaty infers.
It says nothing of two governments.                                                                        
So, what is the Treaty of Waitangi about?
It is incompatible with a two-government structure. 
The Crown is the government in the Treaty.

“He iwi tahi tatou” or “He iwi kotahi  tatou”, they both infer unity, One Tribe/One nation. One not Two.  
But now that too has been twisted. So, it is now Two not One.
Maori will deny twisting the Treaty, they are re-interpreting it in a ‘transitional’ way. 
They wonder why “there will be opposition to the ideas presented”            

Maori want to incorporate the Treaty into the proposed  constitution. 
The Treaty is about one Government not two.   
o why do Maori cling to the Treaty, to beat the rest of us over the head with it? 
This sounds like ‘wanting your cake and eating it too’.  
It’s called ‘cherry-picking’

(Pg 11). “In spite of all that has happened there is still good will and a belief that the many obstacles to transformation can eventually be overcome and a new constitution established. It would be fair to say that throughout the last four years of discussion people did not see that as some pious hope but as a legitimate treaty expectation”. 

·     So, “a new constitution established” and “as a legitimate treaty expectation”.               

I must have missed something in the Treaty fine print.


(Pg 12). “The reasons for its formation have historic origins because ever since 1840 Māori have tried to ensure a respectful and equal constitutional relationship with the Crown as promised in Te Tiriti o Waitangi. That has not occurred of course as the history and consequences of colonisation too clearly show”.

·     So, the Kingite Wars were respectful, as promised in Te Tiri o Waitangi.
Of course they were, we all know that.  All the trouble was caused by those nasty white-men.
Even all the school-children know that!

·     Propaganda!


(Pg 12). “Yet Māori have never abandoned the treaty promise. Whether it was the establishment of Kotahitanga or the Kīngitanga, or the discussions prior to the first sitting of the Māori Parliament at Waipatu in 1892, or even the establishment of Māori Congress nearly a century later, the kaupapa of constitutionalism as a way of Māori making Māori decisions was always present”.

·     “Māori have never abandoned the treaty promise”.  Maori Parliament? Maori Congress? New constitution?  Treaty promise?  What have they been smoking?  I am lost for words.                        


(Pg 12). “After much consideration a sense in fact developed that the lack of progress in achieving specific Māori-centred objectives was not just due to Crown disinterest. Neither was it due to a disjunction between the policy aspirations of the Crown and Māori. Rather it was felt that a more fundamental imbalance existed between the Crown’s exercise of constitutional authority and the constitutional powerlessness of Māori”.

·     Of course a more fundamental imbalance existed between the Crown’s exercise of constitutional authority and the constitutional powerlessness of Māori “. The Government does what the Treaty and the present constitution requires. It has not yet been changed. Last time I looked.


(Pg 13). “Forum members were all acquainted with the long struggle against the exercise of unilateral Crown power ever since the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Indeed the very notion of Crown breaches of the Treaty is at its base a question of constitutionalism and the use or misuse of the power taken by the Crown in 1840”.

·     Here again is evidence of a warped view of what the Treaty constituted, coupled with a twiste view of history. The reference to: “power taken by the Crown in 1840”, does not acknowledge that sovereignty was ceded.  

It is no use complaining about the Treaty, unless you acknowledge being a legitimate party to the 
 Treaty.  Legitimacy as a party to the Treaty was only gained through ceding sovereignty. Let’s have some clear thinking!  Naturally, if you cede sovereignty to the crown, then the Crown possesses ‘unilateral Crown power’.   It is not rocket science.


The Working Group Terms of Reference:

“The Terms of Reference given to the Working Group are deliberately broad – “To develop and implement a model for an inclusive Constitution for Aotearoa based on tikanga and kawa, He Whakaputanga o te Rangatiratanga o Niu Tireni of 1835, Te Tiriti o Waitangi of 1840, and other indigenous human rights instruments which enjoy a wide degree of international recognition”.

·     Basing a constitution on Tikanga and Kawa is not what the Treaty implied for the overall populace of New Zealand. Maori could apply it within their communities, but there was no intention that non-Maori should be subjected to Tikanga and Kawa. The Treaty relates to power held and administered by the Crown.                     
The proposal for two governments is incompatible with the Treaty, and the only purpose in trying to incorporate the Treaty into a new constitution is to prolong the gravy train for on-going Treaty settlements.    

No Treaty – No settlements. Full and final settlement was a myth.


(Pg 16). “ the sending of their young men and women into combat”.

·     So, what do we have here? It looks like, ‘One constitution -Two Nations’, each with an independent military agenda. Do we have two armies? Somewhere in the middle of this there is a Treaty of Waitangi. Very clear?

·     So, the Government’s people snuggle up to ANZUS and the Maori people snuggle up to whom?  The taniwha and the dragon?   What happens if each government’s allies are in conflict?

·     I like the idea of One Nation, One Government, One Kaupapa. “He iwi kotahi tatou 
As far as alliances are concerned, I go with The Kiwi and the Kangaroo!  Right on cobber!    
Does Jacinda have some hesitancy on this point?  The ANZACs have stood the test of time. 


(Pg 16). “The Working Group also accepted that some Pākehā would see the process as divisive and threatening. Most would probably dismiss it as “unrealistic”. On many occasions those views were conveyed to us”.

·     That writer has divided the Pakeha into two factions: Those who see it as divisive and threatening; and a greater number who thought it unrealistic. Let me correct that. Most pakeha regard it as all three – divisive, threatening and unrealistic. Call it one faction – a big one!


Section 4. Peace and Mutual Respect – Kotahi Aroha

·     Under this section, there were many constructive and sincere sentiments expressed, which gives me hope that Maoris with common-sense will moderate the extreme views of the radical Maoris. Kia Kaha.




“A key concern for many of our rangatahi countrywide was the lack of protection for our natural environment here in Aotearoa New Zealand. Rangatahi regularly identified multiple instances where our natural resources have been depleted, compromised or put up for sale. As such, they strongly opposed harmful processes that compromised our natural environment, whenua, forests and waterways, like fracking and mining”.

·     Good for the Rangatahi. I too, would like to see the resources of our coastlines protected from greedy people. Especially from those who gather kaimoana in violation of their own duty as kaitiaki, and take more than the limit, or undersized paua, as we have seen on TV – ‘Coastwatch. Then there are those who seek Mineral Rights through gaining ownership of the foreshores and the territorial seabed, full of manganese and commercial fish species. You are the Kaitiaki.


I have read on and on through the document and it was mostly a reiteration of the same basic themes, dealt with in the same monocular fashion. Basically, wants became rights. Everything Maori want was guaranteed by the Treaty.

Maori can do the job better than the government or scientists because of Maori Matauranga and Maori acknowledge atua and papatuanuku, and this over-rides any scientific thinking.

You have heard it all before and ho hum, it is past my bed-time.


When you go to vote, remember who brought the country to this juncture.

The power will lie in your hands to decide the future.




Tony Sayers is a retired school-teacher, trained at Ardmore Teachers’ College, and has held the position of school Principal in Australia and New Zealand. His teaching experience spans new entrants level to 6th Form, in primary and secondary subjects including: Graphics, Design-Technology, Mathematics, Science, English and Physical Education. In addition to teaching, he has worked in a variety of other areas including Law Enforcement, Engineering, Maritime and Union sectors.


Anonymous said...

This man is a "Totara" in the Realms of truth and the FACTS he espouses
in connection to the Treaty and the wants of radical Maori.
As an ordinary Pakeha New Zealander, I agree with him.
Thank god he has the honesty and brains, and strength to oppose the radical and devisive actions of a small number of modern radical Maori whom the present Labour Government seems to be "swayed" by.
I do not want a divided New Zealand.
The New Zealand I know and trust, is all inclusive of all races, who have equality and the chance of personal "betterment" through education, endeavour, and just doing the right thing.
We should not let our country be subverted by the wants and unrealistic views of such a small percentage of New Zealands population.
This Labour government must not be allowed to promote this subversion.
Exercise your vote at the next election to show how you would like New Zealand to be.

Alexandra Corbett said...

As for the content and understanding of the Treaty, I would recommend Sir Apirana Ngata's Treaty of Waitangy, An Explanation, first published in 1922. Ian Wishart's The Great Divide is worth reading, too.
As for Maori eco-friendliness, the fact is that under Maori guardianship more than 30 bird species plus other living forms became extinct.
As for exercising well-being by Maori for Maori, here is a short passage from Michael King's Moriori showing the real practice:
It is from the report of Johannes Gotfried Engst, the Moravian missionary:
"First, most of the victims were killed by a blow from the reverse side of tomahawk to the temple. They knew the exact spot to strike... Afterwards when the bodies were still, the heads were removed and thrown to the dogs, which gnawed off the best and burried the remainder for the next meal. Then the virile membrane (penis), having been cut off, was thrown to the women sitting around who ate this damty morsel eagerly. Then the entrails were taken out and the useful portion consumed. The heart, the most sought-after part of the body, was set aside for the chief guest. All the bones and ribs were separated out, the hands and feet cut off at the joints, and the flesh was taken to the water in flax baskets. When it all had been washed clean it was brought to the oven."

This was confirmed by one of the perpetrators before the Land Court, as being the common practice. Maoris either did it or suffered it or were afraid of it.

As for Maori tikanga, even if we omit all those that lead to the above mentioned actions which formed the basic characteristics of pre-Treaty Maori life, they all are based on Maori myths and religious beliefs and as such should not have any place in public life of New Zealand which is said to be secular society. They are incompatible with the religions of other inhabitants (Christianity, Islam, Hinduism...). They are inconsistent with science and represent the obstacle to scientific research and appllication of its result into life for the benefit of all.

As for the success of Maori economy, how then is it possible that there are so many Maori living in poverty? How is it possible that you can at first sight recognize farm lands with paddocks, orchards, fields and Maori lands rich only with all kinds of weeds? Who is so mad as to commit to Maori hands the well-being of all inhabitants of New Zealand? Isn't the cause of Maori problems in their tikanga, collective land ownership, mentality of victims they have been indoctrinated with? Isn't the solution in their embracing methods that lead to success? Education, diligence, hard work? What can young Maori achieve in the global world economy with Te Reo and tikanga?

New Zealand is a country with long democratic tradition. Do not let it die.

Jigsaw said...

Great stuff Tony! However you give the impression on page 2 that all Maori were on one side of the so called land Wars when you say 'The laying down of arms at the end of the last war between Maori and Europeans was not regarded by Maori as the end of their struggle, as they infer in their document 'Matike Mai Aotearoa'. But the fact is that only a small minority of Maori rebelled against the government- and thats what is was a rebellion. The number of Maori who stayed loyal to the government and in fact actually fought against the rebels was a far larger group. My own great grandfather fought against Te Kooti under the command of Major Roparta (Ngati Porou). No land was involved in this last rebellion. In fact as far as I can find Ngati Porou were always loyal to the government as were other tribes. In both world wars Maori were exempt from conscription- which is not say that they didn't enlist but there was no compulsion as there was for all non_Maori males.

DeeM said...

As Alexandra's comments eminently explain, basing a future NZ society on Maori culture and tikanga is a huge backward step. How this can be contemplated and embraced by our political elite in the 21st Century is astounding.
It just shows that despite the amazing gains humans have made over the last 100 years, we are still just as susceptible to stupid decisions based on blind ideology, rather than reasoned argument.
Maybe that will ultimately be our downfall!

Anonymous said...

NZ's "true and only" Treaty is the Maori version. This was what was presented orally to the chiefs, and was what they agreed to. There is no English version. Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 does not contain the Maori words for "partnership" and "principles."

First open challenge to Treatyists: cite the Maori words for “partnership” and “principles" in Te Tiriti.

Good luck, because those words don’t exist in the document.

Unless, of course, ‘partnership’ was in the bit the rats ate.

This nonsense is of recent invention. It originated in what we might call "The Treaty of Wellington (aka Section 9 of the State-Owned Enterprises Act) 1986.” Activist judges on the Court of Appeal hearing a 1987 case involving the NZ Maori Council then took Section 9’s unclarified in the statute reference to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” to concoct “partnership” and "principles" out of thin air.

Everything the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi and elsewhere, as well as the words of those who refused to sign the TOW, make it abundantly clear they were well-aware that endorsing it would place Captain Hobson in authority over them, and that behind Hobson was Queen Victoria.

Reiterated at the Kohimarama Conference of 1860.

Second open challenge to Treatyists: cite a single primary source account recording the words of a chief who thought he was going into "partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement with the Crown.

Eyewitness accounts of the pre-Treaty debates make it clear none of the chiefs who signed it thought they were going into “partnership” with the Crown. Those who spoke up for Hobson leave no doubt that they expected British sovereignty to bring lasting peace to the land, as well as protecting them from less benevolently inclined foreign powers, such as the French.

Third open challenge to Treatyists: explain why, for 147 years between 1840 and 1987 and the Court of Appeal decision in the NZ Maori Council Case, nobody knew that the Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership" or some kind of sovereignty-sharing arrangement.

It was only after activist judges on the Court of Appeal invented “partnership” and “principles” in 1987 that demands along these lines first surfaced. If nobody knew the Treaty of Waitangi was a racial partnership for 147 years, that's probably because it isn’t.

Fourth open challenge to Treatyists: Explain how Te Tiriti can be construed as a ‘constitutional document’ providing for an open-ended sovereignty-sharing arrangement between the Crown and those who signed it on behalf of their tribes, when it is not couched in those terms.

If the Crown and Maori chiefs were ‘Treaty Partners’ as claimed today, in light of an intention to create some kind of forward sovereignty-sharing arrangement, Te Tiriti would surely have referred to “Ko Wikitoria te kuini o Ingarangi nga uri me nga kaiwhakakapi” [Victoria the Queen of England, her heirs and successors], rather than just to “Ko Wikitoria te kuini of Ingarangi” [Victoria the Queen of England] as it did.

When it came to the natives, Te Tiriti would surely have referred to “the chiefs, their heirs and successors” rather than “to the chiefs, the tribes, and to all the people of New Zealand.”

The absence of references to ‘heirs and successors” on either side of the equation further underscores that Te Tiriti was a treaty of cession.

Anonymous said...

"Land Wars"?

More brown supremacist BS.

As outgoing Governor-General, Lord Bledisloe, reminds us in his 1935 farewell address: “In the Kingdom of the Blind, the one-eyed man is King. And he that does not know his own history is at the mercy of every lying windbag.”

Winston Churchill: “A lie will go halfway around the world while the truth is still getting its pants on.”

Neither "Land Wars" nor “Maori Wars” accurately explain the conflicts that race mongers now wish to commemorate so as to further stoke anti-White and race separatist sentiments. Nor were they “New Zealand Wars.” These misnomers were coined and propagated to imply the Crown made unjust war on a collective Maori in order to “steal” their land.

The wars were in fact between the Crown and specific tribes, who challenged the Crown and lost. The Crown then punished these groups with land confiscations as it had earlier warned if they didn’t lay down their arms and cease their provocations.

The tribes on which the Crown waged a series of localised wars between 1863 – 1878 were predominately based in the centre of the North Island (Tainui, Tuwharetoa, Tuhoe) and had never signed the Treaty of Waitangi in the first place. Under the legal doctrine of privity of contract, only the parties to an agreement are bound by it or can claim its protection in the event of a breach. So no Treaty breach there.

The Tainui tribes set up a "King" as a rival sovereign to the Crown and drew a handful of other tribes who HAD signed the Treaty into joining them, such as elements of Taranaki’s Te Atiawa. The Kingite Movement was thus made up of aggressive challengers to the Crown's sovereignty and rebels against it.

The ensuing wars were brought on by a minority of Maori Chiefs who saw colonisation as a threat to their mana and power, especially as their people had begun to exit their tribal lands in order to live independently close to larger cities and towns. A plan was hatched by dissident chiefs to get rid of the Treaty, British Sovereignty, law and order, and to drive the Pakeha out once and for all.

"Sovereignty Wars" correctly describes these conflicts, since they were undertaken both to extend the Crown's sovereignty over those who'd never acknowledged it, and to bring those who'd rebelled against it to heel.

Anonymous said...

He Whakaputanga 1835 evidence of a pre-existing Maori sovereignty?

More brown supremacist BS.

Assertions that a Maori nation state existed when the Treaty was signed rest upon formal recognition by England’s King William IV in 1836 of the 1835 Declaration of Independence of the so-called “Confederation of United Tribes” and associated flag.

The He Tohu exhibition at the National Library in Wellington says this about the Declaration: “It was how rangatira (Maori leaders) told the world, back in 1835, that New Zealand was an independent Maori nation.”

This is arrant nonsense.

Any “official” recognition of pre-Treaty collective Maori control of New Zealand must be placed in its proper historical context, which ethnic nationalists conveniently omit to do.

The so-called "Maori Flag" (not the Maori sovereignty flag fudged up in the 1990s) was adopted by Northland chiefs in 1834 at the behest of British Resident James Busby, after a NZ-built ship owned by Europeans was impounded in Sydney for not flying the flag of a recognised nation state.

Busby presented the chiefs with a variety of designs. They eventually chose a flag modelled on that of the Church Missionary Society, with which they were well familiar. This was not a Maori initiative, but a Pakeha-brokered expedient to protect New Zealand's pre-Treaty commerce.

Nor was the 1835 Declaration of Independence driven by the puny number of Maori chiefs who signed it. This "paper pellet to fire at the French" was fudged together by Busby to head off Colonial Office fears of an impending takeover by French adventurer, Baron De Thierry.

Initially carrying the signatures (or rather the thumbprints) of 35 Northland chiefs, the Declaration was ultimately signed by just 57 chiefs, all residing north of the Firth of Thames. Since these chiefs represented less than 10 percent of all the tribes of New Zealand, the Declaration can hardly be held up as evidence of a national consensus.

The arguments of Maori sovereignty activists are further undermined by the impotence of the handful of chiefs who signed the Declaration to act or even deliberate in concert. Signatories had pledged “to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice, the preservation of peace and good order, and the regulation of trade." Inter-tribal animosities meant this body never met nor passed a single law.

Even had the Declaration carried any practical weight, its handful of 1835 signatories (or their successors) all signed the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, thereby rendering the Declaration redundant.

Unknown said...

In place of the latest school Maori history ,I would suggest pupils read Tony Sayer's ",Report of Mai Matiki Aatearoa" ,& the comments following below ,from people who have read the article .Just so informative .

Auntie Podes said...

No wonder Maori are so mad keen on imposing their language on non-Maori. They use it to confuse the issue when they are pressing for further concessions. It is they alone who decide the meaning of their words and, if they can't find one to fit the circumstance, they maintain the right to invent one. It also seems that the actual meaning of their words is flexible - again to suit their nefarious purpose of conniving more concessions at the expense of we, their "oppressors".

Tony Sayers (Author). said...

I am grateful to all those who have posted a comment. These comments all reflect a wealth of historical information from an audience who have done their homework. I feel that I am preaching to the converted, perhaps this is because the type of person who reads 'BREAKING VIEWS' are those with an interest in New Zealand history, politics and in the developing crisis that has begun to engulf us. All of these comments contribute to the greater picture, and I think that it will be of mutual benefit, if we can expand the number of readers and writers in order to spread awareness of the developing threat to our democracy. I urge you to draw other readers to this website.

Judging by the quality of comments above, I encourage you to post articles of your own, as I have done. I am just an insignificant, quiet Kiwi, who has only started to write since I saw the need for more defenders on the ramparts. We need many voices and many votes to preserve what once was good.

Tony Sayers (Author). said...

Jigsaw. Thankyou for your comment. I acknowledge that the majority of tribes who signed the Treaty remained loyal to the Crown and fought against the Kingites. Indeed, Ngati Porou warriors under the leadership of the valiant Major Ropata, feature regularly in their military campaigns in support of the Crown. However, at that time, there was a small Ngati Porou faction, namely the Whanau-ia-Hinerupe hapu, led by Hoera te Mataatai, who were followers of the Pai Marire Movement, who participated in the rebellion at the Battle of Te Ranga, 5 km inland from Gate Pa. They had travelled as far as Matata in the waka-taua named Tu-mata-uenga. My references are: Pg:410 and Pg:423 Ch: XLI and XLII - The New Zealand Wars Vol. 1 - James Cowan.
I am gratified that a member from the Ngati Porou Iwi has read my post and contributed comments that express a degree of approval for my article. I hold Ngati Porou in the highest regard. My family originated from Tolaga Bay, and I have dear friendships with Ngati Porou, with whom I attended Ardmore Teachers College.

Unknown said...

the language and subject matter of the matike mai report is all about the relationship between two peoples. the language in this article is all about division and war between those same two peoples.
i would rather be talking about how to build better relationships than how to prepare for war,
and yes maori had strong relationships between tribes. many came from the same areo of the pacific. i.e related to each other as family. that was their social structure. and you can point to as many fights as you like you cant wipe out the fact that the maori were much better at making peace with each other than they were at making wars. it is european history that is riddled with wars. including the hundred year wars. all of our histories have some violence but they are not that.
be kind.
build relationship.
as was promised in the maori version of the treaty. that promise was never given an opportunity to evolve. you could argue that maori were tricked into signing the te reo version when the crown never had any intention of honouring that wording.
lets keep building relationship rather thanbuilding division.