With a little “googling” one may discover an extensive but undated(i) article entitled “Human Rights in Aotearoa” which is quite obviously a statement issued by the “Human Rights Commission”. Now, right at the start, we may surely ask why, instead of New Zealand, our country’s authentic name since 1643, one of the oldest and most widely known in the whole Pacific Ocean, the “Human Rights Commission” uses a fanciful name, used occasionally by early Maoris for one or other of the main islands? It did happen to be used in a couple of fairy tales by two colonial writers, William Pember Reeves(ii) and Stephenson Percy Smith(iii) in the 1890s. As Michael King noted, “[F]ew Maori opted for Aotearoa”.(iv) We may conclude that “Aotearoa” was a fanciful name for our country of a few colonials! Just what is this Commission, paid for by New Zealand’s taxpayers, trying to do in using this fake so prominently?
Evidently the true name of our country, “New Zealand”, sticks in this Commission’s collective throat. Why??
This Commission has five members:
1. Paul Hunt, Human Rights Commissioner; English born, with dual citizenship, currently a professor of law at the University of Essex and described as “a human rights expert”.
2. Meng Foon, Race Relations Commissioner; Gisborne born, former Mayor of Gisborne, who is on record as saying: “Co-governance is a way to uplift Māori, empower tangata whenua at the decision-making table and give some recognition to the tino rangatiratanga authority that exists alongside kāwanatanga governance. This is beneficial for everyone in Aotearoa, not just Māori.”(v)
Perhaps we may speculate on just what he means in saying “a way to ... empower tangata whenua” but we can be certain that in talking about “the tino rangatiratanga authority that exists alongside kāwanatanga governance” he is blatantly corrupting the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is strange, perhaps, for someone fluent in Maori! Readers may form their own conclusions about the speculation in his last sentence.
3. Karanina Sumeo. Samoan born; in 2018 she was appointed Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner for the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.
4. Paula Tesoriero; Wellington born, a paralympic cyclist and civil servant.
5. Claire Charters; Professor at the University of Auckland, appointed on 6th March 2023, whose specialty is “indigenous rights”, which we discuss immediately below. As we are on record as saying:(vi) “Associate Professor Charters has used the prestigious occasion of a Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture as a soap-box to promulgate crude political rhetoric.” It should not be necessary to say more!
The Text of This Document
Under the heading: “What is the relationship between human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi?”, the Commission states: “The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s own unique statement of human rights. It includes both universal human rights and indigenous rights.” The Commission proceeds further to state: “The Treaty (1840) and the UDHR (1948) therefore complement each other: both govern relationships between peoples in New Zealand” and “This section is primarily concerned with the indigenous rights guaranteed under Article 2 of the Treaty, and the specific aspects of Article 1 and 3 that pertain to Māori.”
Under the heading: “New Zealand context Customary rights and rangatiratanga”, the Commission continues:
“International instruments affirm the customary rights of Indigenous peoples as central to the realisation of their human rights. In New Zealand, Māori customary rights are formed by whakapapa (genealogical connections), tikanga (the customary equivalent of law) and mātauranga (traditional knowledge). Exercised collectively, these rights and responsibilities existed prior to colonial contact and have survived – though not necessarily in their original form – into the present. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi protects Māori rangatiratanga, which refers to chiefly authority and self-determination rooted in tikanga, and the protection of lands, forests, fisheries and other taonga or treasures.”
Oh! Yeah? This sentence is a gross distortion of what is said in Article Second, a whopper!
1. Article second does not mention “Māori” but guaranteed “tino rangatiratanga” ‒ the Williams’ translation of “possession” ‒ in default of any reasonable word in the Ngapuhi dialect for the concept ‒ of “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all property” to “the chiefs and tribes” and “all the people of New Zealand” ,”tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”, accepted by all, white and brown alike at Waitangi on 5th February 1840.(vii) Let us be very clear – there is no unique grant to any one; quite specifically it granted the same rights to every one. It was not a divisive grant. To the extent that ‘rangatiratanga’ was used, it was to make it clear that, notwithstanding the changes in tribal authority, nobody has their land or dwellings or property confiscated, i.e. they retained ownership. This underlines the fact that, unlike the usual Maori practice hitherto, the Treaty was not about conquest because of course, the impact of tribal conquest was that the conquered lost their land, dwellings and property. But it simply does not make any sense to suggest that Article Two is about retaining tribal authority.
2. Article second says nothing about “self-determination rooted in tikanga”.
3. It says nothing about “forests and fisheries” which are only found in Freeman’s fake treaty, a discarded copy of which was used as note paper to accommodate some chiefs’ signatures in an exigency at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840, and now, believe it or not, legislated by the “Treaty of Waitangi Act” of 1975 to be “The Treaty in English”.
4. Use of “taonga” may only be in the sense which applied in 1840: “property” as defined in William Williams’ dictionary, 1844 meant chattels or ordinary possessions. These were described in 1831 by some 13 chiefs as “nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes”. Pork and potatoes of course were introduced by Europeans. It is a flagrant abuse of an 1840 document to use its modern meaning.
In one sentence, this “Human Rights Commission” makes four false statements about the Treaty of Waitangi, which in the first sentence of its text it states to be “the founding document of New Zealand.”
So, friends, what do you make of that: four false statements about human rights by an official Commission whose specific task is to address Human Rights??
But wait! Believe it or not, there is more flagrant abuse of the truth in this Commission’s document because Maoris are not indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand. And this is why....
The generally accepted concept of indigenous peoples is that when and how they have come to be where they are and where they came from are unknown or uncertain. Typical such people are Australian aboriginals and American natives (who used to be called “Red Indians” when I was a schoolboy). The latter, for example, are presumed to have come from Asia, by a “land bridge” somewhere near Bering Strait and maybe 20,000 years ago but nobody really knows.
But the Maoris...
We know pretty well exactly where they came from: islands of Eastern Polynesian, notably Raiatea.(viii)
We know pretty well exactly when they came, from genealogies (whakapapa) – within a few decades of 1350
We know with remarkable detail how they got here: in eight canoes – and we even know their names – Takitimu, Tainui, etc.!
(This may be “matauranga” but it is confirmed by science and archaeology.)
Maoris are not indigenous on any count! The Human Rights Commission is blatantly wrong in its assumption that they are and in making its judgments accordingly.
A very substantial section of this report by the Human Rights Commission is invalidated by its false assumption that Maoris are indigenous to New Zealand.
The Commission and the Treaty itself.
The text commences: “The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand.” Well, constitutional lawyers might or might not accept this claim but at least it dismisses any claim to validity by modern revisionists of Busby’s paper tiger, the so-called “Declaration of Independence”, so prominently displayed in the National Library in a cabinet costing us taxpayers rather more that $7 million, along with the rat-eaten original “treaty” document and the petition for women’s suffrage.
And then we get, believe it or not(!): “It enabled subsequent migration to New Zealand and the establishment of government by the Crown.” In just what sort of dreamworld do these ‒ presumably very highly paid ‒ servants of the people of New Zealand exist? Do they not know of the extensive plans of the New Zealand Company for British settlement which would have proceeded, Treaty or no Treaty? Are they unaware that the first colonists of this enterprise had arrived in Wellington one week before Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands?
“[G]overnment by the Crown” would have proceeded in any case under the pressure of migration from Britain, treaty or no treaty, which would certainly have continued.(ix)
It is interesting (albeit futile) to speculate what might have happened then had not British sovereignty been affirmed following its widespread acceptance by Maori chiefs. There would have been many losers and many of them would have been Maoris.
And next, says this Commission: “The Preamble sets out the purpose of the Treaty: to protect Mäori rights and property,” Well, no, it doesn’t! What it actually says is “Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving. And that it is for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.”x Let us explain this for the Commission: an aim of the Treaty was the protection of both new settlers and the Maoris! It was to be inclusive. Any suggestion of “co-governance” or anything like it is a mockery of the Treaty of Waitangi..
And then, the Commission proceeds to state: “New Zealand’s history since the signing of the Treaty has been marked by repeated failures to honour these founding promises.”
Well, that is certainly a wide and sweeping claim. It would be tedious to enumerate here the many benefits colonisation brought to its Maori inhabitants, of the harmonious relationships which must have developed amongst these two people, demonstrated so positively by the scale of interbreeding to the extent that any purebred Maori today would be an extremely rare individual.
Again, it was those Maori tribes which rebelled against the government which committed “repeated failures to honour these founding promises”, on trivial or non-existent pretexts, and broke their pledges of loyalty to the Crown. Be it noted that Maori loyalists provided a significant force in suppressing their rebellions and the leniency with which rebels were treated afterwards.(xi)
And our critique does not even address yet the Commission’s “Introduction”!! Please be patient, dear reader!
The “Introduction”
Yes! Wait for it! We are informed that this 180-year old relic of our first steps towards nationhood is “important as a ‘living document’,(xii) central to New Zealand’s present and future.” Well, if this is so, “All the rights will be given to [all the Maoris of New Zealand] the same as [the Queen’s] doings to the people of England.”(xiii)
What a mockery of this “living document” then are the rights, privileges and assets bestowed at an accelerating rate on our wealthy tribal corporations today and their accelerating demands for more – control of natural water and our access to it, special hospitals, special electoral rights, tax-free status as “charities” just start the list. “The same”, said the Treaty. Recent legislators and demonstrators waving their so-called “tino rangatiratanga” flag treat the Treaty with contempt, not “honour”.
Then this Commission trots out the “obiter dicta”, i.e. casual remark, of that rather wet judge, Robin Cooke,(xiv) that “[i]t establishes a relationship “akin to partnership” between the Crown and rangatira, and confers a set of rights and obligations on each Treaty partner. Well, it didn’t but today we are subjected to lie after lie about the absurd notion that such a “partnership” exists.
As retired Judge Anthony Willy has written “as to the notion of Partnership it was and is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects”.(xv)
Any suggestion that the Treaty of Waitangi created an ongoing system of preference of Maoris in a de facto partnership is simply nonsense.
It is not less than an outrage that the Human Rights Commission continues to foster this blatant falsehood.
This introduction continues with its own line on the Treaty of Waitangi, riddled with false statements and misinterpretations, of the sort which are widely prevalent in official circles today and disastrous for the future of democracy in New Zealand,
Thus it states “there are areas of disagreement between the English and Māori texts of the Treaty”.
If one accepts that this is true and that the Treaty is a component of our constitution, then it is a profound absurdity scarcely worthy of a banana republic yet this situation has been created by the Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975. That Act accepts Freeman’s discarded fake treaty, used, as we observe above, as notepaper for an overflow of chiefs’ signatures at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840 when the official copy of the treaty had not arrived in time for the signing process. Yet simply nobody, that is, nobody, in officialdom of whom I am aware questions this absurdity.
The Commission continues: “Article 1 is essentially about the Crown”. This is rubbish. Article 1 actually concerns the chiefs’ cession of sovereignty, “completely and for ever” to the Queen.
Then it says: “Article 2 is about rangatira” - which is quite simply more garbage. Article 2 is actually about the property rights of “all the people of New Zealand” - “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.
And, again it says: “Article 3 is about all citizens and residents (including Māori, Pākehā and other subsequent migrants)” - another gross mis-statement. What this article actually does is confer the rights of British subjects on “tangata maori katoa”(xvi) and that is all!
This “Human Rights Commission” continues with “These rights and responsibilities include: the rights and responsibilities of the Crown to govern (Article 1 – kāwanatanga/governance)”. Once again, this is a gross misrepresentation of what the treaty actually says.
By Article 1, the chiefs actually ceded forever to the Queen, the entire sovereignty of their country.
The Human Rights Commission wording “kāwanatanga/governance” blatantly implies a false identity of meaning of these two words.
It is high time for all the people of New Zealand – tangata katoa o Nu Tirani – to get the message that translation is NOT the same as derivation, as we have pointed out on many occasions.(xvii)
By Article first, despite the many loud voices of dissenters(xviii), the chiefs ceded sovereignty “completely and for ever” to the Queen – and they knew it!(xix)
The next couple of lines of this statement of the Human Rights Commission are quite remarkable for the number of false statements made in such a brief piece of text, thus:
first line:”the collective rights and responsibilities of Māori, as Indigenous people, to live as Māori and to protect and develop their taonga (Article 2 – rangatiratanga/ self-determination)”
False statement 1: “Māori, as Indigenous people”. Now, despite the implication by John Key when he sneakily sent Peter Sharples to the United Nations to sign its “declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People”, in no sense are Maoris indigenous to New Zealand as we explain earlier here.
On all counts, Maoris are disqualified as “indigenous people” of New Zealand. There were indeed a variety of truly indigenous people who were not Polynesians here at the time of the arrival of the Maori colonists, most of whom they slaughtered and ate, even into colonial times.(xx)
False Statement 2 “to live as Māori and to protect and develop their taonga (Article 2 – rangatiratanga/ self-determination) ” - Article second says nothing of the sort. It did, however, “guarantee to ... all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani... possession (tino rangatiratanga) of ... all their property (taonga).
It is “rangatiratanga”, falsely stated by the Commission to mean “self-determination” which is so actively flaunted by treaty-twisters today, often waving a flag somebody made for them, in claiming special rights of “co-governance” and other privileges which are entirely illegitimate in terms of the Treaty’s content and intent.
Again, “taonga”, which simply meant “property procured by the spear” to Hongi Hika in 1820, was simply defined in William Williams’ 1844 dictionary as “property”. Since then its meaning has exploded to include almost anything, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, undiscovered in 1840, Kawharu flagrantly broke the rules of translation in using an alleged modern meaning for “taonga” in his translation of the Treaty used in all Cabinet references to it.(xxi) It is this corruption of the 1840 meaning which the Human Rights Commission presumes in its reference to a falsely claimed right of Maoris to “develop their taonga”.
In conclusion
It would indeed be tedious to relate further the multiplicity of false statements in this document of the Human Rights Commission. We do note the following.
The Commission: “The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s own unique statement of human rights. It includes both universal human rights and indigenous rights. It belongs to, and is a source of rights for, all New Zealanders.” This is a deeply flawed claim.
The Treaty says absolutely nothing about “indigenous rights” and it is profoundly misleading, indeed mischievous of the Commission to say so.
The Treaty is not, as the Commission claims, “a source of rights for all New Zealanders.” Existing British subjects had such rights in any case. It did indeed confer those same rights on “tangata maori”, remarkable and possibly unique at that time for its generous treatment of a native people.
The Treaty of Waitangi might justly be called a remarkable document for its day. By it, in essence, the Maori chiefs ceded for ever to the Queen such sovereignty as each possessed and all Maoris, their many slaves included, got the same rights as the people of England.
When Hobson formally affirmed British sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand on 21 May 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had done its job. Then was the time to put it to rest as a footnote to history.
Claims today by the Human Rights Commission and a multiplicity of other treaty-twisters that it is a “living document” whose words they wrench out of context and abuse by applying distortions and modern meanings or reconstructions in place of their 1840 meanings, are an insult to its memory and the far-sighted men who wrought it.
Recent Government announcements appear to grant even more power and influence to this Committee which, in view of the false beliefs which so clearly it holds today, can only lead to further destruction of democracy in New Zealand. Its abolition at the first opportunity to do so in our immediate future is a matter of extreme importance and urgency.
References:
(i) As far as I can discover
(ii) W.P. Reeves, “The Long White Cloud”, 1898, republished 1950 & 1973,ISBN 0 85558 93 6 – in his title and one footnote only
(iii) S.P. Smith, various works – not always notable for the accuracy of his speculations. Ref King (below), p.56
(iv) M.King,“The Penguin History of New Zealand”, ISBN 0 14 301867 1, 2003, p.42
(v) M.Foon, “Stuff”, 24 January 2022
(vi) “Breaking Views, 19 December 2022
(vii) Refer to Colenso’s meticulous record of proceedings, verified by Busby, if you think otherwise!
(viii) Similarity of language gives a strong clue. E.g.”Ikoraki” is the name of a prominent peak in Rarotonga, “Hikurangi” of an East Coast peak here, showing well-attested sound shifts in Maori dialects.
(ix) We remark that largescale migration of peoples of the human race (and indeed of other species) have been a feature of life on this planet since before recorded history began.
(x) W.Hobson, final English draft of the Treaty, 4th February 1840.
(xi) Some confiscation of land of the rebels did indeed occur, largely to compensate a cash-strapped government for the cost of suppressing their rebellions but there were no executions apart from for those found guilty of murder.. In the event, about 4% of the land area was confiscated from rebels, fully in accordance with their own traditional practice of “tikanga”.
(xii) Michael Cullen, a former Minister of Finance, was another who made this idiotic claim.
(xiii) Article The Third, official translation by T.E.Young, 1869 (with due substitution of pronouns) OR “the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.” (Hobson’s final draft of 4th February), surely an unprecedented undertaking to any native race anywhere in the world. AND yet, today’s treaty-twisters demand yet more and more!
(xiv) Having known him personally many years ago, this is the opinion which I formed of this man.
(xv) Quoted in “Democracy Action Newsletter”, December 2020 and elsewhere.
(xvi) Both Andy Oakley and Hugh Kawharu have pointed out that “maori” was used here in the sense of “ordinary people”, the modern usage of “Maori” not having developed at that time.
(xvii) B.Moon,”New Zealand; the fair colony”, 2nd Ed., ISBN 978-0-473-53728-9, 2020, p.68
(xviii) Too many to mention here but a list of some may be provided on request!
(xix) As many chiefs’ statements, both at Waitangi and at Kohimarama in August 1860 make totally clear.
(xx) “DNA To Rock The Nation”, elocal Minibook, ISBN 978-0-473-38851-5, 2016 and other texts refer. Skulls which are not Polynesian, recovered at the Wairau Bar in 1939 and other evidence provide yet more substantial facts
(xxi) See for instance, I Wishart, “The Great Divide”, HATM Publishing Ltd, ISBN 978-0-9876573-6-7,2012, pp275-6
1. Paul Hunt, Human Rights Commissioner; English born, with dual citizenship, currently a professor of law at the University of Essex and described as “a human rights expert”.
2. Meng Foon, Race Relations Commissioner; Gisborne born, former Mayor of Gisborne, who is on record as saying: “Co-governance is a way to uplift Māori, empower tangata whenua at the decision-making table and give some recognition to the tino rangatiratanga authority that exists alongside kāwanatanga governance. This is beneficial for everyone in Aotearoa, not just Māori.”(v)
Perhaps we may speculate on just what he means in saying “a way to ... empower tangata whenua” but we can be certain that in talking about “the tino rangatiratanga authority that exists alongside kāwanatanga governance” he is blatantly corrupting the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi. That is strange, perhaps, for someone fluent in Maori! Readers may form their own conclusions about the speculation in his last sentence.
3. Karanina Sumeo. Samoan born; in 2018 she was appointed Equal Employment Opportunities Commissioner for the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.
4. Paula Tesoriero; Wellington born, a paralympic cyclist and civil servant.
5. Claire Charters; Professor at the University of Auckland, appointed on 6th March 2023, whose specialty is “indigenous rights”, which we discuss immediately below. As we are on record as saying:(vi) “Associate Professor Charters has used the prestigious occasion of a Bruce Jesson Memorial Lecture as a soap-box to promulgate crude political rhetoric.” It should not be necessary to say more!
* * * * *
The Text of This Document
Under the heading: “What is the relationship between human rights and the Treaty of Waitangi?”, the Commission states: “The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s own unique statement of human rights. It includes both universal human rights and indigenous rights.” The Commission proceeds further to state: “The Treaty (1840) and the UDHR (1948) therefore complement each other: both govern relationships between peoples in New Zealand” and “This section is primarily concerned with the indigenous rights guaranteed under Article 2 of the Treaty, and the specific aspects of Article 1 and 3 that pertain to Māori.”
Under the heading: “New Zealand context Customary rights and rangatiratanga”, the Commission continues:
“International instruments affirm the customary rights of Indigenous peoples as central to the realisation of their human rights. In New Zealand, Māori customary rights are formed by whakapapa (genealogical connections), tikanga (the customary equivalent of law) and mātauranga (traditional knowledge). Exercised collectively, these rights and responsibilities existed prior to colonial contact and have survived – though not necessarily in their original form – into the present. Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi protects Māori rangatiratanga, which refers to chiefly authority and self-determination rooted in tikanga, and the protection of lands, forests, fisheries and other taonga or treasures.”
Oh! Yeah? This sentence is a gross distortion of what is said in Article Second, a whopper!
1. Article second does not mention “Māori” but guaranteed “tino rangatiratanga” ‒ the Williams’ translation of “possession” ‒ in default of any reasonable word in the Ngapuhi dialect for the concept ‒ of “the possession of their lands, dwellings and all property” to “the chiefs and tribes” and “all the people of New Zealand” ,”tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”, accepted by all, white and brown alike at Waitangi on 5th February 1840.(vii) Let us be very clear – there is no unique grant to any one; quite specifically it granted the same rights to every one. It was not a divisive grant. To the extent that ‘rangatiratanga’ was used, it was to make it clear that, notwithstanding the changes in tribal authority, nobody has their land or dwellings or property confiscated, i.e. they retained ownership. This underlines the fact that, unlike the usual Maori practice hitherto, the Treaty was not about conquest because of course, the impact of tribal conquest was that the conquered lost their land, dwellings and property. But it simply does not make any sense to suggest that Article Two is about retaining tribal authority.
2. Article second says nothing about “self-determination rooted in tikanga”.
3. It says nothing about “forests and fisheries” which are only found in Freeman’s fake treaty, a discarded copy of which was used as note paper to accommodate some chiefs’ signatures in an exigency at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840, and now, believe it or not, legislated by the “Treaty of Waitangi Act” of 1975 to be “The Treaty in English”.
4. Use of “taonga” may only be in the sense which applied in 1840: “property” as defined in William Williams’ dictionary, 1844 meant chattels or ordinary possessions. These were described in 1831 by some 13 chiefs as “nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes”. Pork and potatoes of course were introduced by Europeans. It is a flagrant abuse of an 1840 document to use its modern meaning.
In one sentence, this “Human Rights Commission” makes four false statements about the Treaty of Waitangi, which in the first sentence of its text it states to be “the founding document of New Zealand.”
So, friends, what do you make of that: four false statements about human rights by an official Commission whose specific task is to address Human Rights??
* * * * *
But wait! Believe it or not, there is more flagrant abuse of the truth in this Commission’s document because Maoris are not indigenous inhabitants of New Zealand. And this is why....
The generally accepted concept of indigenous peoples is that when and how they have come to be where they are and where they came from are unknown or uncertain. Typical such people are Australian aboriginals and American natives (who used to be called “Red Indians” when I was a schoolboy). The latter, for example, are presumed to have come from Asia, by a “land bridge” somewhere near Bering Strait and maybe 20,000 years ago but nobody really knows.
But the Maoris...
We know pretty well exactly where they came from: islands of Eastern Polynesian, notably Raiatea.(viii)
We know pretty well exactly when they came, from genealogies (whakapapa) – within a few decades of 1350
We know with remarkable detail how they got here: in eight canoes – and we even know their names – Takitimu, Tainui, etc.!
(This may be “matauranga” but it is confirmed by science and archaeology.)
Maoris are not indigenous on any count! The Human Rights Commission is blatantly wrong in its assumption that they are and in making its judgments accordingly.
A very substantial section of this report by the Human Rights Commission is invalidated by its false assumption that Maoris are indigenous to New Zealand.
* * * * *
The Commission and the Treaty itself.
The text commences: “The Treaty of Waitangi is the founding document of New Zealand.” Well, constitutional lawyers might or might not accept this claim but at least it dismisses any claim to validity by modern revisionists of Busby’s paper tiger, the so-called “Declaration of Independence”, so prominently displayed in the National Library in a cabinet costing us taxpayers rather more that $7 million, along with the rat-eaten original “treaty” document and the petition for women’s suffrage.
And then we get, believe it or not(!): “It enabled subsequent migration to New Zealand and the establishment of government by the Crown.” In just what sort of dreamworld do these ‒ presumably very highly paid ‒ servants of the people of New Zealand exist? Do they not know of the extensive plans of the New Zealand Company for British settlement which would have proceeded, Treaty or no Treaty? Are they unaware that the first colonists of this enterprise had arrived in Wellington one week before Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands?
“[G]overnment by the Crown” would have proceeded in any case under the pressure of migration from Britain, treaty or no treaty, which would certainly have continued.(ix)
It is interesting (albeit futile) to speculate what might have happened then had not British sovereignty been affirmed following its widespread acceptance by Maori chiefs. There would have been many losers and many of them would have been Maoris.
And next, says this Commission: “The Preamble sets out the purpose of the Treaty: to protect Mäori rights and property,” Well, no, it doesn’t! What it actually says is “Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving. And that it is for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.”x Let us explain this for the Commission: an aim of the Treaty was the protection of both new settlers and the Maoris! It was to be inclusive. Any suggestion of “co-governance” or anything like it is a mockery of the Treaty of Waitangi..
And then, the Commission proceeds to state: “New Zealand’s history since the signing of the Treaty has been marked by repeated failures to honour these founding promises.”
Well, that is certainly a wide and sweeping claim. It would be tedious to enumerate here the many benefits colonisation brought to its Maori inhabitants, of the harmonious relationships which must have developed amongst these two people, demonstrated so positively by the scale of interbreeding to the extent that any purebred Maori today would be an extremely rare individual.
Again, it was those Maori tribes which rebelled against the government which committed “repeated failures to honour these founding promises”, on trivial or non-existent pretexts, and broke their pledges of loyalty to the Crown. Be it noted that Maori loyalists provided a significant force in suppressing their rebellions and the leniency with which rebels were treated afterwards.(xi)
And our critique does not even address yet the Commission’s “Introduction”!! Please be patient, dear reader!
The “Introduction”
Yes! Wait for it! We are informed that this 180-year old relic of our first steps towards nationhood is “important as a ‘living document’,(xii) central to New Zealand’s present and future.” Well, if this is so, “All the rights will be given to [all the Maoris of New Zealand] the same as [the Queen’s] doings to the people of England.”(xiii)
What a mockery of this “living document” then are the rights, privileges and assets bestowed at an accelerating rate on our wealthy tribal corporations today and their accelerating demands for more – control of natural water and our access to it, special hospitals, special electoral rights, tax-free status as “charities” just start the list. “The same”, said the Treaty. Recent legislators and demonstrators waving their so-called “tino rangatiratanga” flag treat the Treaty with contempt, not “honour”.
Then this Commission trots out the “obiter dicta”, i.e. casual remark, of that rather wet judge, Robin Cooke,(xiv) that “[i]t establishes a relationship “akin to partnership” between the Crown and rangatira, and confers a set of rights and obligations on each Treaty partner. Well, it didn’t but today we are subjected to lie after lie about the absurd notion that such a “partnership” exists.
As retired Judge Anthony Willy has written “as to the notion of Partnership it was and is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with her subjects”.(xv)
Any suggestion that the Treaty of Waitangi created an ongoing system of preference of Maoris in a de facto partnership is simply nonsense.
It is not less than an outrage that the Human Rights Commission continues to foster this blatant falsehood.
This introduction continues with its own line on the Treaty of Waitangi, riddled with false statements and misinterpretations, of the sort which are widely prevalent in official circles today and disastrous for the future of democracy in New Zealand,
Thus it states “there are areas of disagreement between the English and Māori texts of the Treaty”.
If one accepts that this is true and that the Treaty is a component of our constitution, then it is a profound absurdity scarcely worthy of a banana republic yet this situation has been created by the Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975. That Act accepts Freeman’s discarded fake treaty, used, as we observe above, as notepaper for an overflow of chiefs’ signatures at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840 when the official copy of the treaty had not arrived in time for the signing process. Yet simply nobody, that is, nobody, in officialdom of whom I am aware questions this absurdity.
The Commission continues: “Article 1 is essentially about the Crown”. This is rubbish. Article 1 actually concerns the chiefs’ cession of sovereignty, “completely and for ever” to the Queen.
Then it says: “Article 2 is about rangatira” - which is quite simply more garbage. Article 2 is actually about the property rights of “all the people of New Zealand” - “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.
And, again it says: “Article 3 is about all citizens and residents (including Māori, Pākehā and other subsequent migrants)” - another gross mis-statement. What this article actually does is confer the rights of British subjects on “tangata maori katoa”(xvi) and that is all!
This “Human Rights Commission” continues with “These rights and responsibilities include: the rights and responsibilities of the Crown to govern (Article 1 – kāwanatanga/governance)”. Once again, this is a gross misrepresentation of what the treaty actually says.
By Article 1, the chiefs actually ceded forever to the Queen, the entire sovereignty of their country.
The Human Rights Commission wording “kāwanatanga/governance” blatantly implies a false identity of meaning of these two words.
It is high time for all the people of New Zealand – tangata katoa o Nu Tirani – to get the message that translation is NOT the same as derivation, as we have pointed out on many occasions.(xvii)
By Article first, despite the many loud voices of dissenters(xviii), the chiefs ceded sovereignty “completely and for ever” to the Queen – and they knew it!(xix)
The next couple of lines of this statement of the Human Rights Commission are quite remarkable for the number of false statements made in such a brief piece of text, thus:
first line:”the collective rights and responsibilities of Māori, as Indigenous people, to live as Māori and to protect and develop their taonga (Article 2 – rangatiratanga/ self-determination)”
False statement 1: “Māori, as Indigenous people”. Now, despite the implication by John Key when he sneakily sent Peter Sharples to the United Nations to sign its “declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People”, in no sense are Maoris indigenous to New Zealand as we explain earlier here.
On all counts, Maoris are disqualified as “indigenous people” of New Zealand. There were indeed a variety of truly indigenous people who were not Polynesians here at the time of the arrival of the Maori colonists, most of whom they slaughtered and ate, even into colonial times.(xx)
False Statement 2 “to live as Māori and to protect and develop their taonga (Article 2 – rangatiratanga/ self-determination) ” - Article second says nothing of the sort. It did, however, “guarantee to ... all the people of New Zealand (tangata katoa o Nu Tirani... possession (tino rangatiratanga) of ... all their property (taonga).
It is “rangatiratanga”, falsely stated by the Commission to mean “self-determination” which is so actively flaunted by treaty-twisters today, often waving a flag somebody made for them, in claiming special rights of “co-governance” and other privileges which are entirely illegitimate in terms of the Treaty’s content and intent.
Again, “taonga”, which simply meant “property procured by the spear” to Hongi Hika in 1820, was simply defined in William Williams’ 1844 dictionary as “property”. Since then its meaning has exploded to include almost anything, such as the electromagnetic spectrum, undiscovered in 1840, Kawharu flagrantly broke the rules of translation in using an alleged modern meaning for “taonga” in his translation of the Treaty used in all Cabinet references to it.(xxi) It is this corruption of the 1840 meaning which the Human Rights Commission presumes in its reference to a falsely claimed right of Maoris to “develop their taonga”.
* * * * *
In conclusion
It would indeed be tedious to relate further the multiplicity of false statements in this document of the Human Rights Commission. We do note the following.
The Commission: “The Treaty of Waitangi is New Zealand’s own unique statement of human rights. It includes both universal human rights and indigenous rights. It belongs to, and is a source of rights for, all New Zealanders.” This is a deeply flawed claim.
The Treaty says absolutely nothing about “indigenous rights” and it is profoundly misleading, indeed mischievous of the Commission to say so.
The Treaty is not, as the Commission claims, “a source of rights for all New Zealanders.” Existing British subjects had such rights in any case. It did indeed confer those same rights on “tangata maori”, remarkable and possibly unique at that time for its generous treatment of a native people.
The Treaty of Waitangi might justly be called a remarkable document for its day. By it, in essence, the Maori chiefs ceded for ever to the Queen such sovereignty as each possessed and all Maoris, their many slaves included, got the same rights as the people of England.
When Hobson formally affirmed British sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand on 21 May 1840, the Treaty of Waitangi had done its job. Then was the time to put it to rest as a footnote to history.
Claims today by the Human Rights Commission and a multiplicity of other treaty-twisters that it is a “living document” whose words they wrench out of context and abuse by applying distortions and modern meanings or reconstructions in place of their 1840 meanings, are an insult to its memory and the far-sighted men who wrought it.
* * * * *
Recent Government announcements appear to grant even more power and influence to this Committee which, in view of the false beliefs which so clearly it holds today, can only lead to further destruction of democracy in New Zealand. Its abolition at the first opportunity to do so in our immediate future is a matter of extreme importance and urgency.
References:
(i) As far as I can discover
(ii) W.P. Reeves, “The Long White Cloud”, 1898, republished 1950 & 1973,ISBN 0 85558 93 6 – in his title and one footnote only
(iii) S.P. Smith, various works – not always notable for the accuracy of his speculations. Ref King (below), p.56
(iv) M.King,“The Penguin History of New Zealand”, ISBN 0 14 301867 1, 2003, p.42
(v) M.Foon, “Stuff”, 24 January 2022
(vi) “Breaking Views, 19 December 2022
(vii) Refer to Colenso’s meticulous record of proceedings, verified by Busby, if you think otherwise!
(viii) Similarity of language gives a strong clue. E.g.”Ikoraki” is the name of a prominent peak in Rarotonga, “Hikurangi” of an East Coast peak here, showing well-attested sound shifts in Maori dialects.
(ix) We remark that largescale migration of peoples of the human race (and indeed of other species) have been a feature of life on this planet since before recorded history began.
(x) W.Hobson, final English draft of the Treaty, 4th February 1840.
(xi) Some confiscation of land of the rebels did indeed occur, largely to compensate a cash-strapped government for the cost of suppressing their rebellions but there were no executions apart from for those found guilty of murder.. In the event, about 4% of the land area was confiscated from rebels, fully in accordance with their own traditional practice of “tikanga”.
(xii) Michael Cullen, a former Minister of Finance, was another who made this idiotic claim.
(xiii) Article The Third, official translation by T.E.Young, 1869 (with due substitution of pronouns) OR “the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.” (Hobson’s final draft of 4th February), surely an unprecedented undertaking to any native race anywhere in the world. AND yet, today’s treaty-twisters demand yet more and more!
(xiv) Having known him personally many years ago, this is the opinion which I formed of this man.
(xv) Quoted in “Democracy Action Newsletter”, December 2020 and elsewhere.
(xvi) Both Andy Oakley and Hugh Kawharu have pointed out that “maori” was used here in the sense of “ordinary people”, the modern usage of “Maori” not having developed at that time.
(xvii) B.Moon,”New Zealand; the fair colony”, 2nd Ed., ISBN 978-0-473-53728-9, 2020, p.68
(xviii) Too many to mention here but a list of some may be provided on request!
(xix) As many chiefs’ statements, both at Waitangi and at Kohimarama in August 1860 make totally clear.
(xx) “DNA To Rock The Nation”, elocal Minibook, ISBN 978-0-473-38851-5, 2016 and other texts refer. Skulls which are not Polynesian, recovered at the Wairau Bar in 1939 and other evidence provide yet more substantial facts
(xxi) See for instance, I Wishart, “The Great Divide”, HATM Publishing Ltd, ISBN 978-0-9876573-6-7,2012, pp275-6
16 comments:
Hi Bruce - I am so grateful for your insights as I think will be many others. My fervent hope is that there are some educated people of sound mind in positions of influence who can band together to counter the undemocratic, false and impending disaster overtaking us slowly and silently.
If they don't show themselves soon I think we are going to get a hard right government which will not be a comfort to our country. But if they can stop the tribal takeover it will be a necessary evil and blessing in one.
MC
it would be wonderful if the msm presented some of the discussion as above. Instead in todays Herald we have half a pge about some child who died of whooping cough 75 years ago, and much else either dated or of little relevance or both. David Lange summed it all up succinctly when he said the Queen of then mighty England would never have dreamed of entering into an equal partnership with a bunch of mostly illiterate cannibals just tentatively emerging from the stone age.
Is the commission aware of the lies and deceit, absolutely.
Is there a reason behind it, obviously.
New Zealanders have been mislead for decades. There is virtually no push back.
The longer this is allowed to continue the harder it will become to stop.
Ask friends, or people on the street. Ask family. Ask anyone. Most have never bothered to read the simple and unambiguous 3 articles of the founding document.
The enemy is us.
Mudripper consider this: "Once a country is habituated to liars, it takes generations to get the truth back" _
- Gore Vidal
And isn't it interesting how the treaty refers to "tangata maori" and not tangata wenua (or more latterly, whenua) - recognising that Maori were not the 'people of the land' as in its original inhabitants, but the common or ordinary people - as in the more prevalent current colonisers, which they used to readily admit to until they saw more than a buck in it to adopt this concept of "indigenous". It's a rort and time the Treaty was assigned to either history or the dustbin. Either way, we've moved on, or at least we should have. And in terms of Hunt & Co. - time they were moved on also, for why should we for a moment pay these people to peddle lies and division?
But thank you Bruce, for repeatedly and necessarily bringing this nonsense to the fore.
I do wonder what sort of idyllic pre-colonial paradise these Reversionists dream of and want to resurrect. Beautiful well fed people in secure centrally heated waterproof whare with eco cookers and communal store rooms full of plentiful harvest and conservationist minded living off the land. With time to sit around, sing , play stick games , philosophise and save the world. Unlike the David Lange image. You can do your own search on what resources Stone Age people had. And what pre colonials had. And what tribalism means. And how Tribal warfare is a zero sum game.
Abraham Lincoln said that "A house divided by itself cannot stand". German philosopher Arthur Shopenhauer said "All truth passes through three stages. Firstly, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident". Hitler and his crew used this to good effect. If everyone in this country (motu anybody?) with Maori ancestry were behind this communist government New Zealand would be untenable! They have proved themselves in all theatres of live in this country. More than 80 books about New Zealand's history have been removed from bookshops, libraries, schools, museums, etc, and history has been rewritten. We need a Government with some balls which will stand up to the tribalistics whioh will stop at nothing short of wholesale running of the country.
Kevan
Note Ms Charters most recent bizarre explanation of Maori rights to control climate change response. How many more ways are there to contort the dead duck te tirirti. And to rewrite the meaning of indigenous. And to claim breach of world laws?
One fundamental error in Bruce’s article is labelling the official English version of the treaty “Freeman’s fake treaty, a discarded copy of which was used as note paper to accommodate some chiefs’ signatures in an exigency at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840,”
The official version consists of text taken from prior draft copies of Hobson and Busby’s’ words. It was used and accepted as the English version at the time even before it was labelled “official”. As Bruce concedes it was signed by Māori and co signed by Hobson. If it was not considered as legitimate,ask yourself what would have motivated Hobson to sign an incorrect version when we know Hobson was meticulous in the drafting of the treaty?
PS there was no Hobson’s final draft of 4th February (known as the Littlewood draft), this was identified as a copied fromthe Māori text which was drafted on the 4th February.
Unknown is incorrect about the "Official version in English".
Yes, Freeman had induced Hobson to sign it but his post-stroke signature was so weak that Freeman discarded it. It got to Waikato Heads with a consignment of stationery,and was used in an exigency there when the official copy had not arrived for use in signing. Maunsell used a printed copy for the first five signatures, ran out of room and used this official-looking fake for the remainder. THAT, friends, is now as enacted in 1975, the official "Treaty in English" in this banana republic which New Zealand has become.
Bruce Moon
The provenance of Hobson's final draft of 4th February, known to officialdom as the "Littlewood Treaty" is impeccable and it was from this document that the Williams produced the ToW in Maori.
The suggestion that it is "identified as copied from the Maori text" is nonsense- an absurdity.
Bruce Moon
Bruce responds:
There is no “fundamental error” in my text. The English text used for an overflow of signatures at Waikato Heads when the official version had not arrived in time was one of Freeman’s fakes which he had induced Hobson to sign. Freeman discarded it because Hobson’s post-stroke signature across the top left corner was extremely weak and it got to Waikato Heads with a consignment of stationery. Maunsell used it as “notepaper” for an overflow of signatures after getting the first five on a printed copy. It was not “countersigned” by Hobson.
The assertion that the “Littlewood draft” was “copied from the Māori text which was drafted on the 4th February” is an absurdity concocted by somebody frantic to discredit this document as being Hobson’s final draft of 4th February in English.
In the Treaty-2-U caravan, the so-called treaty in English was displayed but Hobson’s weak signature was replaced by a more robust one. Officiadom used a blatant forgery to delude the people of NewZealand!
A photograph of the English version of the treaty is here:
https://nzhistory.govt.nz/media/interactive/waikato-manukau-treaty-copy
You will see Hobson's signature at the bottom of the treaty is not weak, it's in the same place as in the Maori versions, along with his official seal and the date. This makes it an official document of the treaty.
If you have evidence of Freeman inducing Hobson to sign this or a quote that Maunsell said he only used it as "notepaper" in an exigency, please direct us to the relevant documentation, otherwise it's just conjecture.
The assertion that the "Littlewood draft" is copied from the Maori text is not "an absurdity" but is substantiated by J R Clendon who sent a copy of the Littlewood draft to America on 20th Feb 1840 saying "this translation is from the Native Document and not a Copy of the Official Document in English from which the Native one is made". M. Doutre tried to argue that it was a copy of the English version, but the argument wasn't convincing. (https://www.wgtn.ac.nz/stout-centre/research-units/towru/publications/The-Littlewood-Treaty.pdf)
If you are looking for the English draft, Dr Ned Fletcher states in his book "The English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi" that there are four extant English drafts. The three published in 1877 were a preamble in the handwriting of Hobson; a draft of a preamble and three articles in the handwriting of Freeman; and a draft of three articles and a concluding subscription in the handwriting of Busby. The forth is a draft of three articles and a subscription in Busby’s handwriting, found in 1933.
These alone are the precursors to the official English treaty.
I must take issue with Sue's statement that "You will see Hobson's signature at the bottom of the treaty is not weak...". The signature is definitely that of an infirm individual.
Pastie99, you are correct that Hobson was infirm, he was signing with his left hand after his stroke, but that in no way invalidates it’s legitimacy.
One tires of reading the mass of words accumulated by worthy scholars about the Treaty and how it is being manipulated to fit the agenda of a small group of activists who have the nation over a barrel. Justice Peter Mahon gave us the relevant phrase applying to the Treaty activists as well as the Erebus disaster cover-up : "an orchestrated litany of lies."
Post a Comment