Mike Butler: Treaty twisting and two govts

An article with the bland title “Restoring the mana of the treaty”, published at the weekend, is among a torrent of treaty twisting writings arguing that the Treaty of Waitangi envisaged two governments in New Zealand, one by Maori for Maori and the other a fully bicultural version of what we already have.

As we head towards an election campaign in which “co-governance” is already an issue, it is crucial for voters to understand some of the fallacies that are being presented as facts.

Its author, Alistair Reese, was described by E-Tangata magazine as a “Pakeha” theologian, historian, and farmer.

Also described as having a “particular focus on “seeking to strengthen the relationship between Maori and Pakeha in Aotearoa”, he believes that “there is a need for Pakeha to understand who they are and how they belong in Aotearoa New Zealand”.

At this point I imagine that may be quite a few New Zealanders surprised and amused to find out from Dr Reese that perhaps they need help searching for their identity.

What did he write? In a nutshell:

• He agrees that the Maori text signed by most chiefs is the authoritative text.

• He worries about the standing of the 39 chiefs whose marks are on an English treaty text that is held to be faulty.

• To reconcile this problem, he argues that despite the differences in phrasing between the two treaty texts appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act, there is no conflict between the official English and Maori texts.

• He takes the wonderings of one chief who signed the treaty at Waitangi to buttress his argument and ignores the statements of a number of other chiefs that undermine him.

• He argues that the British intervention in New Zealand in 1840 was to establish government over British settlers only while the chiefs could carry on being chiefs.

• He argues that “kawanatanga” and “tino rangatiratanga” actually mean plural governance.

• He concludes that the 1860 vision of a Maori King on his piece, the [English] Queen on her piece, God over both and love binding them together’ should be the model of an ideal government set-up in New Zealand.

Writings by an academic such as Dr Reese come with an implicit stamp of approval along the lines of “he has a PhD so he must know what he is talking about”.

But sometimes the utterances from a person who looks and sounds the part actually amount to twaddle.

And unfortunately, we have an official narrative that is promoted, while any research that shows flaws in the official narrative is ignored, sidelined, smeared and deplatformed.

Let’s look at what Dr Reese writes:

• We can all agree that the Maori text signed by most chiefs is the authoritative text. Governor William Hobson confirmed it. That was the document that was debated.

• The English treaty text containing the marks of 39 chiefs has been shown, by a private researcher, as having been attached to a smaller printed text in Maori merely to accommodate the chiefly marks that could not fit on the smaller document. (See . https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2023/04/mike-butler-english-treaty-text-what-to.html) Dr Reese may feel relieved that those chiefs were actually signing Te Tiriti after all.

• The actual problem about the differences between the English and Maori treaty texts appended to the Treaty of Waitangi Act is that the so-called “official English text” should never have been used as a text in English. Dr Reese cites treaty researcher Ruth Ross without mentioning that she concluded that the final English draft of the treaty went missing. That draft was found in 1989, in Pukekohe, in a deceased estate. One would have thought there would have been celebration, perhaps a sigh of relief among academics. But no! Successive governments expended no end of money and effort to either bury or discredit it. That treaty text in English, that has come to be known as the Littlewood Treaty, has been confirmed to be handwritten by treaty drafter James Busby, that has just two differences from Te Tiriti (being the date and the addition of the word Maori in Article 3). (See https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2010/05/mike-butler-lost-treaty-draft-and-race.html and https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2016/08/mike-butler-littlewood-treaty-to.html)

• Dr Reese cherry picks chiefly quotes. The vague musings of chief Nopera Panakareao, on February 5, 1840, that he quoted, that “the shadow of the land will go to the Queen, but the substance will remain with us”, should be balanced with the protestations of at least seven chiefs, who were alarmed that a governor meant having a chief over them.

• There is no evidence that any of the chiefs at that debate expressed thought that the treaty was about a governor governing English settlers only while chiefs could carry on being chiefs.

• “Kawanatanga” and “tino rangatiratanga” don’t mean plural governance. “Kawanatanga” translates “sovereignty” in Article 1 and “tino rangatiratanga” translates “complete possession” in Article 2.

• There is no evidence anywhere in the treaty debates that the treaty contemplated a dual government under a Maori king and an English Queen. Neither is there any evidence that a partnership between “Maori” and “the Crown” was contemplated.

The reality is that the current government is implementing a plan for two governments in New Zealand and that plan, called He Pua Pua, came to light two years ago. (See https://www.nzcpr.com/are-you-ok-with-two-governments-under-tribal-rule/) The government has denied that the plan is being implemented but a large part of the plan is up and running.

Such policies include:

1. The abolition of the right of local communities to hold binding referenda on Maori wards.

2. Forcing Maori language and culture on to government departments and local authorities, while the state-funded media replaced news with separatist propaganda.

3. Replacing English names of places, streets, towns, buildings, and government agencies with Maori names. Even the nation’s name “New Zealand” is being changed by stealth.

4. Setting up a separate Maori Health Authority with veto rights over the entire health system.

5. Transferring the marine and coastal area to Maori, with a precedent set by the High Court in the Bay of Plenty.

6. Transferring ownership of the conservation estate to private tribal entities, as recommended by the Options Development Group.

7. Imposing tribal control over water through the Three Waters Reform.

8. Imposing a revised history curriculum which intends to indoctrinate our children about the evils of colonisation.

It looks like the 1860s armed conflict about who controls New Zealand and how is being fought now, not on the battlefield, but through ideology and government policy.

The stated ideology is “treaty partnership” or “two spheres of government, one by Maori for Maori and the other a fully bicultural version of what we already have”.

However, when implemented, these policies enact dual structures in which tribal appointees have ultimate control. Just look at the new race-based health set-up called Te Whatu Ora, or the centralised water set-up called Three Waters. Something similar is envisaged through the Resource Management Act reform.

The current government is building a racist edifice based on misinformation and Dr Reese, who believes “pakeha” need help with identity issues, is promoting that dream to anyone who will listen to him.