Bruce Moon: "What Fraud, Claudia?"

“Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?”,                    Roman poet Juvenal, ca 100AD.

Well, since not many people speak Latin these days, a fair translation is “Who is minding the minders?”

(Please note I have been courteous to the reader and given an accurate translation into English).

And so we review the lengthy commentary[i]  in “Newsroom” for 19th April 2023 of a new book headed “History of the tiriti fraud  Dame Claudia Orange reveals the truth about the Treaty signing”.  “Treaty fraud”?  H’mmm – we’d better look into that!  Indeed, one might even say: “about time!”

She starts: ”From 1840, Māori gradually became aware that they were no longer free to dispose of their lands as they chose. Under the terms of the Treaty/Te Tiriti, they could sell land only to the government.”

Well, yes, that is true but it is at best a half-truth.  A little elucidation is necessary.  Prior to 1840, Maori tribes, aware that they no longer needed extensive tracts of land to support their hunter-gatherer lifestyle, began a veritable frenzy of selling land to eager settlers in exchange for the variety of consumer goods the latter could offer.  In the South Island alone, 179 sales were registered, in many of which reserves were set aside for Maori villages, gardens and burial plots.[ii].

Nevertheless, Hobson realized that chaotic selling of land would not be a good basis for establishing a British colony in New Zealand.  Therefore, within twenty-four hours of his arrival,[iii] he had had Paihia Mission printer, Colenso, print a proclamation stating that, in the event that British sovereignty was accepted, all prior land sales would be reviewed and any future private sales considered null and void.

A commission was duly setup, one member being self-styled “Pakeha Maori”, Frederick Maning, whose land-buying attempts in the 1830s he described hilariously in his classic book.[iv]  The commission was no paper tiger.  For instance, two sales to one George Stephenson in the Kaipara district were disallowed.

And sharp practice was certainly not all on the colonist side.  An 1878 letter from chiefs Ihaia Kirikumara and Tamati Tiraura stated that some Taranaki land had been sold three times by Maori sellers.[v]  In one case land was sold five times.

In her very first paragraph, Orange states: “If the government agreed to buy the land, officials could force Māori to sell at a low price, and then could sell it to settlers at a much higher price.”  Now Orange gives no evidence that any Maori could be forced to sell anything. While it is true that land was generally onsold to settlers as a higher price, Orange entirely misses the point which explains that.  It was one indeed in which Tory Wakefield and Whig Normanby were agreed!  The differential amount was the equivalent of rates today – to provide badly needed infrastructure, – roads, bridges and the like which much increased property values for all. And which infrastructure of course in many cases benefitted Maori as well.

The situation was complicated by the fact that Maori land was generally held communally while in British practice there was often a single owner.  The Maori Land Court was set up to sort out inherent difficulties and ensure that future sales were fair to both parties.  Contrary to many claims by treaty-twisters today, very considerable efforts were made by the government to achieve equitable outcomes.

Well, so much for Orange’s first few paragraphs.  She does acknowledge various benefits to Maoris as suppliers of produce to the Auckland settlers and in employment on public works and other contracts.

She proceeds with: “chiefly authority was not getting the support that many Māori had expected from the guarantee and protection of rangatiratanga rights under Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”

Now why, I ask, does she slip in that word which is evidently not English – rangatiratanga - into what is otherwise an English text?  Here she is following the practice of the fateful “Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975” which set up the Waitangi Tribunal!  This is sleight of hand, leading a reader to believe that ‘tino rangatiratanga” is some sort of untranslatable, mystic concept for the benefit of Maori. It is not easy to acknowledge an honest intention of the modern so-called treaty pundits in either case.

It is absurd for anybody to claim that the word “rangatiratanga” represents a concept for which the English language lacks a word. The Treaty was about openness, not smoke and mirrors. If we actually look at the Treaty itself, the wording “tino rangatiratanga” occurs once only, in Article Second, where it is accorded to “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”, that is, unequivocally “all the people of New Zealand”;  and “all” means “all” and “people” means people, not exclusively Maori. By this time there were many people of New Zealand – those born here, those raised here, those who immigrated here and established themselves – many never returning from whence they came.

It was critical to the parties to the Treaty that there was clarity: Maori wanted assurances they were safe from the French, that they were protected by the Crown and all parties wanted good order and security over land transactions. This could only happen under one united regime, namely the sovereignty of the Crown. The Crown did not intend to make Maori dispossessed people but rather, to encompass them within the Crown ambit. This is explicit in the final preamble to the Treaty.

In Hobson’s earlier English text preamble he had used the word ‘preserve” in the context of Maori rights and property as part of ensuring them the protection of the Crown -  absolutely no suggestion of dual governance or sovereignty – it was about establishing sovereignty of the Crown for the benefit of Maori and settlers together. This very simple concept protected Maori from their own tribal regime of conquer or be conquered at any cost, which wreaked havoc among Maori tribes. If we look at Hobson’s final English text of 4th February, whose undoubted provenance Orange and many others continue to deny, “tino rangatiratanga” was the Williams’ choice for the translation of “possession”, accepted without question by all parties at Waitangi on that fateful day, 5th February 1840. This is consistent with Hobson’s intentions.  It is nonsense for Orange to claim that the Kohimarama conference of 1860 “was a recognition of rangatiratanga”.

As a matter of sequence there had to be an English text which was translated into Maori, as Hobson was not fluent in Maori. This of course was the 4^th February document – the genesis of the Maori treaty. It is absurd to say that the English text is derived from the Maori text which in turn must be construed with some sort of modern idiom. Reductio ad absurdum.

Persistent use here by Orange of “rangatiratanga” and by many others who wave their so-called “tino rangatiratanga” flag around are a total distortion of the meaning of the Treaty of Waitangi ‒ actions which treat it with contempt.

More about Kohimarama

We quote Orange: “Browne did not really achieve what he had hoped from the conference. He failed to get support from the gathering’s leaders for his Waitara policy and his condemnation of the King movement.”  She continues to discuss the Conference minutes at some length.

Well she may, but one may quote from the same minutes, the resolutions carried in the final stages of the conference, which include; “That this Conference having heard explained the circumstances which led to the war in Taranaki, is of opinion that the Governor was justified in the course taken by him, that Wiremu Kingi Te Rangitake[vi] himself provoked the quarrel, and that the proceedings of the latter are wholly indefensible.’

AND: “That this Conference deprecates in the strongest manner the murders of unarmed Europeans committed by the Natives now fighting in Taranaki.”

AND: “That this Conference desires to thank His Excellency the Governor for his goodness to the Maori people; that is, for his constant kindness and love towards them”.

All these resolutions and several others were carried and confirmed in writing by 104 Maori chiefs (by my count).  So where does Orange get her ideas from?

And then in the Waikato

According to Orange: “Grey returned as Governor for the second time in November 1861 and tried to negotiate.”  He did indeed, and anybody reading John Robinson’s book “The Kingite Rebellion”[vii] will learn how much effort he put into repeated efforts to do so. However, following the slaughter by rebels at two outlying farms, Grey decided he had had enough, crossed the Mangatawhiri River and major hostilities ensued.

But according to Orange: “In January 1863 the Kīngitanga tried to get Grey’s agreement to their terms, based on the Treaty’s guarantee of Māori mana over lands, forests and fisheries.”   Well!

Whatever the chiefs were trying to do, any claim of any “Treaty’s guarantee of Māori mana over lands, forests and fisheries” is an absolute fake as the Treaty said nothing whatever about either “Maori mana” or “forests and fisheries”.  Any chief who believed any such perversion of the truth had been grievously misled.[viii]  It must be rather doubtful if indeed the Kingitanga based their terms on any such fabrications but at the very least Orange should have pointed out that they were a false basis.  She didn’t.

And why, one may ask, does Orange also refer to “the invasion of the Waikato”?  The Waikato was British sovereign territory under the control of rebels.  The Governor had every constitutional right which applied to utilise military forces as he saw fit to restore the legitimate government.  Orange, like a number of others, is gravely amiss.  Whatever “treaty fraud” may exist, Orange has signally failed to find it in Government actions.

And so, in conclusion

Claudia Orange has received many high honours including a damehood for her views and opinions about the Treaty of Waitangi and related topics.  In the view of this author there must be serious doubt of their merit.

Footnotes: 

[i] Which we are informed is a “mildly abbreviated version of a chapter taken ... from the major new study The Story of a Treaty ... by Claudia Orange”.
[ii] For more details, see “New Zealand; the fair colony”, 2nd Ed, 2020, ISBN978-0-473-53728-9, pp 35ff and J Jackson, “Mistaken Maori Land Claims”, Book Seven, Treaty Series, Vol.2, 2002
[iii] My own birthday being precisely ninety years later!!
[iv] F.E.Maning, “Old New Zealand”, Creighton & Scales, Auckland, 1863, Ch.V
[v] B.Wells, “The History of Taranaki”, Edmondson & Avery, 1878
[vi] But, says Orange: “whose right to the land was indisputable”.  Eh?
[vii] J.Robinson, “The Kingite Rebellion”, Tross, 2016, ISBN 1872970486
[viii] This wording only appears in one of Freeman’s fake treaties used for an overflow of signatures at Waikato Heads on 11th April 1840 in extreme circumstances. This has been explained in other of my articles.

Bruce Moon is a retired computer pioneer who wrote "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".