Frank Newman: Update -“Book burning” at the Hutt City Council

On the 5^th of March, I wrote about the Hutt City Council removing copies of a booklet called The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation by Sir Apirana Ngata from their community “hubs”. The booklet was included as an insert in the Hutt News in early February. It was part of a nationwide campaign that has delivered 1.1 million copies.

Sir Apirana Ngata’s Explanation was written in 1922. It was considered of such importance that in 1963 the Ministry of Maori Affairs translated the work into English and distributed it to every Maori household in NZ. Given the current debate about the meaning of the treaty, and the high regard with which Sir Apirana Ngata was held and is still held (his portrait appears on our $50 banknote), the NZCPR considered it a useful contribution to the debate.

An article by Carwyn Jones appearing in Spinoff supports our view. He says, "Apirana Ngata’s explanation can form a useful part of our discussion…We should be encouraging people to share information about Te Tiriti.”

However, not everyone is happy about the work being distributed, including a senior manager within the Hutt City Council.

What we now know is that it was an unnamed senior manager who directed staff to remove Nagta’s Explanation. We understand the Council CEO, Jo Miller, was on leave at the time. I have asked for a copy of the directive, but the Council's "Information Management Team" has yet to provide the information.

The fact that one of her staff issued the directive does not exonerate or diminish Jo Miller’s role in this matter. In an email of 27 February, she took ownership of the decision, saying,

"We generally do not support the dissemination of information of this nature in our official buildings. The insert produced by your organisation spread a very particular political viewpoint and without counterbalance, was viewed as spreading misinformation. I stand by my staff regarding this operational matter."

Jo Miller says The Explanation is misinformation, but doesn’t say why.

The insert is a word-for-word reproduction of Ngata’s work. To label something misinformation when it is a word-for-word recital is lunacy. 

Perhaps Jo Miller thinks the 1963 translation by M R Jones is not a true and fair reflection of Ngata’s words? (Believe it or not, an anonymous individual has made that assertion.)

Clearly, the Ministry of Māori Affairs had high regard for M R Jones when they commissioned him to translate the work. This is how the Encyclopedia of New Zealand describes him.

“An accomplished Māori orator with a keen interest in the preservation and development of the language, Jones was for many years the Māori news announcer on national radio. With Pei Te Hurinui, he worked on revising and expanding Ngā mōteatea, Ngata's collection of waiata. He was examiner for the University Entrance Māori examination, chairman of the committee which revised H. W. Williams's Māori dictionary, and a member of the management committee of the Māori journal Te Ao Hou. A council member of the Polynesian Society from 1939, he became president in 1955. He was presented to Queen Elizabeth II at Waitangi in 1963.”

The ability of Jones as a translator is beyond doubt.

Then there is the absurd assertion by Jo Miller that the publication lacked counterbalance. Presumably, she is of the view that modern-day reinterpretations of the Treaty also need to be published with counterbalancing arguments? The suggestion is laughable, and the Advertising Standards Authority makes it clear that advocacy advertising does not require counterbalance.

The claims of misinformation and counterbalance are comical nonsense.

The real reason why a senior manager within the council ordered staff to remove The Explanation is almost certainly because he/she/they did not like what Ngata had to say.

Maybe they did not like this:

“These are but a few words but they indicate a complete cession. The main purport [of the Treaty] was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws for their respective tribes and sub-tribes under the Treaty of Waitangi to the Queen of England for ever.”

Or this:

“The Treaty…made the one law for the Maori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful..”

Or this:

 "British Law has been the greatest benefit bestowed by the Queen on the Maori people." 

Or this:

“[A]ll the Maori people would receive protection…against invasion by foreign powers… When we look at ourselves we realise the full significance of this protection… The Treaty found the strong committing outrageous acts against the weak, the chiefs against the commoner, the Pakeha against the Maori, and such acts were breaches of the law… according to the British code of law adopted as the law for both the Pakeha and the Maori under the provisions of, ‘and imparts to them all the rights and privileges of British subjects’.  This article represents the greatest benefit bestowed upon the Maori people… British Law has been the greatest benefit bestowed by the Queen on the Maori people.”

Perhaps Jo Miller should have given this matter some more thought before leaping in to defend the actions of a staff member who seems to have no respect for Section 14 of the Bill of Rights Act 1990 which states: 

“Everyone has the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information and opinions of any kind in any form.”

 

Previous column: HERE >>>