With a Bachelor of Engineering in electronics, this is the second book in which Seed applies the disciplines of the hard sciences to what passes as history in New Zealand.
Two years ago, he used such analysis to debunk myths around the clash between government troops and insurgents at Rangiaowhia on February 21, 1864, in Hoani’s Last Stand.
Seed’s new book shows that the Waitangi Tribunal has built its empire on a word and a concept to create its wobbly house of cards.
The word is “taonga”, which originally meant “property procured by the spear”.
The concept is an old legal doctrine called “contra proferentem” used by the tribunal to claim that the Maori language “Te Tiriti” has precedence over the English “treaty” text.
This effectively denies the Crown any say in its interpretation which is “surely a very strange thing in an agreement between two parties”, Seed wrote.
The word “taonga” was used 6182 times in newspapers from 1842 to 1989, Seed found by searching digitised records “with a few keystrokes”.
“Property procured by the spear”, the first documented English definition of “taonga”, was recorded by New Zealand missionary, recorder of the Maori language, schoolmaster, arms dealer, and Pakeha-Maori Thomas Kendall in 1820.
Kendall’s definition was limited to physical objects that were valuable and referred to the concept of property and not any particular property.
Seed traced the evolution of “taonga” through 27 key dictionaries from Kendall’s in 1820 to the Ngata Dictionary in 2021, as well as the 1831 petition by chiefs to King William and the Treaty of Waitangi and showed that “taonga” referred to a physical object until the Motunui Report in 1982, when it began to mean anything in the universe.
The Waitangi Tribunal has used the word “taonga“ to include water, fishing rights, environmental management, forestry, geothermal resources, Maori language, radio frequencies, data related to the Maori world, flora, fauna, intellectual property, mountains, minerals, the right to vote, Maori seats, Maori children, and so on.
Seed shone a light on the musings of eminent linguist and Maori studies expert Bruce Biggs in his 1989 article titled Humpty Dumpty and the Treaty of Waitangi in which Biggs linked “taonga” with what he asserted was the “metaphorical nature of the Maori language”.
The idea that this “metaphorical argument” could in any way prove anything about “taonga” is illogical, Seed wrote.
“Are Biggs, and the tribunal, suggesting that “the Maori language is so obtuse and chameleon like that not only “taonga” but by extension any Maori word can mean anything, everything, and therefore nothing”, Seed wrote.
The “contra proferentem” doctrine was designed as a penalty for someone who drafted an ambiguous contract aimed to get results that benefited the drafter. The earliest tribunal reference to contra proferentem was in WAI 9 in 1987.
Seed notes that the tribunal’s use of contra proferentem is self-contradictory, done without justification, and misapplied to a treaty in two languages when it has only ever been used on contracts or treaties in one language.
His 45-page discussion about treaties with North American Indians, Seed shows how entirely different they are from the Treaty of Waitangi.
They concern blocks of land, disputes are settled in a law court, the goal of settlement is justice, remedies are reasonable and practical, issues are contemporary, and those treaties are in English only.
On the other hand, the Treaty of Waitangi concerns sovereignty, the tribunal is a mock court with no defence counsel or testing of evidence, the goal is settling grudges, remedies run into the billions, issues go back eight generations, and the texts are in two languages with a set or arbitrary principles.
Seed challenges the tribunal’s “deliberate ambiguity” assertion by drawing attention to the extent to which Governor William Hobson bent over backwards to ensure that chiefs understood the contents of the treaty.
Hobson even had it translated into the chiefs’ language in words often of one syllable, which is the precise opposite of a drafter deliberately misleading through ambiguity.
Seed’s research into “taonga” and “contra proferentem” cuts through the Waitangi Tribunal’s 178 reports totalling 41,734 pages which would create a pile 4.2-metres high. His concise analysis would is a helpful handbook for any Minister who may dare to challenge the treaty industry.
Rigorously analysed, exhaustively explained, and replete with colourful insights and observations, Taonga and Contra Proferentem – thoughts on the Waitangi Tribunal Process by Piers Seed is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how we got to where we are in New Zealand today.
Taonga and Contra Proferentem– thoughts on the Waitangi Tribunal Process, Piers Seed, Probitis Publishing, 206 pages, $35 (not including postage) is available from info@piersseed.co.nz, and on Kindle.
The concept is an old legal doctrine called “contra proferentem” used by the tribunal to claim that the Maori language “Te Tiriti” has precedence over the English “treaty” text.
This effectively denies the Crown any say in its interpretation which is “surely a very strange thing in an agreement between two parties”, Seed wrote.
The word “taonga” was used 6182 times in newspapers from 1842 to 1989, Seed found by searching digitised records “with a few keystrokes”.
“Property procured by the spear”, the first documented English definition of “taonga”, was recorded by New Zealand missionary, recorder of the Maori language, schoolmaster, arms dealer, and Pakeha-Maori Thomas Kendall in 1820.
Kendall’s definition was limited to physical objects that were valuable and referred to the concept of property and not any particular property.
Seed traced the evolution of “taonga” through 27 key dictionaries from Kendall’s in 1820 to the Ngata Dictionary in 2021, as well as the 1831 petition by chiefs to King William and the Treaty of Waitangi and showed that “taonga” referred to a physical object until the Motunui Report in 1982, when it began to mean anything in the universe.
The Waitangi Tribunal has used the word “taonga“ to include water, fishing rights, environmental management, forestry, geothermal resources, Maori language, radio frequencies, data related to the Maori world, flora, fauna, intellectual property, mountains, minerals, the right to vote, Maori seats, Maori children, and so on.
Seed shone a light on the musings of eminent linguist and Maori studies expert Bruce Biggs in his 1989 article titled Humpty Dumpty and the Treaty of Waitangi in which Biggs linked “taonga” with what he asserted was the “metaphorical nature of the Maori language”.
The idea that this “metaphorical argument” could in any way prove anything about “taonga” is illogical, Seed wrote.
“Are Biggs, and the tribunal, suggesting that “the Maori language is so obtuse and chameleon like that not only “taonga” but by extension any Maori word can mean anything, everything, and therefore nothing”, Seed wrote.
The “contra proferentem” doctrine was designed as a penalty for someone who drafted an ambiguous contract aimed to get results that benefited the drafter. The earliest tribunal reference to contra proferentem was in WAI 9 in 1987.
Seed notes that the tribunal’s use of contra proferentem is self-contradictory, done without justification, and misapplied to a treaty in two languages when it has only ever been used on contracts or treaties in one language.
His 45-page discussion about treaties with North American Indians, Seed shows how entirely different they are from the Treaty of Waitangi.
They concern blocks of land, disputes are settled in a law court, the goal of settlement is justice, remedies are reasonable and practical, issues are contemporary, and those treaties are in English only.
On the other hand, the Treaty of Waitangi concerns sovereignty, the tribunal is a mock court with no defence counsel or testing of evidence, the goal is settling grudges, remedies run into the billions, issues go back eight generations, and the texts are in two languages with a set or arbitrary principles.
Seed challenges the tribunal’s “deliberate ambiguity” assertion by drawing attention to the extent to which Governor William Hobson bent over backwards to ensure that chiefs understood the contents of the treaty.
Hobson even had it translated into the chiefs’ language in words often of one syllable, which is the precise opposite of a drafter deliberately misleading through ambiguity.
Seed’s research into “taonga” and “contra proferentem” cuts through the Waitangi Tribunal’s 178 reports totalling 41,734 pages which would create a pile 4.2-metres high. His concise analysis would is a helpful handbook for any Minister who may dare to challenge the treaty industry.
Rigorously analysed, exhaustively explained, and replete with colourful insights and observations, Taonga and Contra Proferentem – thoughts on the Waitangi Tribunal Process by Piers Seed is a must-read for anyone who wants to understand how we got to where we are in New Zealand today.
Taonga and Contra Proferentem– thoughts on the Waitangi Tribunal Process, Piers Seed, Probitis Publishing, 206 pages, $35 (not including postage) is available from info@piersseed.co.nz, and on Kindle.
6 comments:
Eight generations ago I believe was the time of our common ancestors Mike - the current family tree had not yet split.
Not sure I could speak directly on their behalf. But apparently Maori can for theirs and can be compensated in their own right . This Maori ESP is clearly taonga with extraordinary power.
“The Waitangi Tribunal has used the word “taonga“ to include water, fishing rights, environmental management, forestry, geothermal resources, Maori language, radio frequencies, data related to the Maori world, flora, fauna, intellectual property, mountains, minerals, the right to vote, Maori seats, Maori children, and so on”.
The apartheid 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act was born on a lie. This Act birthed the Waitangi Tribunal, an apartheid scourge on everyday New Zealanders, and a LAW unto themselves. Both need to BE GONE!!
Article 2 as it relates to taonga from te Tiriti o Waitangi dated 6th February 1840 (not to be confused with Freemans Royal Style ruined overseas dispatch copy masquerading as the “official English treaty”) and the official 1869 back translation of te Tiriti o Waitangi by Mr T E Young.
Ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou TAONGA katoa.
All the people of New Zealand, the full chieftainship of their lands, their settlements, and their PROPERTY.
How the hell, and WHY, did politicians and others who are meant to be looking after the best interests of ALL New Zealanders fall for this Waitangi Tribunal apartheid BS?
The Contra Preferentem principle is for an ambiguous contract . Not a treaty.
The Treaty issue arguing Contra Preferentem would not stand the opening arguments in a real Court.
The Waitangi Tribunal is a maori gathering way past its use by date .
Thanks. Good article. I fail to see how conta proferentem can apply in a situation where two languages are involved and where the “injured” party is the one which decides what the meaning of the translation. In terms of ceding sovereignty the Maori version includes the words “ kawanatanga katoa” which unsurprisingly Maori now argue is not sovereignty but just governorship. So now they argue Maori did not cede sovereignty. Well that’s just tosh! This whole topic was not an issue 180 years ago. Go read the transcripts of the speeches by the chiefs on the day of the Treaty signing. It’s very clear that they knew what they were agreeing to…and that’s why many did not want to sign!
I venture to suggest that those Maori who use the current interpretation of the treaty are of majority european blood.
Go figure.
A thought: Article 2 of the Treaty notes that Maori have “tino rangatiratanga” in relation to their lands, villages and treasures. If it was intended that this means Maori retain their full general chieftainship on all matters then why is there no mention of the all-important PEOPLE? Chieftainship over assets is just ownership which I’m sure was the intention of the Treaty. Without chieftainship over the people the claim that they retain full chieftainship is nonsense.
Post a Comment