Pages

Thursday, July 18, 2024

Bruce Moon: The New Zealand School Trustees Association and the Treaty

“Could do better, really must work harder, paying more attention to the facts concerned.”

Well, yes!  A report along those lines would be appropriate for the essay entitled “An introduction to Te Tiriti o Waitangi by the New Zealand School Trustees Association”, last revised in June 2024 and presumably to be used within schools for the indoctrination of the children of New Zealand. Here's why.

 

So, if it is to be used for this important purpose, its substance needs to be of the highest relevance and quality.  Let us have a look.

 

“Much has been ... said”, says the report, “about the differences between the English and Maori texts (of the Treaty of Waitangi) and the difficulties in understanding its meaning and implications.”

 

Oh?  Well, the “Maori text” is that of the document signed at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 by 52 chiefs (by Hobson’s count), by Hobson himself on behalf of the Queen and by sundry other Englishmen, principally as witnesses to signing or application of their moko marks in lieu by chiefs.

 

The so-called “English text”, legislated as such in the “Treaty of Waitangi Act”, 1975, sponsored by Matt Rata of Northern Maori, is however, essentially a fake, written in flowery prose by Hobson’s private secretary, Freeman, who had not participated in Hobson’s drafting session on 4th February.  Freeman’s text did not even exist on 5th February 1840!  That Hobson did sign it subsequently does not make it a substitute for what was actually presented by Hobson to the chiefs on 5th February as recorded by Colenso and discussed below.

 

In stark contrast, the substance of Hobson’s final text in English, correctly dated 4th February 1840, which disappeared until rediscovered in 1989 and dubbed the “Littlewood Treaty”, corresponds almost exactly with that of the treaty itself to which it was translated by the Williams, the sole difference being their addition of the word “maori” in  Article Third of the actual treaty text to specify those people to whom it applied.[i]  The “Littlewood” text – let us not be misled by the treaty-twisters –  is the TRUE English text of the Treaty.

 

Consider also the timeline.  Hobson delivered his English text to the Williams at about 4p.m. on the afternoon of 4th February.  The Williams completed their Maori text overnight – by candlelight(?).  After proof-reading in the morning with one word changed at Busby’s suggestion (to describe the so-called “confederation of chiefs”[ii]),  Hobson, at about noon, proceeded to read his English text, followed by Henry Williams reading the actual treaty text in Maori to the chiefs who had already assembled.  It would be ludicrous to suggest that Hobson read any other text than his own of 4th.

 

Nevertheless, officialdom has strenuously and quite falsely denied the legitimacy of the so-called “Littlewood treaty”, that is, Hobson’s final English text of 4th February.  Thus, on 27th September 2004, Margaret Wilson, the then Associate Minister of Justice dismissed it because “it wasn’t signed”, repeating that the Freeman fake (not her term!) legislated as such in 1975 was “the official English text”.  Of course a draft in any language is not signed officially!

 

So do our legislators betray the legitimate interests of the people of New Zealand.

 

The Trustees’ report says none of this.

 

And so today?

 

They say: “Under the Education and Training Act 2020 (the Act) your board is obliged to honour and give effect to Te Tiriti.”

Just remember, friends, that Te Tiriti was written and signed not much less than two hundred years ago when conditions in New Zealand were about as far removed from those of today as can be imagined.  If after a mere 200 years, we have to “give effect” to it we have been very slack indeed![iii] Perhaps we should look once again at what was actually agreed when it was signed.

 

And on the day: ...

Note that both the English and Ngapuhi texts[iv] were read out at Waitangi on that fateful day, 5th February 1840.  Nobody doubted Hobson’s integrity and nobody said that their meanings were different; a point confirmed in 2000 by Ngapuhi elder, Graham Rankin.[v]  Article first:  the chiefs cede to the Queen the entire sovereignty of the country.  In default of an established Maori word for “sovereignty”, the Williams in their translation chose “Kawanatanga”. There have been almost endless claims recently that the chiefs ceded only “governorship, not sovereignty”[vi]  But get this, friends: a point very few people hitherto seem able to grasp:  Translation is not the same as derivation.  Many examples can and have been given.[vii]  And the considerable number of chiefs who had visited Sydney knew well the authority of the Governor who exercised the absolute authority of his sovereign there.

 

Indeed, as Hobson stated explicitly at the time:  “as the law of England gives no civil power to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.”  That this was understood and accepted was confirmed beyond doubt at the great meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in August 1860[viii]

 

So the chief ceded such sovereignty as each possessed to the Queen, completely and forever and they knew it.  There can be no shadow of a doubt about it.

 

Article third:  “the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them”, i.e. to “tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani.”

 

Note that this was an unprecedented privilege (as far as I know) granted to a native race anywhere, a consequence of the benevolent movements in Britain of such people as James Stephen, permanent secretary to the Colonial office and a member of the Church Missionary Society who drafted Colonial Secretary Normanby’s brief to Hobson.[ix]

 

Article second:  “The Queen ... guarantees ... to all the people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.  

 

In translating this provision, the Williams had something of a quandary in choosing a translation of  

“possession”  since unqualified personal possession of land or other property was not a general Maori practice.[x]  They chose “tino rangatiratanga”, since few if any high chiefs had any privileges of personal possession.  Again, this was a significant endeavour to ensure that the concept was immediately recognizable and understood by the chiefs.

 

Our multitude of treaty-twisters today of course make much play upon this choice, frequently making the absurd claim,  directly contradicting Article first, that “tino rangatiratanga” meant “sovereignty” and that this remained in the hands of the chiefs!

 

One thing is certain. If Hobson had failed to achieve unqualified cession of sovereignty, he would have sailed away and unprecedented chaos and misery would have descended upon the Maoris of New Zealand, and probably British settlers, too, some of whom had already arrived in Wellington a week ahead of Hobson,[xi]

 

And so, friends, treatywise, that is just about it!

 

But, as Geoffrey Palmer would have it  “it’s a document that is so vague that that is its primary problem.”[xii]  He seems unaware that naval officer Hobson was fully accustomed to speaking precisely, giving orders at sea when men’s lives would depend on it.[xiii]

 

So what utter nonsense it is that, given such authoritative opinions, under the Education and Training Act 2020, school boards, we are told, are “obliged to honour and give effect to Te Tiriti?”

 

In a real world it would have been dead and buried on 21st May 1840 with a decent headstone when Hobson formally declared British sovereignty over all the islands of New Zealand.  After that, all New Zealanders, Maori and settlers alike had the same rights and significantly, the wholesale Maori practices of slaughter and slavery were abolished.

 

So what next?

 

The Trustees Association then goes on to raise the so-called “Declaration of Independence”, asserting that “the British government acknowledged” it.  Well, yes it did, in a way.  Thus a Foreign Office official called it “silly and unauthorized”.  Governor Bourke in Sydney called it “a paper pellet.”  As Jerningham Wakefield observed, “The new government was found so unreal, that no meeting of the confederated chiefs ever took place.”[xiv]  Very soon there was war amongst them and chief Titore was killed.  So why in these circumstances, did the Trustees Association even mention it without elucidating the truth about it???  Busby, in actively assisting Hobson, did not nag on about the “Declaration”, whose day, he had undoubtedly recognized, was well and truly over.

 

So what actually does the Treaty of Waitangi say?

 

Say the trustees: “Article 1. Kawanatanga

                           ‘The right of the British to govern.”

 

FALSE!!  The words of Hobson’s final text of 4th February of which the actual treaty is a competent translation are:

 

“Article first: The chiefs ... cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty of their country.”

 

Here scribe Busby mis-spelled “sovereignty” which however does not invalidate the document.[xv]

 

Lest anyone doubt that the chiefs understood that by signing they would become subordinate to the Governor and hence more so to the Queen, Colenso’s account of proceedings that day, duly checked by Busby at the time, gives a full account.[xvi]  No Maori nor Edward Williams, Treaty translator and later Native Court Judge, disputed Colenso’s account.  The chiefs ceded sovereignty and they knew it!

 

But:-

 

Hobson’s words: “Article second: The Queen ... guarantees to ... all the people of New Zealand the possession of ...all their property.”

 

Say the Trustees: “Article 2. Tino rangatiratanga. The right of hapu to retain sovereignty”

 

Here, my friends, the Trustees collude in stating what is perhaps the most gross falsehood about the Treaty spread about today.

 

The Williams knew that Maoris of the day had very little conception of the ownership of property and no word expressing it clearly.[xvii]  They chose “tino rangatiratanga”  because in practice, only chiefs had property rights.  But get this: Article second guaranteed property rights to “all the people of New Zealand” -  “tangata katoa Nu Tirani”.  Article second says nothing about sovereignty!!

 

But to continue with the Trustees’ “introduction to Te Tiriti o Waitangi”:

 

There can be no doubt that Article third conferred the same rights on Maoris (women and their many slaves included, be it noted) as the people of England – an unprecedented provision, as far as I know.  To this however, the trustees claim even more.  To them, the rights must be conferred “in culturally appropriate ways” which “in education”, they say, “means ... enjoying and achieving educational success as Maori ... in ...  Aotearoa, and the wider world”.  

 

Well, do those trustees even exist in the real world?  No treaty, as far as I know, has ever treated  “culture” and no genuine educational system, as far as I know, guarantees “success”, let alone “as Maori” or “in Aotearoa” [actually only the North Island[xviii]] or anywhere else.

 

So the Trustees ask “What is your board’s primary objective (their emphasis) about giving effect to Te Tiriti”- a bit late, one would have thought, by nearly 200 years. It is, they say, “under the Education and Training Act 2020 to ensure that(my underlining) your school gives effect to Te Tiriti by: “[w]orking to ensure that your plans ...  reflect local tikanga Maori, matauranga Maori and te ao Maori ... [making] instruction available in te reo Maori and tikanga Maori [and] achieving equitable outcomes for Maori students.”

 

Do the trustees really think that telling Maori schoolchildren how to prepare a cannibal feast – or anything else – in accordance with “tikanga”[xix] is appropriate, rather than ensuring that they achieve basic competence in literacy and numeracy?

 

One wonders indeed just how ignorant and ill-informed the Parliament of 2020 was in requiring such absurd provisions, light years distant from the substance and intent of the Treaty of Waitangi. No reputable educational institution on earth would undertake to achieve “equitable outcomes” for anybody, merely equitable opportunities which, judging by the almost astronomical figures for Maori absenteeism, far too many of them fail to take.

 

And do the trustees really imagine that instructing children in te reo Maori and tikanga Maori, inevitably crowding out other subjects more relevant in the modern world, is beneficial to those young people?  I am reminded that more enlightened Maori parents around the 1880s petitioned Parliament that “not a word of Maori [be] allowed to be spoken in the [native] school” and that teaching be solely in English!! [xx]

 

The trustees go on to discuss a variety of concepts – tikanga Maori, matauranga Maori, te ao Maori, taonga and te reo.  This article is not the place to discuss most of these, words which do not even appear in Te Tiriti.  An exception[xxi] is “taonga” which to Hongi Hika in 1822 meant “property procured by the spear” and in William Williams dictionary of 1842 simply “property”; thirteen Maori chiefs, writing to King William in 1831stating that their “taonga” consisted only of “timber, flax, pork and potatoes”, two of which, note, they owed to wicked white men!  The trustees, in stark contrast list modern meanings including “treasure”, irrelevant to the Treaty but used by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu in his translation to include “all dimensions of a tribal group’s estate”, flagrantly breaking an academic rule to use only the meaning current in its time.  Of course, the modern usage of “treasure” has been expanded by treaty-twisters to include almost everything but the blue of the sky.  Even of that I am not so sure!

 

So much for education in New Zealand in 2024.


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

 


[i]As Doutré has observed, addition of the word “maori” in the treaty text establishes beyond reasonable doubt that it was written after the English text which was correctly dated 4th February 1840, indeed the only possible date for it.

[ii]In which one word, ‘whakaminenga’ was substituted for ‘huihuinga’ at Busby’s suggestion,

[iii]As a historical fact, the effect of very few treaties anywhere has been as long as 200 years!

[iv]Indeed the only two complete texts in existence that day,

[v]When shown both texts by Allan Titford in 2000

[vi]Indeed we have had the absurd claim by part-Maori Associate Professor Sandy Morrison telling her students: “The chiefs do allow the Queen to have kawanatanga, a nominal and delegated authority so that she can control her people” which would be laughable were it not for the damaging consequences upon the minds of impressionable young people.

[vii]B.Moon.,op.cit., p.68

[viii]Proc. Kohimarama Conference, reprinted NZETC, VUW

[ix]This may be “googled” easily.  One may note the considerable privileges granted today to part-Maoris and not to the rest of us.  Segregated waiting rooms in public hospitals are just one example.

[x]F.E.Maning, “Old New Zealand”, Creighton & Scales, 1863, illustrates the intricacies of archaic Maori practice.

[xi]Compare the Wellington and Auckland provincial holidays!

[xii]G.Palmer, on Australian television, 6th March 1990.

[xiii]Holding a permanent naval commission – in the Volunteer Reserve –  I believe that I can speak with some authority on this point.

[xiv]E.J.Wakefield, “Adventures in New Zealand”, John Murray London, 1845

[xv]This is accepted practice in law.

[xvi]W.Colenso, Government Printer 1890.  While this was fifty years later, the printed word endures. No theorist today can match the knowledge and experience of Colenso.

[xvii]Maning, op.cit.

[xviii]A.Ngata,”The Treaty: an Explanation”, 1922

[xix]M.King,”Moriori”, 1989, ISBN0-670-82655-3, p.66

[xx]Petition to Parliament  of Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others, 1876, is one example

[xxi]‘tikanga” is the other

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

It’s not education anymore-purely indoctrination! Certainly not the NZ I grew up in and thrived using the English language with a few Māori words thrown in.

Anonymous said...

Thankyou Bruce , I share your articles to all I can , I’m sure there are many who appreciate your insights and knowledge

Anonymous said...

The social atmosphere on the morning of 5 February 1840 must have been intense - a huge meeting of chiefs with entourages many of whom were deadly enemies, everything in abeyance awaiting Hobson, who was irrevocably committed once he and Williams read out the respective English and Maori text. That extraordinary atmosphere would have continued throughout the day of 5 Feb with intense debate by the Maori leaders ( skilled debaters as clearly recorded) and so into the 6th Feb where signing began. The debate was not on the wording presented by Hobson and Williams, but on understanding the implications - sovereignty.

Truly extraordinary.

Imagine equally the bloodbath if Hobson or any of the Chiefs had overstepped the line.

Very clearly, what Hobson delivered was acceptable in words and concepts and protections offered and the chiefs trusted him. Very clearly there was a new order and very clearly it was defined by the texts delivered 4 February, debated 5 Feb, signed on the Maori text 6 Feb.

Very clearly any purported text created after then, no matter by whom or what it said or who signed it or who it was sent to, are irrelevant ( albeit there may be another story in history of deceit, incompetence, mischief or whatever ...). Let's face it, if you cook and eat eggs with your guests for breakfast today but someone three days later says you cooked and ate porridge and you agree, it doesn't change the fact you cooked and ate eggs for breakfast.
Equally clearly, given the intensity with which Hobson worked to prepare his English text (including getting rid of Freeman before 4 Feb and bringing Busby in) it is clear, as Bruce notes, he would only have read his own text which was ...the Littlewood text which itself, has an extraordinary story of survival after 6 Feb.

All of this happened in the days of candlelight - no electricity hence nocomputers, no telephones, no printers, no electronic communications, no instantaneous instructions, no transmissions or virtual meetings.

What an extraordinary achievement. And what an extraordinary insult to the Chiefs and to Hobson in the twisted, distorted propaganda perpetrated and consumed in current times and manifested in politics, government and the law.

Perhaps a bloodbath on 5 Feb would have created a better outcome for NZ?

Anonymous said...

Bruce wrote: “Of course, the modern usage of ‘treasure’ has been expanded by treaty-twisters to include almost everything but the blue of the sky. Even of that I am not so sure!”

He is right to be concerned.

Prominent part-Māori Anglican, and former Te Pati Mokomai Chairman, Whatarangi Winiata some years ago told the Waitangi Tribunal that he would even support a Treaty claim to the light from the stars and the air that we breathe, on the basis that the great god [sic] Tane created Space when he separated his parents, Ranginui [the Sky Father] and Papatuanuku [the Earth Mother].

Of course, if Tane actually did create Space in such manner, he created it for all the peoples of the earth, not just for those in part descended from a paru hua.

Given Winiata’s supposed Anglican Church affiliation, his competing attachment to pre-European Māori paganism should be at least somewhat troubling to his Pakeha sycophants in the church hierarchy.

As Matthew 6:24 makes clear:

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other.”

Which one is it, Whata?

stopcogovernance said...

Another brilliant piece Bruce. Keep calling them out!

Doug Longmire said...

Excellent and comprehensive article, Bruce.
You have summed up the "twisting" and re-writing of the Treaty very accurately.
Of real concern for all is that this false, racist narrative that is being forced upon schools can only lead to an apartheid, third world nation.
Such nations never last long.
Welcome to New Zimbabwe, coming soon !!

Anonymous said...

What worries me in all this is the role of Minister Stanford in all this, is she complicit in what amounts to the brainwashing/indoctrination of the young or simply unaware of what this breach of trust by these so called Trustees? I thought that Elizabeth Rata was pulled in to play some sort of role with what will be/is being taught to the young impressionable minds. Surely Elizabeth and Bruce could have a mind meld and help to get some truth into what is being put to the kids. Absent something like that the future looks so bleak. .. and by the way, a very good piece Bruce, this needs to be out there in the mainstream, those of us reading here are (hopefully) the enlightened already and of an age that is immune to advertising and indoctrination.

Gaynor said...

What has interfered most with equal educational opportunities for Maori is the abandoning of Traditional Education's determination to have every child achieve in basic literacy and numeracy.

For a brief period 1930-50 in NZ, the intensive phonic reading method dominated in NZ state schools along with explicit instruction in all subjects. In the 1930s-40s my mother taught as as an infant teacher and she narrated how, in Otago, you lost grading if you failed to have every child literate by the age of seven years.That means regardless of race or social status. This ideal was discarded with Progressive Education which largely followed to a tee the dictates of John Dewey who wrote in 1898 that attention to the basics was in his words' a primary education fetish'. He also said bookworm children were indulging in a perversion!

Very gradually over the decades Progressive Education (PE)has had its way and ineffective teaching methods were introduced so that now we have the worst reading results in the English speaking world and along with the longest tail of underachievement. Indirect and ineffective teaching most affects lower decile children since higher decile homes can make up for school deficiencies with tutors etc. Maori, along with all other lower decile children have been the victims of this diabolical miseducation. Neither Colonisation nor lack of Te Reo should be blamed but rather our rotten education system which is now entrenched in both Progressive and Marxist Critical Studies ideology and won't budge.

If we had the effective teaching methods as in the past and now advocated by cognitive science ,there could be spare time to learn a second language but with the teaching methods of PE destructive constructivism ( teach yourself) our standards will just deteriorate further. Te reo has very different vowels and this adds confusion to learning to read English, which is already difficult. This is because English has many variant vowels,consequently adding in even more difficulty for beginner readers.

Peter said...

Anon@2.15PM your are right to be concerned, just have a look at the next level of education - the Tertiary Education Commission's website - and see how they spend $3B a year and embrace all the usual ToW claptrap, all rounding off a young persons seamless indoctrination - https://www.tec.govt.nz/about-us/how-we-work/

In the Twenty-first century Te Tiriti should be an irrelevancy, but it's driving division; undermining our democracy; fostering poor academic achievement; and, resulting in lower overall national productivity.

Nothing good will come from embracing the current grossly distorted nonsense surrounding this archaic and obsolete document. So, just when will our politicians wake-up and learn, or will they only react when there's a revolution?

Anonymous said...

This rhetoric has been going on for years now and Maori outcomes haven't improved one iota. It's quite evident that treating different ethnic groups differently from each other has poor outcomes all round. Surprise, surprise. That's called racism. Treat everyone the same and you will see the reality of 'equality' - some people do well in life and some people don't - ethnicity is not a factor.

Segregation and preferential treatment is a bad thing when it favours white skinned people but a good thing when it favours brown-skinned people? Explain that one to me?

Kay O'Lacey said...

Nine months into the coalition government's 3-yr term and not much seems to have changed. I sense a growing despondency all about - or is it perhaps just me?

Post a Comment

Thanks for engaging in the debate!

Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.