John Robinson: New Zealand nonsense (four). Weaponizing the Treaty of Waitangi

New Zealand is all a-muddle, ruled by false, newly-invented stories of the past.  This appears at first to be ridiculous, nonsensical.  But it is not, there is a purpose in it all; the confusion is a cover for a systematic takeover by a race-based minority. 

New Zealand nonsense (four).  Weaponizing the Treaty of Waitangi

New Zealand is dominated by a myth of an original ‘race’ (the indigenous people) who are so important that they must be given priority and special treatment.  The basic concept of equality has been destroyed to the extent that those who dare to argue for equality and labelled racist and denied a voice (I am just one of many who have experienced that). 

This distortion of reality and truth is nonsense, simply bullshit.  This insistent dogma, “the fraud of modern separatism”[1], is a Big Lie, an article of faith that has become accepted by constant repetition since nobody would say anything so outrageous unless there was truth in it.[2]  The demands by Maori for compensation and the feelings of guilt of non-Maori have been propagated by a revision of history led by the Waitangi Tribunal, and augmented by a myth that the Crown grievously broke the Treaty of Waitangi against Maori, who are presented as an innocent wronged party, where the truth is the very opposite.[3]  The introduction of race into law (through legislation and rulings by the courts) has set the scene for complete division, a breakdown of the nation. 

Such division of governance by race, now asserted in the recent insistence on partnership, has been advocated several times in the past.  

Even after defeat, some rebels remained defiant.  Hone Heke claimed absolute power in 1849: “The missionaries, the gentlemen and the common people are all that I am well pleased should live here … still the management of my island remains with me”[4], as did Tawhiao (the second Maori ‘king’) in 1879: “I have the sole right to conduct matters in my land – from the North Cape to the southern end.”[5]  And the king movement remains today.  

In 1894 the newly elected Member of Parliament for Northern Maori, Hone Heke Ngapua (a  great-nephew of Hone Heke), introduced a Native Rights Bill (rejected by Parliament) in support of the kotahitanga ‘unity’ movement (wanting unity of Maori, not of all New Zealanders), which sought a constitution for Maori, implementation of the Treaty of Waitangi, and a separate Maori Parliament (a “Constitution shall be granted to all the persons of the Maori race, and to all persons born of either father or mother of the Maori race who are or shall be resident in New Zealand, providing for the enactment of laws by a Parliament elected by such persons”.[6]  

In 1975 Matiu Rata, Minister of Maori Affairs and of Lands in the third Labour government, argued for the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal, which was to be a first step towards mana motuhake (independent, separate Maori authority; the name of the political party that he formed soon after when the Labour Party refused to continue with his desired national transformation).[7]

The proposal of divided authority was introduced to a ‘Building the Constitution Conference’ in 2000 (organised by the Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies) by Whata Winiata, with a proposal for two parliaments: “the Tikanga Maori House for Maori and the Tikanga Pakeha House for others, overseen by a Treaty of Waitangi House for Maori and Pakeha.”  He was no longer on a marae, surrounded by his like-thinking mates, and most participants in this forum found the concept unacceptable.[8]  

The idea of such divided government then went underground, much discussed in Maori meetings while unknown to others, to become a modern myth and ideology – largely supported by the ongoing rewriting of history and of the Treaty by the Waitangi Tribunal – until the 2016 Matike Mai (report to the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, proposed by the Forum in 2010)[9] and the He Puapua report (delivered to Government in 2019, kept secret and not mentioned in the 2020 election campaign, and only becoming generally known when it was uncovered in 2021 through an Opposition demand under the Official Information Act).[10]  The intention was made clear in those reports, where their ‘Vision 2040’ includes a diagram displaying the two separate governments.

This project for such a fundamental overthrow of the basic principles that have guided New Zealand until recent years signals the end of equality, the end of democracy, the assertion of race in a comprehensive apartheid system, the breakup of New Zealand into independent tribal territories.  Non-Maori would become second-rate semi-citizens in a country where that self-declared ‘indigenous’ race holds superior power; which would signal the end to pride of citizenship, and a sense of belonging to a land that is our land (all of us).  If that statement seems extreme, take the time to read these reports and ponder what is intended.

That power grab is driven by a revival of the old culture, tikanga, with a desire for utu (revenge for the defeats of the 19^thcentury rebellions) and mana (power and prestige with supreme positions for chiefs).  That revival of pre-contact tribal ways has been supported by the courts, as well as by governments through the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty settlements to iwi. 

In 1987 the President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, introduced the concept of permanent division, partnership, into New Zealand law, claiming two key principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – “partnership” and “active protection”, as “the Treaty signified a partnership between races”.[11]  [Note the belief in race, the reference to “races”.]

That further division of the country, fragmentation into tribal enclaves, has been supported by the Waitangi Tribunal, which has advanced ideas of dual sovereignty, so that hapu and iwi can each exert their own separate sovereignty (“it is also the case that hapu and iwi are their own entities.  Each will exercise their tino rangatiratanga”), and has ruled that many Maori never accepted the sovereignty of the government – so that, according to the Tribunal, sovereignty remains today with iwi and hapu scattered across the country.[12]  The Maori Party demands a Maori Parliament and defines sub-tribes, hapu, as the fundamental units of sovereignty.  “Hapu were the primary political unit in precolonial te ao Maori.  The Maori Party upholds haputanga and recognise that it was the rangatira of hapu that signed Te Tiriti, and so we would ensure that the Crown negotiates with whanau and hapu and recognises their mana whenua.”[13]

The Supreme Court’s first Maori judge, Justice Joe Williams, took a further step by following the instructions set down in the He Puapua report and introducing the pre-contact culture, tikanga, as a rival sets of laws, as well as asserting the distribution of sovereignty among tribes.   “Tikanga Maori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Maori (national, iwi, hapu, whanau) authority.”[14]

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has helped to undermine equality and individual liberties as it “puts collective-historical rights alongside individual human rights and principles of non-discrimination.”  There is no doubt as to which then dominates.  Indeed, Maori did not want the Treaty of Waitangi to appear alongside human rights in legislation.[15]  The rights of the individual are now placed a distant second to collective tribal rights – and are effectively destroyed, gone.

A key weapon in this revolutionary takeover has been the priority claimed for the Treaty of Waitangi – as a sacred text, immutable, fixed and not to be challenged, and to be followed religiously.  Here the only valid text is held to be that in Maori.

Since 1975 a steady process has seen the complete revision and rewriting of that text, with words changing meaning until it says the very opposite to the original.  This is accompanied by the false claim that the Treaty had always been intended and understood with that new meaning.

The arbiter in the present definition of the Treaty and the meaning of the text is Maori; none other have any authority.  The fragmentation is so complete that this sacred meaning is in the hands of individual hapu and iwi.  In this strange world, a mix of 1984, Brave new world, and Alice in Wonderland, we face a solemn accord between races that is both fixed and immutable, and a “living document” to be redefined at will to suit changing conditions.  This may be nonsense, a web of lies, inconsistent and moving well away from logic and common sense, but has been remarkably successful.

Such a process has long used to assert domination and power.  When a document has been pronounced sacred in this way, whoever has the supreme authority to decide what it means – a decision that all must obey – then has absolute power.  In the USA the Supreme Court has overturned a long-held, commonsense understanding of who is the person with a right to life proclaimed in their Constitution, and has destroyed well established reproductive rights.  That Court has also decided that the Constitution gives a president the right to break any law, to take any action, so long as that is within his/her official duties – which is in turn left undefined. 

Once Europe was governed and directed in a similar manner.  The Bible, another sacred document, was the rule-book, not to be questioned, with the interpretation handed down by the Pope in Rome and savagely enforced.  Thus, when scholars came to recognise that the earth goes round the sun, Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 for saying so, and Galileo was questioned by the Inquisition and sentenced to house arrest until his death.[16]

All that is needed for this trickery to succeed is the acceptance by others of that supreme power, and a willingness to bow down to the document and its interpreters.  Once a challenge is successful, the power of that document, and its use to control a population, is ended – as in Europe with the Protestant revolution when, after a long struggle, each could interpret the Bible in their own way and the power of the Pope was broken.

The presentation, acceptance, and signing of the Treaty of Waitangi was an important event in the formation of New Zealand.  The meaning was clear then and in the following years: “we are one people”.  But there has been no effort to hold to what was intended and agreed; the Treaty has been shredded, rewritten, and used as a political football.  If it is to return to its previous position as an important historical document, the full story of its writing (by the British) and signing must be uncovered, with an acknowledgement that there are now many and contradictory claims as to its meaning.  That destruction of what was once a proud accord must be recognised – there can be no place now in law for such a shattered and disputed document.

Once that step is taken, the people of New Zealand – all the people of New Zealand – must ask themselves just what society we wish to live in and leave to coming generations.  That debate must break free from the shackles of a document that has been turned into a weapon for racial division.

This is a call for the strength to recognise and to stand up to bullying with firm action.  Despite the hopeful words of the two inter-party agreements, the current government shows no such determination.  The National Party is displaying neither awareness nor guts.  The battle for the soul of the country is yet to be fought, and won.

Dr John Robinson is a research scientist, who has investigated a variety of topics, including the social statistics of Maori. His recognition of fundamental flaws in the interpretation of nineteenth century Maori demographics led him to consider the history of those times in several books. 

---

[1] Oakley A 2017.  Once we were one: the fraud of modern separatism. Tross Publishing

[2] Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 41

[3] Robinson J 2024. New Zealand nonsense (three).  How Maori rebels broke the Treaty.

[4] Robinson J 2020. “Hone Heke’s war” Tross Publishing. 

[5] AJHR 1879 G-2, Te Kopua meeting (reports, etc., respecting the proceedings); Robinson J 2016. “The kingite rebellion” Tross Publishing. Page 348 

[6] http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_bill/nrb1894931171/; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 87

[7] Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, pages 86-87

[8] James C 2000.  Building the constitution.  Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University; Robinson J 2024. He Puapua: blueprint for breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing, pages 88-89; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, pages 112-113

[9] The report of Matike Mai Aotearoa - the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation. 2016. https://nwo.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16.pdf

[10] He Puapua: report on the working group on a plan to realise UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 2019.  https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf; Robinson J 2024. He Puapua: blueprint for breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing

[11] https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf

[12] https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/waitangi-tribunal-reports/ngatiwai-mandate-inquiry/chapter-3/; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 13

[13]  https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/mana_motuhake

[14]Robinson J 2021. He Puapua: Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand.  Tross Publishing, page 98

[15] Erueti, A (ed) 2017.  International indigenous rights in Aotearoa New Zealand.  Te Herenga Waka University Press. Page 50

[16] Robinson J 2023.  Our choice for the future: equality or tribal rule.  New Zealand Centre for Political Research.  https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/John-Robinson.pdf.  Pages 8-9; Robinson J 2024.  Interview on Reality Check Radio. https://realitycheck.radio/replay/dr-john-robinson-research-scientist-prolific-historical-author-on-his-book-who-really-broke-the-treaty/.