Wayne Ryburn: The Rising Anarchy in New Zealand's Democracy. The Saga of TV1 News at Six and the BSA.

Part One; The BSA and historical misconceptions. The rise of “Insider History” resulting in a lack of accuracy and balance in New Zealand's History.

It came as no surprise that complaints concerning TV1 News at 6’s news story, regarding the ‘gifting of land’ for Auckland, were dismissed. The composition of the members of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) would have led to this. Its members were appointed, over the past six years, by the former Labour Minister for Broadcasting, Willy Jackson. The following were appointed: Susie Stacey (2018); Pulotu Tupu (2021); Aroha Beck (2022) and John Gillespie, former head of news and current affairs TVNZ (2021). Jackson, a keen advocate for Labour’s ‘Hepuapua’ co-governance policies, has widely proclaimed that democracy has to evolve to place Māori at the centre of decision-making. Therefore, it is unlikely he would select anyone opposed to these policies to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.
Jackson, like all Marxists, follows the line espoused to me over 50 years ago, while boarding with a couple in Mt Albert. This was during my final year attending secondary school in 1969. Jack Crawford, a Glaswegian Scot, was a member of the NZ Communist party from a long way back. He informed me that the world had evolved from Feudalism to Capitalism and that nirvana would be reached under Communism. It would be inevitable, he proclaimed, that in a changing world as one societal change followed the other so then communism would prevail. I was not so sure. Willy Jackson and the Left in New Zealand follow this same logic, that liberal democracy will be changed to a much better form of democracy when an ethnic minority has the same power, equated to that of the majority. All under the guise of partnership as claimed in the Waitangi Tribunal's retranslation of the 1840 Te Tiriti o Waitangi.

In The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration. An Introduction, Juan Lintz (1) expressed how elected leaders can subvert the electorate process that had brought them to power. One tactic used is to bully into silence any opponents to policies being implemented. The tactic used is to simply declare their opponent's views as being racist. For several years New Zealand's media has allowed this to take place, by refusing to comment on many of Labour's policies that had co-governance at their centre. Any person or party who questioned these policies was often attacked for their views and called out as being racist. The so-called ‘hate speech’ law was another example of the approach taken by the left to prevent freedom of speech on all issues. Fortunately, it was not enacted.

Lintz also states that the use of mass protests attacking policies that an elected government, such as the current coalition government is now implementing, is another popular tactic used by opponents. Claims that the new policies are racist etc are now being promoted to undermine the legitimacy of what the current government is implementing as it overturns the previous government's policies.

In reply to my complaint, the BSA has simply ‘rubber stamped’ the views of TVNZ, silencing opposing viewpoints and accepting only the biased historical perspectives expressed by iwi institutions, such as Ngāti Whatua and particularly those of the Waitangi Tribunal. The promotion of ‘gifting of land’ is one way of establishing the falsehood of Auckland's foundation and New Zealand's history in general. Both organisations are in effect cancelling opposing views and are complicit in changing the narrative of New Zealand's history to suit the politico-ideological pursuits of the Waitangi Tribunal. In doing so, they have created a myth by ignoring all written accounts whereby a payment for the land was made, and negating what actually transpired on the day.

Unfortunately, historical objectivity was lost when the Waitangi Tribunal was set up to pursue treaty settlement processes. Historians Andrew Sharp and Alan Ward, over 20 years ago, claimed there was a lack of detail and facts in the Tribunal's deliberations. Ward stated that historians as members of the Tribunal were asked to accept as fact what they knew to be incorrect. The example he used to back up this comment occurred during the Ngāi Tahu hearings. Tribunal member, Bishop Manu Bennet, claimed a tribal oral tradition described the Royal Navy enabling Te Rauparaha and his warriors to be transported to the South Island to attack local tribes. Ward objected stating that written records revealed the oral tradition was inaccurate. Objectivity was simply lost in the approach the Tribunal took.

Ward also attacked the notion that two different worlds existed, one Māori and one Pakeha, in particular, what he termed “insider history” (2). Oral history, as told by Māori, was often “selective and partial” (3). Both memory and oral history are subject to change over time and therefore become unreliable. There is also a reluctance to subject the myths and “one-eyed histories” of “insider groups” to critical scrutiny, this is the subjective approach taken by both TVNZ and the BSA towards my complaint.

As Ward and other historians have stated, all historical interpretations must be subject to the test of consistency by the weight of evidence. American historian Peter Novack, wrote in the 1990s, “The Historians role must be objective, neutral, there must be balance and even-handedness in what is being told”. (4) TVNZ News at 6 and the BSA lacked both balance and accuracy in replying to my complaint because they adhere to “insider history” which is by nature selective, consequently, Ngāti Whatua Orakei spokesperson Ngarimu Blair's comment creates a ‘myth’, in particular with his commentary that “Apiha Te Kawau stretched out his arms and declared 3000 acres of tribal land would be gifted to Governor Hobson to establish Auckland.”

It is clear the BSA has not carried out original research pertaining to my complaint this is evident in its commentary on Hobson. At the time of the Auckland land purchase, Hobson was Lieutenant Governor, he was appointed to this position by Governor Gipps of New South Wales, en route to New Zealand. He became Governor of the new Crown colony of NZ in November 1840. Hobson would have been surprised to have found himself elevated to the position of Governor General for NZ, at that time as the BSA has erroneously stated its reply, indicating a lack of research. It is also unfortunate that the Deputy Mayor for Auckland apparently supports the commentary that the land was “gifted”, thereby ensuring this inaccuracy becomes established as fact.

Part Two; How “Insider History” now predominates many topics taught in our Schools Today.

No crucial thinking was done by the BSA in its approach to my complaint. As Alan Ward stated “Our freedom depends on intellectual vigilance and a willingness to be critical, to demand all interpretations to be subject to the test of consistency with the weight of evidence.” (5) Put another way, historians must provide an historical account true to the past while acknowledging that these accounts can be complex. Other examples of “insider history” can be found in material used in recent years within New Zealand's education system, especially in secondary schools and taught in social studies and History. Articles for topics occur popularising the notion that Polynesian explorers went all over the Pacific and elsewhere, Including Antarctica! Suddenly oral history has led to many ‘new understandings’ of the world. All of these explorations have been popularised by our mainstream media thus reinforcing “Insider History.”

The claim that Polynesians could have reached Antarctica based on oral stories and “other knowledge” is highly unlikely. Athol Anderson stated in the NZ Listener, that “It would have been impractical to sail a double hulled canoe with pandanus leaves for sails between Rarotonga and Antarctica, and get back again.” (6) Without adequate clothing crews would have perished along the southward journey.

Another “insider history” account was mentioned in media articles a few years ago with the excited claim that Polynesians had voyaged to and reached the east coast of South America in particular Brazil. The discovery of two skeletons with Polynesian DNA in central Brazil found located amongst many native Botocudos skeletons clearly indicated this. However, reading the full article it eventuates that the reason for the two Polynesians being present is that their DNA having been dated to the late 18th to early 19th century, was during a period when many slaves came from Madagascar to Brazil. It is quite likely a slaver ship picked them up and took them to Brazil to be sold into slavery. There they most likely escaped and joined up with the local tribe, the Botocudos; natives of eastern Brazil.

“Insider History” is also at play in how historical events of the New Zealand Wars are now being taught. The new story, as retold by RNZ and Tainui, concerns the events that took place at Rangiowhia during the NZ wars on 21st February 1864. Claims of a massacre of women and children, many of whom were said to have been raped, burnt inside a church in the village, was based only on an inaccurate account that Wiremu Tamihana made two years or more after the actual event. Piers Seed's well-researched account of events in Hoani's - Last Stand the Real Story of Rangiaowhia (2022), suggests no such massacre nor rape of women and children took place. Jame's Cowan's text on “The New Zealand Wars”, written in 1922, largely based on interviewing combatants from both sides of the conflicts, also does not mention any such massacre taking place. Other Historians, including, James Belich in his text on the same conflict in the 1980's and more recently Matthew Wright in 2006 and Cliff Simons in 2019, similarly do not mention this massacre.

Michael Belgrave wrote his response to a review by Martin Fisher about his book, “Dancing with the King “published in 2017, looked at claims of such a massacre of women and children occurring at Rangiaowhia. He attacked Vincent O'Malley's writings on the NZ Wars. Belgrave, using Bob Mahuta's description of events surrounding the conflict, stated that O’Malley was “grossly overstating and creating imagined atrocities in New Zealand's past.” (7) Belgrave claimed that no historian should do so unless facts and evidence clearly indicated what took place. O'Malley has “over reached” which can be explained by his viewpoint being influenced by his strong Irish Catholic anti-British upbringing. He expressed this during an interview on RNZ regarding his text on the NZ Wars, about four years ago. O'Malley claims that the most extreme accusations should be taken seriously and even relied upon! Problematic with this approach is the reluctance to subject such myths and one- eyed histories of such “insider groups” to critical scrutiny and have questions answered. Especially where and when were all those bodies buried and what were the names of those presumably massacred!

The media's coverage of the original three articles on these issues was completely lacking in “balance and accuracy. Myths become reality if repeatedly told. When this happens over a period of time, people eventually believe that it must be the truth. The perceived truth then becomes accepted as fact.

Part Three; The loss of objectivity in History today. The acquisition of British sovereignty in 1840. The Waitangi Tribunal's un-mitigating corruption of the Treaty's historic context.

The BSA used Dame Anne Salmond’s expressions on the Treaty as being akin to a gifting exchange, stating it was “tuku rangatira” (a chiefly gift) which created a tapu (sacred) alliance. This is in keeping with Ngarimu Blair's claims that Ngāti Whatua “gifted” and not sold land for the creation of Auckland. Salmond here is merely endorsing the Tribunal's version of our history as being official. Much as the Communist party of China has altered that country's history narrative for political effect.

Novick also stated that “The assumptions on which the idea of historical objectivity rests include a commitment to the reality of the past and to the truth as correspondence to that reality” and continuing “Historical facts are seen as prior to and independent of interpretation. The value of interpretation is judged by how well it accounts for the facts, if contradicted by the facts, it must be abandoned.” (8)

Over ten years ago, Salmond wrote an article for The Sunday-Star Times (July 13th 2013) in which she attacked the National-led government's policies as being anti-democratic, due largely to the passing of regulations plus the constant use of urgency to avoid parliamentary scrutiny when making new legislation. She stated in the article 'A Warning to New Zealanders: Keep Hold of Democracy' that “a healthy democracy requires the active participation of citizens in public life and in public debates. That without this participation democracy begins to wither and becomes the preserve of a small select political elite.”

Over the past three years, the previous Labour administration tried to overturn our liberal democracy and confer more rights to a small band of tribal elites by pushing through its agenda on co-governance via its He Puapua policies. Again, her comments with regard to the Treaty are flawed. As Ruth Ross exclaimed, in 1972 “to persist in postulating that it (The Treaty of Waitangi) was a sacred contract is sheer hypocrisy,” no tapu alliance was ever formed. For the past three years Salmond has been very quiet about her beliefs in, and support for democracy.

Bain Attwood in his text “Empire and the Making of Native Policy” clearly states that the Treaty was diplomatic; simply to have New Zealand's natives cede sovereignty to the British Crown. Māori required assurances from missionaries that the British government would not take their land from them, which had been advocated. They were aware of Governor Gipps ‘Land Claim Bill’, many tribes in the north plus Hauraki and Waikato knew the fate of native peoples in areas colonised, especially in New South Wales. Hence Williams's assertion of clause two in the treaty. However, Māori rights in land were never clearly defined.

The principle goal of the Colonial Office for intervening in NZ affairs, was simply to assume sovereignty and assert the authority of the British Crown. To enable the British government to gain control of the land purchasing process and to impose law and order, thus ensuring a peaceful colonisation process.

In recent times a few academics involved in ‘reframing’ our history make claims that; Hobson's role as governor was only to look after settlers arriving in New Zealand, that the concerns of French settlement are widely exaggerated, and Māori never ceded sovereignty. Let’s look at each of these assumptions.

The Māori text, as many commentators have expressed, is obviously a translation of an English draft. There were several English versions, some sent to New South Wales and England. The Littlewood version is most likely to have been the first copy written in English before being translated into Māori. Hobsons’ goal was to have native chiefs acknowledge British sovereignty. While the text in Māori appears to be ambiguous and contradictory, it was neither a moral nor legal contract. It was important to have as many chiefs sign in order to have recognition by other powers, eg France. This led Hobson to declare British sovereignty over all of NZ before the treaty signing process had been completed. So on the 21st May 1840 sovereignty was declared by right of cession in the North Island and by right of discovery for the South and Stewart Islands.

This was necessary due to the land purchasing by the NZ Company in the southern part of the North Island and Hobson's apprehension of the French doing the same. The French could have taken exception to his making claims that denied native consent. Hobson knew that the French government had given support to the Nanto Borderlaise Company to acquire the sovereignty of Banks peninsular and intended to purchase more land in the South Island. It aimed to do so by obtaining local tribal consent, so the French could have challenged Hobson's declaration of sovereignty over the South Island by ‘Right of Discovery’.

British and French rivalry was of centuries standing. Within the previous hundred years this included the Seven Year War (1756-63) with conflict in North America and India. French support for the American colonists (1778-80), and within recent memory were the Napoleonic wars (1797-1815) that included most of Europe. Added to this long-standing rivalry was the arrival in NZ of Charles de Thierry in the Hokianga, (1837) and Catholic missionary Jean Baptiste Pompalier, (1838). James Busby had been alarmed by their arrival as he believed this foreshadowed French attempts to colonise.

There had been fears by the British regarding how sovereignty should be handled as New Zealand could be ‘lost to the French’. When French colonists arrived at the Bay of Islands in July of 1840, they discovered that Hobson had secured British sovereignty for the whole of NZ in May. Hobson had despatched HMS Britomart, with two magistrates aboard, to Akaroa to raise the Union Jack, just five days before he declared sovereignty over the whole country. Under international law this confirmed New Zealand as a British colony.

There is a recent claim by some commentators that the Governor was only to look after settlers that would arrive, and that Māori would not be governed under British laws. This of course would have nullified article three of the Treaty, making it pointless to be included. Three years after its signing in 1843 Lord Stanley, the Colonial Secretary, exclaimed that “It was a Historical fact that the Crown had asserted its sovereignty over all of New Zealand.” And that “all persons now inhabiting its territory lay within the dominion of the Crown” (9). Stanley's comments came in response to colonial Attorney General William Swainson questioning whether the Crown's sovereignty was absolute in New Zealand as he found that some chiefs had not signed nor properly understood the Treaty.

Part Four; The Waitangi Tribunal's Reinterpretation of the Treaty. How Balance and Accuracy was lost.

The Waitangi Tribunal has changed its stance for both the English and Māori versions of the Treaty. Originally it regarded both as complementary. This changed to the Māori version as being the only Treaty, declaring it to be a solemn pact. As Ruth Ross and others have mentioned, it had no legal nor constitutional status. By the 1980's the Tribunal began to refer to the treaty as a partnership between races. It did this based on the retranslation of the Treaty by Sir Hugh Kawharu in 1986, and it was accepted by the Labour Government. The process of treaty settlements was well underway in the 1990's and the Tribunal's interpretations, according to Andrew Sharp, ran counter to rules of both legal and constitutional interpretations. The Tribunal deliberately conflated and confused present day purposes with historical ones.

The Tribunal did this by removing the treaty from its historical context; from when it was made and turned it into only a legal one. It started to claim that the Māori text was not a translation of the English text and neither was the English version a translation of the Māori one. This enabled the Tribunal to redefine what the truth was in its deliberations. In essence, the Tribunal corrupted the treaty to advance its own political and ideological agenda. It could do all of this as the Tribunal was given the sole authority to determine the meaning and effects of the Treaty as they were embodied in the Māori and English texts and to decide on any issues that were raised in the differences between them.

The lack of both balance and accuracy in the Waitangi Tribunal's version of NZ History led Dr Giselle Byrnes to write “The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History” on her experiences as a member of the Tribunal. In a NZ Herald article “Tribunal's flawed experiment” July 10th 2004, she expressed her concern that the Tribunal lacked objectivity by judging the past by today’s standards. “The Tribunal also had a strong Māori bias emphasising Māori characters and stories while being dismissive of pakeha characters and stories” (10). Other Historians, some of whom were referenced in the article; Michael Belgrave, Bill Oliver, Andrew Sharp, Keith Sorrenson and Michael Bassett all stated how inaccurate the Tribunal's version of History was. The Tribunal's deliberations consistently showed, that Māori were always right and Pakeha wrong. Reports to the government were never questioned, a process that is still happening today with the consequences being seen in how New Zealand History is now being presented and taught at schools and in other institutions. This has come about due to inept leadership and also by unscrupulous politicians, who over the past 30 years, have lacked an understanding of the Tribunal's intent to change society and destroy democracy itself. The acceleration of many co-governance arrangements under John Key's National-led government helped speed up this process.

In the late 90's a colleague and myself, in discussion over the Ngāi Tahu claims settlement considered New Zealand's future as the process rolled on. He firmly believed that with the passing of each settlement it would embolden Iwi to bring about an end to the Westminster system of democracy in New Zealand under the pretext of partnership. National's acceptance of the “declaration on the rights of indigenous people” and passing of several co-governance arrangements would further the Tribunal's push for co-governance at all levels of society. The marine coastal reform of 2011 and changes to the RMA in 2017, giving iwi preferential consultation rights were all steps leading to the undermining of democracy in this country. The handing over of Auckland's mountains through a co-governance arrangement effectively gave control of the mountains to iwi at the expense of local citizens. The Government's appeasement approach, later exacerbated under Labour, can be equated to responding to a school bully; if you give in to the bully's demands he/she will keep coming back for more.

The imbalance of power created by elevating local iwi into some sort of consenting authority above the rest of the community in Auckland is due to the region’s territorial governance structure, set up in 2010, which gives locals fewer rights than iwi. This came about with the setting up of so-called Council Controlled Organisation's (CCO). A typical CCO is Auckland Transport whose farcical consultation process hides the fact that outcomes are all predetermined. There is often a clear lack of accountability by Auckland Transport in its decision-making process, and like Ports of Auckland which changed its plaque from land purchase to land ‘gifting’ in 1840, thus altering the accuracy of the foundational history of Auckland. Ngāti Whatua have been given the sole right to run amok and rename Auckland's existing and new train stations and recently the new Eastern Bus way stations have been added. Names like Britomart and Mt Eden are to be erased to suit the iwi's political agenda as it 'reframes' Auckland's history by changing well known place-names to only Māori ones as part of its decolonisation construct. Locals were consulted by Auckland Transport but not informed of the outcome of this process re-naming each of the four rail stations. This imbalance of power which gives local iwi, unelected and unaccountable, more control over this issue than what any local community board has is quite astonishing and counter to the democratic process. In fact, it is both racist and feudalistic.

Part Five; The Tribunal's claims of Partnership as it manipulates the Settlement Process. The lack of political integrity from our elected leaders.

In 2014 the Tribunal brazenly stated that the Crown and Māori “were partners, sovereignty was dual, divided, and limited as a result” in other words a partnership existed. In 1999, Sir Douglas Graham, former Minister for Justice and Treaty Settlements had this to say in the NZ Herald. “Māori sovereignty had no legal basis. If Māori were still sovereign, as some claimed, they effectively terminated the treaty and had no rights under it. They cannot have it both ways,” Further he added the Crown had effectively exercised sovereignty for over 150 years. Māori sovereignty is inconsistent as neither Common Law nor the Treaty includes any concept of joint government. To keep referring to the treaty as a partnership is misleading, there were only parties to the treaty signing in 1840” (11). However, in a NZ Herald article in 2022, Graham appeared to vacillate on the issue, stating that some people had more rights than others under the same law! Unfortunately, this is now true and will only increase in time if Māori tikanga is made a legal requirement to be taken into account within common law.

National's failure to take cognisance of the Sims Commission and its report (1926-27) which clearly made the case that Māori were in a state of rebellion in the Waikato and Taranaki, is now obvious. It had been British custom to have land forfeited to the Crown by those in rebellion but the Commission's report accepted that there should be compensation for land forfeiture, but not realised till much later, should have been a major consideration in the settlements of the 1990's. Settlements were made with compensation, as “full and final settlements” in 1946 with a similar settlement made for Ngāi Tahu in 1949. The National Government's sidelining these previous ‘final settlements’ opened the door wide for the Waitangi Tribunal's agenda of ignoring both accuracy and balance in its deliberations during the renewed iwi settlement claims process.

The Tribunal has simply given itself powers to manipulate the treaty for its own ends, done largely as a result of the reinterpretation of key words by Hugh Kawharu. Lyndsay Head's article “History, Power and Loss” 2001, in “The Pursuit of Modernity in Māori Society” stated “That too much authority was given in the reinterpretation of the treaty in “present day Māori and not of 1840”, to Hugh Kawharu and David Williams. Head pointed out, like Ross, that there were contradictions in the treaty between what Williams translated into Māori. From handing over sovereignty to Queen Victoria then putting in a passage in Article two, suggesting that Māori retained a large amount of authority, Head added that the Williams', father and son, were in fact innovators. Henry Williams was quite familiar with Māori society, so trying to convey the best way to portray mana he chose Kawana, a term used in the Māori Bible, for governor, hence kawanatanga, the rule of the governor to indicate a special mode of authority. Māori had seen Hobson and realised his position was much higher than Busby's, they knew the word from the bible, in the context of rule.

There was no word in Māori for sovereignty but as independence is an aspect of sovereignty, this is what was being invoked, Williams looked at the most common aspect of the behaviour of chiefs = rangatira, he was invoking their independence, hence rangatiritanga. The concept of independence extended the meanings of rule and sovereignty for which the term rangitiritanga had figured in the Bible. This word had never appeared in traditional narratives but was being used by the 1840's. Therefore, it was the language of modernity that was emerging with new words appearing. Chiefs were not denied their tribal responsibilities, just those of national significance. Lindsay Head claimed the aim was to help Māori modernise and come to terms with the new world as colonisation was taking place and becoming the norm, the word was used in context of protecting the land as it wouldn't be taken from them, and only the Crown could purchase it in the future. The main issue discussed by chiefs prior to signing the Treaty was the loss of their authority or mana over land. Head was a linguist and lecturer in the Māori Department at the University of Canterbury, unfortunately, her work largely went unnoticed and was ignored by the media and academics.

Hobson's comment at the end of the signing by chiefs in 1840 is quite pertinent, “We are now one people,” uniting Māori and British under one Queen. All of which was reaffirmed 20 years later at the Kohimarama Conference in Auckland July 10th 1860. The work of Sir Āpirana Ngata, giving an explanation of the Treaty of Waitangi, published in 1922, clearly outlines how the treaty was both seen and regarded by Māori since its inception in 1840.

Both TV1 News at 6 and the BSA deliberations on my complaint indicate how bias is now being used to portray facts in NZ History. The BSA only attaches importance to “Insider History”, it is problematic when any government agency does so. The BSA's failure to carry out critical scrutiny and merely give a repetition of the same argument provided by TV1 News at 6 to my complaint, clearly indicates why public trust in our media has continued to decline over the past few years.

Peter Novick also states that “The historians’ role must be objective, neutral or disinterested, it must never degenerate into that of advocacy” (12), which is exactly what the Waitangi Tribunal has been doing for some time. “There must be balance and even-handedness (and accuracy) in what is being told.” The BSA has simply failed in its decision-making to uphold a balanced and accurate view for the historical account of Auckland's history. Instead, its deliberation, along with the TV1 news item, is “partial and biased” (13).

Part Six; The propagation of myths and the impact of Critical Race Theory on New Zealand politics today.

Both Dame Anne Salmond and Ngarimu Blair, along with the BSA, continue to propagate myths, all developed by their ‘one-eyed’ perspectives of New Zealand's History. They are simply “reframing” our history only from the Waitangi Tribunal's Māori perspective, all with the intent of transforming society by following similar trends seen in North America that are often led by Black American and Indigenous pseudo-intellectual academics. In his book,” The War on the West, How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason”, Douglas Murray outlines how this process has been unfolding over the past few years and discusses its origins. Attacks were made on American society for being ‘Too White’, especially on Western History, Education curriculums, Legal systems, Music, Literature, Philosophy and the Arts. Led by activist academics and politicians, who aim to have more Black and Indigenous values implanted and contextualised into the apparatus of American society, and to normalise ‘Insider’ views that can neither be questioned nor critiqued.

Tied in with all of this is, Critical Race Theory, or simply CRT, which has led to the rise of identity politics and ‘equity’ being constantly referred to in issues of the day. These terms would be the new norms to replace; “liberalism, equality, legal reasoning, the Enlightenment, rationalism and the neutral principles of constitutional law”(14). This has also become an attack on free thought and free expression and that diversity of opinion as expressed in American Universities was only seen by activists as “White Supremacist Bullshit”. Supporters of CRT claimed that their assertions are not “evidence-based” but based only on “interpretations and attitudes”. Accordingly, no normal standards of research are required, only a person's lived experience matters. Or else claiming they had alternative facts.

The thinkers and philosophers of the Enlightenment, such as Kant, Voltaire, Hume, John Stuart Mill and even Aristotle, are attacked because the system that they set up is, seen to be the antithesis of what CRT activists are trying to set up, that is, being opposed to rationalism and objective truth. Murray debunked many of the claims of racism levelled against these ‘Thinkers’ because much of the activist's claims were widely inaccurate and also made without regard to the times these people lived in. This was in contrast to activist academic's acceptance of Karl Marx's writings while ignoring Marx's, antisemitic and anti-Black racist comments. These academic activists viewed everything from only a racial perspective, claiming that white people alone are guilty of prejudice and racism from birth. They also claimed that only majority ethnic groups were racist, while minority ethnic groups could never be!

This same concept was accepted in The NZ Herald's editorial several years ago. Here we have the origin of the Left's attack on the Coalition Government's reversal of Labour's co-governance policies with aspersions of 'white supremacists, genocide, extermination of Māori society etc, comments that all go unquestioned leading to a lack of balance and accuracy from the leftwing media.

Indigenous tribes in America would also come to be seen as some form of proto-environmentalists, they alone have the knowledge to save the world from self-destruction. In New Zealand, Māori would become elevated to the same societal position. In Social Studies, most topics now require some form of Māori perspective. While many topics deemed to be ‘too European’ in content have been reduced. A topic on climate change looks at its impact on Māori, constant reference is made to the “Te ao Māori”, while excluding the vulnerability of all ethnic groups in New Zealand to the impact of climate change. The claim that Māori alone have the knowledge to help us adapt to this change is nonsense, there is no place in this topic -climate change, to acknowledge viewpoints from the perspectives of other ethnicities. New Zealanders of all persuasions have a wide variety of opinions on climate change, and how we can cope or remedy such change. It is not exclusive to Māori and like in all ethnic groups there are also wide-ranging opinions within Māori on this issue.

Other topics also incorporate the teachings of Māori creationist mythology. This mythology is being indoctrinated into the secular public school education system. If the Christian biblical creation story was introduced as a topic in all schools, it is hard not to imagine the reaction of the Marxist activists in opposition to it being taught. It is common to have prayer/karakia imposed on teaching staff and students. Always said in Māori, it goes over the head of most of those present and like all impositions, ignores that most New Zealanders no longer hold any religious association whilst also treading on the toes of those who do have strong Christian or other belief convictions.

New Zealanders are now facing an attempt by some in the legal profession to have Māori tikanga embedded into the legal system. Essentially, tikanga is a set of beliefs that highlights one person’s mana over that of another, putting at risk the long-held principle that everyone is equal before the law. Changing the legal system to indulge some people having more rights over others based only on Māori ethnicity becomes an attack on the Human Rights Act itself. We also need to remember that Māori society historically was never egalitarian.

Opponents of CRT in America were called out for being racist. No critical thinking was tolerated, in case the proponents of such policies were found to be wanting. This is also the same in NZ, whereby those who opposed co-governance policies of the last government were abused and called out as being racist for questioning these policies.

Part Seven; The Labour Government's Refreshing of the Schools Curriculum and the Indoctrination of the Reframed Treaty of Waitangi.

The Labour Government's reframing, or to use it’s own word “refresh”, the education curriculum at all levels, from primary to tertiary, followed what was occurring in Northern America. Subjects such as the sciences are now expected to have Mātauranga Māori (literally Māori knowledge) embedded in them. A different form of knowledge and understanding, essentially Māori folk-lore, which generally is incompatible to the empirical nature of the sciences; physics, chemistry and biology. Most Mātauranga Māori from the past has been influenced by knowledge gained over the past 200 years of European contact. The refreshed curriculum is highly politicised and ideological, and follows similar attacks on the subjects of Science, Maths, English, History, etc in North America, for being 'too Eurocentric, Colonial and thereby racist.

Since 2020 a well-orchestrated attack has been advanced by activist University staff in New Zealand and The Ministry of Education, which follows what has occurred in America. These activist academics advance and propagate tribalist Māori perspectives in order to change our society by making students into social justice activists, and by de-intellectualising curricula everywhere to achieve this end. In NCEA, the school’s curriculum assessment programme for years 11, 12 and 13, has over the past few years lost any rigour it may once have had. In Level One History the same questions can be asked year after year, leading to students developing a model answer to regurgitate for end of year exams. Unsurprisingly there is a lack of critical thinking meaning no real understanding of ideas. Subject content has been rapidly reduced so that teachers can constantly reassess students to ensure quotas of assessment are achieved by specific ethnic groups, in particular Māori and Pasifika. Unsurprisingly student resilience has been declining. This process started under the previous National government but has accelerated during the past four years.

David Farrar explained, (Breakingviews 24th June), that the “Aotearoa Education Initiative”, pushes its ideological perspective attacking the Coalition Government's curriculum changes. The Initiative's goal is to address so-called inequities and injustices in society. It aimed to do this by dumbing down the school's curriculum. The AEI states that the Government's redirection to improving achievements in literacy and numeracy, means their goal of making students into justice activists, will no longer occur. In subjects as diverse as English, Social Studies and Drama we now have “The Dawn Raids” of the 1970's being taught, without having any context to the time the event took place, and with the inclusion of many inaccuracies. Some teachers now display classroom posters that proclaim “Māori Did Not Cede Their Sovereignty”.

In History, the new curriculum places Māori at its centre, by making the dubious claim that Māori history is the foundation AND continuous history of New Zealand. All of course is quite inaccurate as the process of colonial settlement following 1840 with the transfer of sovereignty to the British Crown completely transformed this country. The establishment of a Crown Colony in New Zealand enabled social and economic changes to take place through colonisation. The introduction of institutions for a modern system of national governance, e.g. central government, written laws and judiciary, plus democracy, all rapidly changed the country within a short period of time.

The “refreshed” Secondary schools History curriculum focuses on the Land Wars of the 1860's whilst the all-important ‘Musket Wars’ are barely mentioned. It was the inter-tribal chaos of this period that led important tribal leaders to want a treaty with the British. Instead, students are now fed a diet of the sins of their pākehā forefathers. The new curriculum is biased, narrow, ideological and selective in its account of our history. The lack of any social and economic history being taught is quite disturbing as the political changes made since 1840 are all ignored. Both balance and accuracy are now lacking in the new history curriculum topics. Few if any topics from outside of NZ are now taught indicating the very narrow parochial approach to teaching history compared to what was taught as recently as ten years ago.

The AAHT, The Association for History Teachers in Auckland, often commented that not knowing our past history made society behave like a ship that had no rudder. The ship would have no clear direction and thus founder. Without balance and accuracy in the presentation of our past we are at the point of foundering as activists, led by Tribunal deliberations, propagandise myths that will destroy democracy and with it society if not stopped in time.

Changes in school's curriculums have meant that teachers have been required to attend courses to implement these changes. Teachers over the past three years have had to undergo compulsory cultural competency training to acknowledge the retranslated Māori version of the treaty, to be indoctrinated and in turn to indoctrinate students. This is reminiscent of what took place in Germany in the 1930's when the Nazi Government controlled who could be teachers and what they taught and at all times they had to support Nazi ideology. NZ teachers are expected to do the same as they are told to impose a Māori centric world view and acknowledge the Māori version of the treaty as promulgated and espoused since 1986 by the Waitangi Tribunal as being the only true and correct one. The Ministry for Education is still employing people to embed the Te Tiriti o Waitangi across school curriculums! The present government has been very slow in requiring the Education Department to desist in its propagandisation process of the education system.

Incredibly the NZ Herald continues to propagate only “Insider History” as New Zealand's official History. Recently two articles have been published; one by Simon Wilson, 27th July, “The Treaty Debate in 2024”and another by Julia Gabel, 17th August 2024, “We Were Almost Wiped Out”. Wilson's two-page article was as usual opinionated and biased while attacking opposing viewpoints. Simon Wilson’s acceptance of only the Waitangi Tribunal's reinterpretation of the Treaty and views of activist academics, indicates his biased approach to journalism. The article by Julia Gabel was just as factually inaccurate giving credence only to Ngarimu Blairs myth-making views on the “gifting” of land for the settlement of Auckland. Both articles lacked balance and accuracy as they served up a one-eyed view in perfect lock-step with the functioning of Marxist regimes.

Bain Attwood believes that to counter the myths and stories that misrepresents the past is simply to produce better stories that have artistic integrity, they must also be ‘Balanced and Accurate’. The last two words are important in the teaching and understanding of our history, for without it we may well fail in having a liberal democracy at the centre of New Zealand's society for the foreseeable future and for its generations to come. An unenviable legacy to leave.

Wayne Ryburn, an Auckland University graduate, with a thesis on the history of the Kaipara, has been a social science teacher for nearly 50 years.

End Notes and Bibliography.

1. Lintz J. J. (1978). The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown and Reequilibration. An Introduction. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

2. Bain Attwood: A Bloody Difficult Subject, Ruth Ross Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the making of history. AUP. 2023. pg 145.

3. pg147 ibid

4. pg 148 ibid

5. pg 150 ibid

6. pg 33 “A Chilly Reception'-” by Yvonne Van Dongen, article in The NZ Listener, August 13, 2022.

7. Michael Belgrave response to Martin Fisher's review on “Dancing with the King.” www,reviews.history.ac.uk/review/2267.

8. pg 148 Bain Attwood A Bloody Difficult Subject, Ruth Ross Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Making of History. AUP. 2023.

9. pg 188 Bain Attwood, Empire and the Making of Native Title, Sovereignty, Property and Indigenous People CUP. 2020.

10. Tribunals flawed Experiment by Diane McCurdy NZ Herald July 10 2004. Article on Dr Giselle Byrnes and views on the Waitangi Tribunal.

11. The Declaration of Sovereignty Superseded by Treaty, NZ Herald Feb 22nd 1999

12. pg 148 Bain Attwood, A Bloody Difficult Subject, Ruth Ross Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Making of History. AUP. 2023.

13. pg 148 ibid.

14. pg 19 Douglas Murray, The War On The West. How to Prevail in the Age of Unreason. Harper Collins 2022.