Ann Arnold's submission first published on Waikanae Watch
The original Treaty of Waitangi February 1840 was written in English and translated exactly word for word into Maori (often called the Littlewood version) and was signed at Waitangi. It consisted of 3 Articles. There were no principles in the original document. The only difference between the Maori and English versions were the date and the word Maori, inserted to make sure it was understood Maori were citizens too. The original version brought all peoples of New Zealand under the sovereignty of Queen Victoria and was what Maori and Pakeha wanted, and signed on that auspicious day 6 February 1840.
These signatories of the Treaty ceded sovereignty to the Crown which basically meant: One people, one flag, one law for all, equal under the British Crown. End of story. In 1860 at the Kohimarama conference 112 Maori chiefs met and declared they never wanted to go back to the days prior to the Treaty signing 20 years before.
This Te Tiriti (Treaty) was first highjacked by a false version known as the Freeman version (Freeman being the author) and included forestry and fisheries which was never mentioned in the original. Falsehoods have been altered and added ever since over many decades.
I can only applaud David Seymour in his efforts to bring about a semblance of order and clarity to the shambolic deception and propaganda that the Waitangi Treaty has become over the past 180 years at the hands of ignorant politicians, radical Maori, elite Pakeha and woke ignorant people, led by the mainstream media who know nothing of the facts of New Zealand history. Such people go along with every wind of doctrine because its trendy and everybody else is doing it. They are listening to oral emotional rhetoric with no basis or facts behind it. It is a tragedy that is destroying this country. Aotearoa, a name for the whole country is another recent falsity.
In addition, if researched honestly, 92% of land was sold by Maori (not stolen) at prices agreed upon under British law. The setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal 1975 reinterpreted the original Treaty and seems intent on bankrupting the country. It was to have been dissolved years ago but never was.
Racism is treating someone differently based on their race and as Paul Goldsmith once said “There is nothing Maori don’t have that the rest of us have.”
As of 15 December 2023, there were 33 MPs of varying Maori ancestry (27%) across all 6 parties in Parliament yet, they make up only 17% of the population. Europeans 70%. Asian 17% … disproportionate wouldn’t you think? For this reason, Maori seats need to be disbanded so we get back to being one people. I could go on and on.
The hikoi this week is just another example of the nonsense (read no sense) that people have got caught up in trying to defend What? As Sean Plunket asked Buddy Mikaere yesterday on a private media outlet called The Platform ‘Where does this Bill attack Maori? ‘What provision in the Bill is taking away Maori rights?’
The people siding with Maori without a thought in their head, need to ask themselves that same question. For Maori the answer is simple: we don’t want to be equal. We don’t want the handouts to stop. We are supporting our own Takeover of NZ.
Maybe, just maybe, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill will be a start to head us back in the right direction. I hope so and support it wholeheartedly.
This Te Tiriti (Treaty) was first highjacked by a false version known as the Freeman version (Freeman being the author) and included forestry and fisheries which was never mentioned in the original. Falsehoods have been altered and added ever since over many decades.
I can only applaud David Seymour in his efforts to bring about a semblance of order and clarity to the shambolic deception and propaganda that the Waitangi Treaty has become over the past 180 years at the hands of ignorant politicians, radical Maori, elite Pakeha and woke ignorant people, led by the mainstream media who know nothing of the facts of New Zealand history. Such people go along with every wind of doctrine because its trendy and everybody else is doing it. They are listening to oral emotional rhetoric with no basis or facts behind it. It is a tragedy that is destroying this country. Aotearoa, a name for the whole country is another recent falsity.
In addition, if researched honestly, 92% of land was sold by Maori (not stolen) at prices agreed upon under British law. The setting up of the Waitangi Tribunal 1975 reinterpreted the original Treaty and seems intent on bankrupting the country. It was to have been dissolved years ago but never was.
Racism is treating someone differently based on their race and as Paul Goldsmith once said “There is nothing Maori don’t have that the rest of us have.”
As of 15 December 2023, there were 33 MPs of varying Maori ancestry (27%) across all 6 parties in Parliament yet, they make up only 17% of the population. Europeans 70%. Asian 17% … disproportionate wouldn’t you think? For this reason, Maori seats need to be disbanded so we get back to being one people. I could go on and on.
The hikoi this week is just another example of the nonsense (read no sense) that people have got caught up in trying to defend What? As Sean Plunket asked Buddy Mikaere yesterday on a private media outlet called The Platform ‘Where does this Bill attack Maori? ‘What provision in the Bill is taking away Maori rights?’
The people siding with Maori without a thought in their head, need to ask themselves that same question. For Maori the answer is simple: we don’t want to be equal. We don’t want the handouts to stop. We are supporting our own Takeover of NZ.
Maybe, just maybe, the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi Bill will be a start to head us back in the right direction. I hope so and support it wholeheartedly.
13 comments:
If you start with a clear statute or contract or bylaw, then clear results will follow but if you start out with something vague there will be disputes and people will have unreasonable expectations. The Treaty is not an appropriate source of law, particularly at a constitutional level. It has become an excuse for a lot of lazy Maori to expect to get money without doing any work.
Anonymous @8.02am "If you start with a clear statute or contract or bylaw, then clear results will follow but if you start out with something vague there will be disputes and people will have unreasonable expectations."
Exactly, and until David Seymour specifies specifically what he believes were the 'rights' of Maori when the Treaty was signed (Principle #2) there will still be disputes and unreasonable expectations....
One of the most concise and factual summaries of the Treaty history I have read. Everyone that went to the protest should read it. But of course they won't believe it.
I agree with the sentiments; however, the author hasn’t actually commented on the merits of the Bill.
I think a submission requires both.
As you state 'there were no principles in the original document"
The original document was quite clear and we find ourselves in this mess especially since Cooke in 1975.
If there were no principles then they should not have found their way in to our legislation.
Seymours Bill is Groucho s Bill. I have principles and if you don't like them I have more.
The only way is to delete them from legislation. Now.
Anonymous @8:49. I would suggest we do away with talk of " maori rights " as they do not have, nor are entitled to, any superior " rights " over all other New Zealanders.
Steve Ellis
You have stated the situation clearly. I am enormously admiring of Seymour's courage and persistence, and will support him. But in fact I prefer NZF's position, which is that there are no principles (thank you silly Geoffrey Palmer, Chris Finlayson et al) I just wish NZF would get cracking and do something about it to stop the rot, which magnifies daily amongst the credulous and the daft.
@anon 8.02 & 8.49 - disagree.
My take on this is that the point of leaving Principle 2 open-ended is so NZers can discuss, debate & decide what it means to them, to take the power from unelected officials & put it back into the place where it belongs - the voters.
David, being a true libertarian (well, except on Covid - let’s not forget his advocacy of the jab), is allowing all voters to decide on whether they agree Maori should have special rights. For him to define this would be to go against his own principles.
@anon 10.28. Agreed, & the govt is going to do precisely just that with all but 5 pieces of legislation, which means these current principles will still remain undefined.
Further, what if Labour gets back in? Won’t they be able to reverse everything?
This false narrative has been insidiously woven into democracy & institutions for decades. Burying our heads in the sand won’t make it go away. The only way forward is to confront it head on, to have the ugly, but very overdue conversation - a conversation that will almost certainly put an end to TPM et al racist rhetoric.
The "Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi" are an invention of Parliament when it passed the Treaty of Waitangi Act in 1975. The expression was left undefined, which means the Courts are required to interpret it in accordance with its ordinary meaning. However, given that every judge on the Court of Appeal in the pivotal Lands Case had a different take on the ordinary meaning of the words, how on earth is the proverbial man on the Clapham omnibus supposed to interpret them? The coming failure of Seymour's Bill will be testament to the fact that Parliament now considers the expression is also not capable of being defined legally. So. if the Courts can't identify an ordinary meaning, and Parliament can't identify a legal meaning, does't that mean the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi are a nulliity? Any attempt to apply the Treaty to 21st century circumstances can therefore only be done by reference to the actual text of the Treaty itself, in the context of what those words meant in 1840. So Parliament needs to correct Geoffrey Palmer's drafting error, and to that end, the Government has now published a list of 28 enactments containing references to the Principles that It intends asking Parliament to amend or repeal. Interestingly that list does not include the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 which triggered this whole mess, but I presume that will be amended as part of the Government's stated policy of curbing the scope of the Waitangi Tribunal's authority. Hopefully all 28 other Acts can be amended at the same time so Te Pati Maori only gets one opportunity to throw a tantrum.
If every person with Maori Blood in this country were for the tribalistics version of the Treaty of Waitangi, New Zealand would be untenable. It's time to take stock, take up the 80 plus books that were removed from school libraries, universities, and public libraries, and re-read them. Both Labour and National must share responsibility for this turmoil, as well as the tribalists. Neither of them can get us out! The truth of our history must be told before we can move forward.
Kevan
Two referendums needed.
1. Get rid of or keep Maori seats?
2. Leave principles as they are OR redefine them as per current Bill OR get rid of them altogether from all legislation.
End this gravy train and crap a..s.a.p and move into the 21st century or as a country we will go backwards
While public debate is long overdue and the current role of Seymour's Bill is only as a platform for that debate, the idea that principles of Te Tiriti might be determined by popular vote is flawed. Either some principles can be shown to have existed or to have been assumed by the parties who signed Te Tiriti, or they can't. A referendum to answer that question is no more useful than a referendum on whether the earth is flat or round.
The Waitangi Tribunal invented some principles, vaguely defined and 'not set in stone', on the basis of political ideology rather than historical evidence. The Tribunal was an inappropriate body to determine such principles because its perspective was biased by grievance proceedings some of which were heart-wrenching. What is needed to answer the question regarding principles is an independent enquiry from a group of historians and language experts the composition of which is carefully balanced for political ideology.
The most important question to address is 'What was the understanding of the chiefs who signed Te Tiriti?' Ewen McQueen has already undertaken extensive research on chiefs' speeches at and after 1840, and his work would provide a good starting point for the enquiry. Evidence to support the currently asserted 'principles' has not been convincing or adequately explained, probably because such evidence simply doesn't exist. The public are more likely to accept conclusions from an unbiased enquiry team that carefully describes the evidence for their conclusions.
Post a Comment