Peter Williams: UPDATE: A Book of Waitangi

My copy of Understanding Te Tiriti: a handbook of basic facts about Te Tiriti o Waitangi arrived by post today. This is the booklet, written by lawyer Roimata Smail, which has been distributed to every secondary school in the country.

My initial response was that if this is the level of textbook and reference source that high school students are provided with these days then heaven help our future. It is barely 30 pages, is comprised of simplistic language and unsupported claims and is the kind of pamphlet that might be appropriate for children at the oldest in years 7 and 8, the intermediate school level.

But the worst aspect of it is that it is pure, unadulterated propaganda – essentially the Waitangi Tribunal version of treaty history. We know that the worst aspect of that Tribunal’s operations is that no non-Maori may submit and its findings can ever be officially challenged.

Understanding Te Tiriti hangs it hat on the concept, first promulgated by the Waitangi Tribunal in 2014, that the “rangatira who signed te Tiriti did not cede their sovereignty. Rather, they agreed to share power and authority with the Governor.” (He Whakaputanga me te Tiriti 2014 by the Waitangi Tribunal).

Just how the Tribunal came to this conclusion has, to my knowledge, never been satisfactorily explained. Yet other publications such as Ewan McQueen’s One Sun in the Sky quotes from archival records of discussions between the chiefs at Waitangi on February 5th 1840.

For example Te Kemara, a chief of Ngatikawa was first to speak in the debates the day before the Treaty signing and was strongly opposed to Governor Hobson’s document.

“Governor high, up, up, up and Te Kemara down low, small, a worm a crawler -no, no, no O Governor” he said. That’s a direct quote from William Colenso’s The Authentic and Genuine History of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, published in 1890 but based on notes were which taken by Colenso on the day, later verified by the Resident James Busby.

There was genuine opposition by chiefs to the Treaty because some realised that British government over them was not what they wanted. Yet after a long discussion and debate some chiefs came around to the idea which was written in the English version – that of ceding sovereignty of the land to the British Queen.

McQueen writes “in the debate that day, no-one is recorded as saying they saw this as an equal power sharing arrangement .. Neither is there any record of any chief understanding that the Governor’s authority was only to be over Europeans. To the contrary all the chiefs on both sides of the debate displayed a common understanding of Crown authority.”

It was Tamati Wake Nene, a rangatira of Ngapuhi, who led the momentum to sign.

“O Governor, do not thou go away from us. Remain for us a father, a judge, a peacemaker .. stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”

The evidence that the chiefs of 1840 did cede sovereignty to the British Crown seems incontrovertible, yet here is a booklet being distributed to our teenagers which is stating, as fact, the opposite.

The idea that Queen Victoria would only rule over the British or European population in New Zealand of the time is patently ridiculous, yet that’s what this booklet says – and that, sadly, will be indoctrinated to teenage minds.

Here’s more from Roimata Smail on the matter of land loss by Māori.

“Crown representatives visited Māori on their whenua all around Aotearoa to ask them to sell land. But even though it knew the land was owned collectively, the Crown often only got agreement from some of the owners of the land.”

Here then is an admission that much of the so called “stolen” land was in fact sold by iwi. That is a recorded fact too. Article Two of the Treaty said that Māori could retain their land unless they wished to sell to the Crown.

Much was sold, but for nearly two hundred years there has been considerable buyers remorse and heated discussion about whether those who signed the deeds of sale actually had the right to do so

In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata wrote that the Treaty made “one law for the Māori and the Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful.”

Smail’s booklet tries to explain the Treaty Principles and state what she believes them to be in 2024. According to her, they are:

Kawanatanga - the Crown has the right to govern only British and Tangata Tiriti;

Tino Rangatiratanga - Māori have a right to self-determination;

Partnership - Māori and the Crown are equal partners;

Active Protection - the Crown should actively protect Māori;

Options - Māori have the option to do things in their own way;

Equity - outcomes for Māori are to be equitable to Tangata Tiriti

Redress - the Crown must right the wrongs it has done to Māori.

Not once does the book consider that most who can claim to be Māori descent are of mixed ethnicity. Ms Smail is using her publication to push the case for those with some Māori ancestry to have special rights and privileges through her version of the Treaty Principles.

This is the whole rationale behind David Seymour’s Bill. He wishes to do away with any special rights and privileges for one group of people and have a society where everyone’s rights are equal.

That Roimata Smail’s book is allowed in our secondary schools is appalling. It is pure indoctrination with facts that can be historically challenged.

Does any politician have the courage to explain to the Education Ministry that this is just one version of history? Is anybody telling our students that a proper educational establishment would offer them the opportunity to read more widely on the issue?

The silence from authorities has been deafening.

Peter Williams was a writer and broadcaster for half a century. Now watching from the sidelines. Peter blogs regularly on Peter’s Substack - where this article was sourced.