Richard Prebble took a double degree at the University of Auckland in History and in Law. He knows that Maori signed the Maori version of the Treaty, and that that is the version that we should all use when discussing what the Treaty means. Funnily enough, it was a colleague of Anne Salmond’s at Auckland University, Sir Hugh Kawharu, who was Professor of Maori Studies and a Ngati Whatua elder, who carefully translated the Maori version of the Treaty in the 1980s. That translation was endorsed by the then Maori Queen and used by the 1990 Commission of which I was the chair, when New Zealand celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Treaty’s signing. Queen Elizabeth II, great grand-daughter of Queen Victoria in whose name the original Treaty was signed, also accepted the Kawharu translation when she was present at Waitangi on 6 February 1990.
We have no need of Anne Salmond’s ruminations on the subject, nor her insults to Richard Prebble. She demeans herself and all the others who since Sir Apirana Ngata’s comments about the Treaty in 1922 have known about the importance of the Maori version of the Treaty and its meanings. What Anne Salmond should be explaining to us is how, and why, she seems now to be at odds with Ngata, Kawharu, the Maori Queen, and all the others who have been content to use the translations of the Maori version of the Treaty that have been readily available for more than a century. They form the basis for the principles that David Seymour wants recognition for in his Bill that is before Parliament. What does Anne Salmond know about the Maori language that Apirana Ngata, Hugh Kawharu and the late Maori Queen didn‘t know? She should tell us.
New Zealand does not need modern, radical Maori make-believe, designed to turn the Treaty into an instrument of racial advantage for people who are nearly all more European than Maori in their ancestry.
We have no need of Anne Salmond’s ruminations on the subject, nor her insults to Richard Prebble. She demeans herself and all the others who since Sir Apirana Ngata’s comments about the Treaty in 1922 have known about the importance of the Maori version of the Treaty and its meanings. What Anne Salmond should be explaining to us is how, and why, she seems now to be at odds with Ngata, Kawharu, the Maori Queen, and all the others who have been content to use the translations of the Maori version of the Treaty that have been readily available for more than a century. They form the basis for the principles that David Seymour wants recognition for in his Bill that is before Parliament. What does Anne Salmond know about the Maori language that Apirana Ngata, Hugh Kawharu and the late Maori Queen didn‘t know? She should tell us.
New Zealand does not need modern, radical Maori make-believe, designed to turn the Treaty into an instrument of racial advantage for people who are nearly all more European than Maori in their ancestry.
Historian Dr Michael Bassett, a Minister in the Fourth Labour Government. This article was first published HERE
17 comments:
Anne Salmond is just another pseudo academic whose views are completely coloured by her strong desire to turn NZ into an apartheid state.
For the record, the Maori version of the Treaty is not the only version that matters. Firstly because both versions are in themselves legal nullities anyway. Their only legal force comes from legislation and the Treaty of Waitangi Act defines "Treaty" for the purposes of that Act as being both versions. Both should be treated equally. Like it or not, that is the law.
Secondly, while Maori might have signed the Maori version, the Crown representatives signed the English version. If there was a fundamental difference, then there was no agreement. It isn't that one version overrides the other.
Totally agree. The world is, and never has been a fair place. It is time Māori acknowledged their joint heritage, dropped the chip off their shoulders and embraced the here and now.
And let us not forget that T E Young (a judge of the Native Land Court and an expert in Te Reo) translated it in 1869 - long before Ngata, and more than a century before Kawharu. His translation is very close to the Busby English draft (the 'Littlewood Treaty) and Ngata's -neither of whom had the benefit it appears of the other's efforts, and certainly not the Busby draft. The much later Kawharu translation creating the differences and enabling the twisting of the meanings of tino rangatiratanga and taonga which have given rise to much of the issues we now face today.
Not only is she arrogant, she is mischievous. Referencing He Whakaputanga is an irrelevancy to Te Tiriti, and to claim 'He iwi tahi tatou' includes 'respecting one's differences' is a very long (deliberate) bow on her part and which is hardly the concept Hobson was keen to convey when he made that statement. It's as mischievous as Kawharu's "unqualified exercise" and "treasures."
This is one of the best articles I've ever read. Thank goodness someone has finally seen some sense in this debate
I too use the Kawharu back-translation of the Treaty, but that does not necessarily mean I agree with all of it. For example, Kawharu's translation of 'taonga' is moot. That's the criteria of 'falsification' in action. By the way, I think we can stop referring to the 'Maori version of the Treaty', it just is the Treaty. Nevertheless, the English drafts and back-translations are still useful to understand it.
The 1987 Court of Appeal between the New Zealand Maori Council and the Attorney General stated, “The treaty of Waitangi has been primarily interpreted in the New Zealand Courts and this appeal was significant in establishing the modern views on the Principles of the Treaty”. This Court also confirmed the treaty was a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”.
Now, on page 663 of the Appeal document, we find that instead of using an ‘official text’ of the treaty attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act (e.g. 1869 official back translation of the original by Mr T E Young of the Native Department), this Court accepted an UNAUTHORIZED text by Mr H Kawharu, which he calls his, “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text”. (so not carefully translated then Mr Bassett)
How convenient is that, that this Court decided to use an “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text” by a man representing his people who were to gain most from the outcome?
The Court stated that, “it was put before us on behalf of the applicants, and the Crown likewise accepted it for the purpose of this case”.
So just like the false, fake, fraudulent official English version of the treaty being held up as the true version of the original Maori text used to screw New Zealand over, we now have an “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text” to back it up?
“That translation was endorsed by the then Maori Queen and used by the 1990 Commission of which I was the chair, when New Zealand celebrated the 150th anniversary of the Treaty’s signing”.
Now, remember that in 1989, BUSBY’S FINAL DRAFT dated the 4th of February 1840 was found. Oops!
Dame Anne displays her deep bias every time she opens her mouth. She exemplifies woke - and dishonest - academia and will be a bad loser when all this mess is sorted by sensible New Zealanders.
If people are interested in this, one of the best things to listen to is Julian Batchelor's (Stop Co-governance) interview with Richard Prebble on YouTube about his recent decision to quit the Waitangi Tribunal.
And what keeps being left out of every conversation is that Maori became British subjects....British subjects did not become Maori subjects.
And the Hon Mr Prebble, he himself having training in historical research, states that when it comes to understanding meanings, preference needs to be given that which is contemporary to the time - in this case elevating T E Young's translation well above that of Kawharu's. Of course, having the original English draft of what was translated assists, especially when one party didn't have a widely accepted written language.
Note that Kawharu offered two back-translations: a literal translation and "an attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation" of the Maori text. The reconstruction is in grammatical English, but Kawharu recommended using the Treaty in Maori and its literal translation. What did the Court of Appeal use?
1869 Official Back Translation of the Treaty by the Native Department:
An official back translation was made of the original Treaty by Mr T E Young of the Native Department in 1869 for the government and is virtually word perfect to Hobson’s final draft found in 1989 and translated by Rev Henry William’s and his son Edward into the original Treaty.
Mr Young’s translation is virtually word for word and length to the original Treaty and the final draft found in 1989, except the final draft is dated the 4th of February 1840 and the phrase “all the people of New Zealand” in the Preamble and in Article 3 is not found in the original Treaty or any back translation. Rev Williams changed this in the original Treaty to “hapus/Maori of New Zealand” to clarify Hobson’s final draft.
While these three documents had never met until 1989, they match each other perfectly in word and meaning. There is no doubt the document found in 1989 was the final draft that Rev Henry Williams and his son used to translate into the original Treaty, but the government refuses to accept this as it would completely destroy the fourth Labour governments reforms and the discriminatory legislation that future governments have continued to observe.
Anon@11.58 makes a good point - for if there was an intent for Maori to retain their purported sovereignty, I'm sure Queen Victoria would have required some accountability and preferably not from 550-odd Chiefs all with their own te ao Maori perspective of tikanga. The concept is a patent nonsense as David Lange noted.
While contemplating that, why does the Crown only deal with Iwi these days, who incidentally are not even mentioned in the three Articles? All this nonsense about honouring the Treaty, yet when it suits, Maori seem only too keen to not.
Bring on the Referendum of Treaty Principles Bill.!!!
Where else in the world that a Treaty signed 180 years ago is still regarded by both parties ?
The ToW was quite clear and mutually understood for these last 180 years, until a lot of radicals decided that it needed to be twisted and re-read as a dynamic document.
It's irresponsible by any authority to accept anything other than the original meaning and intention.
To answer the question above, the Anglo-Portuguese Treaty was signed in 1373 and is still in force. And I don't think they have ever bickered about what the words meant. But then neither of the languages involved were Stone Age.
Post a Comment