Wayne Ryburn: Reframing New Zealand’s History

New Zealand's mainstream media continues to propagate the one-sided history espoused by the Waitangi Tribunal, activist Maori academics and their pakeha acolytes, as our official history. History is complex and comes with many perspectives. Several articles published in the NZ Herald during 2024 and more recently, by authors Simon Wilson, Julia Gabel, and Audrey Young, clearly indicate their support for viewpoints propagated by the Waitangi Tribunal and contemporary iwi.

In his most recent rant, masquerading as journalism in the NZ Herald July 2nd 2025, titled “The Brushfire politics of David Seymour,” Simon Wilson uses the term hard-right. Claiming that Seymour evokes William F Buckley, who voted against the American Civil Rights Act of 1964, using the policies that Seymour supports. The Civil Rights Act ensured that Black Americans had the same civil rights that all other Americans had with the aim to end segregation, especially in Southern States, in public services such as education etc. This is in contrast to the segregationist policies that the Waitangi Tribunal proposed for New Zealand society, which were endorsed by the last Labour Government. It did this by its corruption of the original intent of the Treaty of Waitangi in 2014 with claims that a partnership existed between the Crown and Iwi. Policies of co-governance were then pushed throughout the public service and at local government level with the intent of destroying liberal democracy and with it the equality of all citizens within the laws of this country. It was done by elevating one ethnicity, Maori, above all other ethnicities. These are policies of the hard-left that Simon Wilson embraces with gusto in his journalism and that most New Zealanders have since seen through and why mainstream media is increasingly no longer trusted.

Over 20 years ago the NZ Herald, July 10th 2004, published “The Tribunal's Flawed experiment.” In this article expressions of concern were being made by noted historians, who had worked on the Waitangi Tribunal. They opined on how the Tribunal was redefining the truth in its deliberations by conflating and confusing present day purposes with historical ones. Objectivity was lost as the Tribunal told the past only from Maori perspectives while ignoring pakeha stories and characters, thus leading to a lack of accuracy and balance in the portrayal of New Zealand's history. Prof. Kerry Howe stated in 2000 that the public were increasingly being exposed to a simplistic moralising form of politico-pop history from the Tribunal.

Two journalists, Wilson, and Gabel, clearly indicated in their various articles that very little research was done by their re-confirming modern myths and many inaccuracies.

In his “Treaty Debate” NZ Herald 27th July 2024, Wilson perpetuates several myths created by the Tribunal, chiefly that a partnership was created between the Crown and Maori in 1840. Bain Attwood's recent revisionist history restates that the Treaty of 1840 was purely diplomatic - to have NZ natives cede sovereignty to the British Crown. The Treaty has never had any legal nor constitutional status. This position was reiterated in 1922 by Sir Apirana Ngata and as recently as 1975 by Sir Hugh Kawharu.

The absurd notion that a Governor would only be appointed solely for controlling European settlers is quite inaccurate. In 1843 Lord Stanley, the Colonial Secretary, stated that the British had asserted sovereignty over all of New Zealand and that the governor was in complete control over all inhabitants within the Crown's dominion.

Instructions to governors in 1839/40 plus colonial statutes spelt out that a policy of amalgamation would endure for the new colony. There would be no separation of settler from Maori as had been followed in North America. Allan Ward, in “An Unsettled History”1999 stated that government policy would allow for a toleration of non-violent Maori customs until they were abandoned by them as education and commerce progressed. The main role of the 'Protector of Aborigines' was to consult with local chiefs over the enactment of British law and order. Governor Grey placed local chiefs in the local administration of justices under resident magistrates (Ordinance 1847) and in the new police force.

In her first article “We were almost wiped out” NZ Herald August 17th 2024, Julia Gabel provides for the self-serving viewpoint of local Ngati Whatua. Land was purchased for the new colony’s capital by Hobson who had been encouraged to do so by chiefs, primarily for trade but also to bring security to a tribe that had almost been decimated by internecine tribal conflicts known collectively as the “Musket Wars.”

Land was sold jointly by the leading three chiefs Te Reweti, Te Kauwhai, and Tirene who signed the land agreement, written in both Maori and English, which followed a discussion on the boundaries for the land sale. It was not simply granted nor gifted to the Crown as the article suggests.

Paora Tuhaere, a local iwi leader in protesting later that he still had residual rights in land that he had sold took his protest to Auckland's Magistrate's court. Here he was firmly told that having sold land, he now had no further interests in it. So within a few short years Ngati Whatua would understand that following land sales they would only play a minor role in Auckland's development, especially as settlers became established and on-sold their land to new comers.

In her second article “Treacherous Invasion ended Waikato-Tainui golden years”, NZ Herald August 24 2024, Julia Gabel again presents myths allowing for the many reoccurring inaccuracies in our history. The so-called invasion was the result of Waikato and in particular Ngati Maniapoto's involvement in the Taranaki Wars of 1860-1 and 1863. In May 1861 Governor Brown's declaration in reasserting British sovereignty was to compel by submission and to punish tribes who had joined in the Taranaki War. This had been seen as an insurrection.

The ambush on British troops 4th May 1863, who were sent to reoccupy land south of New Plymouth previously purchased by the Crown, was seen by Governor Grey as an open act of rebellion. Maniapoto had sent 600 warriors in support of local iwi to oppose the reoccupation. Like Brown, Grey realised that the heart of the rebellion lay in the Waikato hence the so-called invasion of 1864. It was not simply a ploy to take land as misconstrued in Gabel's article. As Sir Apirana Ngata would later write, the quelling of insurrection in Taranaki and the Waikato with subsequent forfeiture of land was justified and a consequence well understood by Maori. Much tribal land was obtained by conquest. Ngati Whatua had accomplished this in the late 18th Century when they took over much of Auckland's isthmus.

Another myth abounds with the assertion that the Waikato had a flourishing Maori economy at the time of the “invasion.” In 1857 Judge F D Fenton described flour mills being in a state of disrepair along the Waikato and Waipa Rivers. Most tribes were in debt by the late 1850's due to the collapsing potato and wheat markets.

The simple reason for this collapse was the increasing amount of wheat now grown in the new Australian colonies especially as they were also exporting it by 1856. Concurrent to this, three times the wheat production was now coming from the South Island rather than from the North Island.

In her third article “We turned our waka around” NZ Herald 14th Sept 2024, Gabel references only from a Ngai Tahu perspective, indicating yet again her lack of original research. The claim of deceitful land promises has been repeated at different times by Ngai Tahu since the original land sales.

Governor Grey purchased much of the South Island from Ngai Tahu. Michael Belgrave, a member of the Waitangi Tribunal during the 1997/8 Ngai Tahu settlement process, in his “Historical Frictions, Maori claims and reinvented histories” 2005 stated that the claim made by Ngai Tahu that one tenth of the land purchased would be returned to the tribe is purely speculative. Historical documentation presented from chiefs, Topi Patuki and Werata Tainui indicated the boundaries of the purchase corresponded with both Kemp's and Kettle's interpretations that clearly indicated that the land involved went from coast to coast. The claim by Ngai Tahu that the so-called hole in the middle was not sold was not substantiated at the Tribunal hearings. The clear evidence given to the Tribunal indicated there were no tenths and there was never a promise that tenth reserves would be made after the sale of land. Schools and hospitals were provided as promised.

Audrey Young's referenced partnership expectations in her Review article “Tribunal findings amp up rhetoric”, Feb 1st 2025. Discussion by Maori chiefs during the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 was only on whether or not to have a governor over them. Young supports tribal “Insider History” by giving creditability to such comments that tribal chief Tamati Waka Nene, “raised two fingers” to indicate that a partnership between iwi and the Crown had been established in 1840. Tamati was the leading chief who supported having a governor over Maori and led the signing of the treaty. He along with his brother, Patuone, supported the Crown against Hone Heke during the Northern war of 1845. Becoming a close friend and ally of Governor George Grey, Tamati would encourage Grey to strike at the kingitanga due to the rebellion that was developing in the Waikato in 1863.

To Young's credit more depth was shown in her article by her presenting differing perspectives on the Treaty.

All three journalists need to read recent revisionist histories especially by Bain Attwood in his “Empire and the Making of Native Title”'2020 and also his “A Bloody Difficult Subject Ruth Ross, te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Making of History.” Then Wilson, Gabel and Young would understand that there are different perspectives and viewpoints of our history and determine which ones are based on facts and are not a fabrication of the past to suit current Marxist ideologies.

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.