STOP CO-GOVERNANCE

A school Resource on the Treaty

Truth and error weaved together

Parents – this is a review of a school comic/journal regarding the Treaty. We believe it to be an attempt to brainwash your children at school with Treaty misinfomation for Year 10 – junior secondary school (14 year old)s.  Your children are being groomed to believe that Maori have been hard done by.  The exact opposite is true. Maori get special privileges (see here) and huge steps have been taken to redress valid injustices (the Sim commission and the full and final settlements of the Waitangi Tribunal).  We must go forward to the future based on the truth, not fabrications that come from a revision of history.

Note: we identify AWEA (education for social justice) as the copyright holder.

1 Evidence of pre Maori inhabitation

Notice on this page is that we are told that Maori were Polynesians who came here from somewhere else.  The word ‘Indigenous’, according to the Miriam Webster dictionary definition, means people who did not come from anywhere else. 

So Maori are not indigenous.

Videos backing up ancient races in New Zealand pre-dating Maori:

Skeletons in the Cupboard #1

Skeletons in the Cupboard – Under the carpet #2

Propaganda – Notice the name of our country.  The name of our country is not New Zealand. In the comic it is Aotearoa New Zealand. This double banger name of our country was started by activists many years ago. Why? It a big part of grooming the population, getting it ready for tribal rule. 

Full article here.

2 The Maori had the land to themselves”. Not true.

The Moriori were the resident race here when the Maori arrived. The Maori engaged in the attempted total annihilation of them, killing and eating them. They chased them right down the North Island, across to the South Island, then, when the last of them went to the Chatham Islands.

See full article here.

3 Doctrine of Discovery

Dutch explorer Abel Tasman discovered New Zealand in  1642. He did not go ashore. In 1642, New Zealand did not have a name. The Dutch Parliament gave what we now know as New Zealand Nova Zeelandia  or Nieuw Zeelandt.

Then:

Cook discovered New Zealand in 1769.   Unlike Tasman, Cook went ashore at Mercury bay.  He raised the British flag on a high place and carved the name of his ship ‘Endeavour’ into a tree. 

Why all the fuss?  Well, according to international convention / law at the time, this is what was necessary to ‘claim’ a country under what was known as ‘The Doctrine Of Discovery’.  Tasman missed his opportunity.  Cook took his.

From this point on New Zealand officially / legally belonged to the British (according to international law of the time).

See full article here.

4 Background to the Missionaries

Britain was undergoing a Christian revival. Christian groups lobbied the British parliament to treat New Zealand as a sovereign nation. According to the Christians, the British could not just muscle their way in, and push Maori aside. That is to say, Christians in Britain went in to bat for Maori.

The Christian missionaries believed that ‘uncivilised savages’ (this is how the British Parliament described Maori in 1840) around the world, who, semi naked were practicing infanticide, slavery and cannibalism, human sacrifice, worshipping false gods and demons, could not live their best life doing such things. The missionaries wanted to lift Maori from the gutter most to the upper most. This was their raison d’etre. They made huge personal sacrifices to do what they did. Many lost their lives in in the process. This fact is never mentioned by Maori activists today.

Note how the missionaries are presented as “stiff upper lipped” and “up-tight” and the Maori’s are presented with a certain nobility.  Interesting profiling.

See full article here.

5 It is true that Korerareka (Russell) was called the “Hell Hole of the Pacific”. So the picture of the drunks is appropriate.

Truth:

  • There was a mix of corruption/savagery/good intent on both sides – Maori and settlers.
  • Many Maori were Christian, as were many settlers.
  • Other Maori sold smoked heads of slaves and defeated warriors to sailors and were still involved with cannibalism/sacrifice/prostitution (to cater for the sailors).
  • Maori asked England to restore order and stop the Maori vs Maori warring. They also mentioned there was a threat from the French who had a ruthless reputation. Original document here.

Subliminal message?:

  • Interesting to note how the Maori couple looking on are well dressed in modern clothes, no mokos. Looking like fine upstanding citizens.

See full article here.

6 Yes – A tribe had murdered a contingent of French explorers. Many Maori had heard of the ruthlessness of the French colonists  and were fearful of French retribution.

Further:

There is no mention of the Maori versus Maori musket wars fought through the early 1800s.  Many Maori lived in fear of attack and welcomed the order promised by Queen Victoria. It is estimated Maori killed around 50,000 Maori during the musket wars.

Some had seen enough of the world to report that the British were the most benign world power. The 13 Chiefs invited the British to come. CLICK HERE FOR A COPY OF THE REQUEST.

Note: Maori was a description first used at Waitangi.  New Zealand was a collection of tribes with a history of utu (redress), war, infanticide and slavery.  The term Maori indicates a cohesiveness that didn’t exist at the time of the Treaty.

See full article here.

7 This was mostly a northern chiefs’ initiative, hastily made as the French were interested in New Zealand as a colony. Also, 540 chiefs ended up signing the Treaty, so 34 chiefs out of at least 540 gives needed context. He Whakaputanga;

  • was signed by 52 chiefs in the end.
  • was acknowledged but never ratified.
  • was clobbled together to show the French that NZ was a British protectorate (Bain Attwood).
  • brought NZ under the wing of the British, but not a colony.
  • was superceded by Treaty of Waitangi as all chiefs who signed He Whakaputanga went on to sign Te Tiriti.
  • Chiefs only met once and they were warring again in 1837 (ref) Bruce Moon.

See full article here

8 Something amazing was happening in Britain.

Largely influenced by Christian teaching, Britain was taking a much kinder approach to exploration/colonisation. At the time, Britain had 50 colonies, but decided to treat New Zealand differently. They wanted to be far more humanitarian than they had been before.

This is reflected in the pre-amble to the Treaty:

“That the Queen is desirous to establish a settled government, to prevent evil occurring to the natives and Europeans who are now residing in New Zealand without law.”

See full article here.

9 The “wild west” nature of land deals before 1840 was one of the reasons Maori signed up to the Treaty.  Settlers/Maori sellers could cheat each other. Land could be sold multiple times because ownership could be hard to establish.

Further:

  • Maori asked Britain to bring order.
  • Maori were keen to sell land.
  • 30%  of the land was sold by 1840 – (Turton document).
  • Maori came to see value of the land when settlers arrived – before that it was about fighting.
  • Estimated number of Maori in South Island pre-1840 was 2000.

See full article here.

 

10 Colonial Times

  • Britain was asked to bring peace, lawful land transactions, trading, goods.
  • Michael Wright – Britain had 50 colonies on the go and there was not a lot of money to look after NZ.
  • Britain only wanted NZ if they ceded sovereignty.  Proof here
  • This was the installation of democracy.
  • They made it clear that Britain was there to civilise barbaric practices of Maori as well – war/cannibalism.

See full article here.

11 There had been much discussion leading up to the Treaty

  • Lord Normanby issued instructions (from the Queen) to Hobson ordering that there was to be no treaty without Maori consenting to ceding sovereignty.
  • What is missed here is that Hobson was told not to do anything without the free and intelligent will of the Maori – No one was to sign treaty unless they fully understood it.
  • Hobson thought it would take a week – Hobson was surprised that were ready to sign in one day – Maori were keen to sign.

12 Hobson set up the hui at Waitangi.

    Busby sent invitations to the chiefs on the 30th January:
    “My dear friend (Tamati Waka Nene) …A war ship has arrived with a chief on board sent by the Queen of England to be Governor for us both. CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT

    Note Captain Hobson’s instruction to Henry Williams (translator) which was: “not to allow any one to sign the treaty till he fully understood it;”

    Henry Williams confirms: “to which instruction I did most strictly attend. I explained the treaty clause by clause at the signing of the same, and again to all the natives in this part of the island previously to the destruction of Kororareka, on March 11, 1845; I maintained the faith of the treaty and the integrity of the British Government, and that the word of Her Majesty was sacred, and could not be violated”.

    See full article here.

    13 Many Maori spoke English.

      Background:

      • Henry Williams was fluent in Te Reo having been preaching the gospel since 1823 (he also translated He Wakaputanga and created a Maori dictionary).
      • Many Maori could read the Bible by 1840.
      • Maori had been trading with English speakers before 1800.
      • Many Maori had travelled as part of this trading.
      • It’s a short treaty – (about one A4 page) – one night was sufficient. The hard work had been done crafting the Treaty in the preceding months.

      Note: Williams is criticised in some circles as begin a bad translator.  However, this comes from comparing the James Freeman version of the Treaty with the Maori version.  When you compare the Littlewood draft (add link) with the Maori version it is word for word correct except for the inclusion of “Maori” and the date.

      See full article here.

      Note: This implicates the missionaries as thieves. The missionaries could only do their job by good example.  And had huge respect from Maori for their character. Missionaries did buy land. Also if the missionaries had “taken” the land Maori would have taken it back – (There were 2000 settlers and 90,000 Maori).

      See full article here.

      14 The Speeches of the Chiefs at Waitangi (recorded by Colenso)

      • Some Maori wanted Britain to come as they saw the British as the best way to restore and protect order.
      • Hobson did not tell the chiefs to sign – he invited them to consider the Treaty.
      • He instructed his translator Henry Williams not to proceed without gaining the free and intelligent consent of the natives.
      • There was much discussion amongst the chiefs in the tent at Waitangi which was recorded by Colenso. It is clear evidence that the chiefs knew they were giving up sovereignty in return for the protection of Britain and equal citizenship with other British citizens.
      • Rewa was called out by Tamati Pukututu who said, “These chiefs say don’t sit (stay) because they have sold all their possessions” (FULL QUOTE HERE).
      • In the end 52 signed (including Rewa).

      15 Tamati Waka Nene was Britain’s most significant Maori supporter.

      He was a man of vision and could see that Maori were their own worst enemies, killing around 50,000 of each other in the Musket Wars. (add ref)

      Further:

      The Maori “lifestyle” included trading timber, flax, food. Trade requires peace to maximise profit. Maori could see that peace was desirable and the English were the best bet for providing this.
      Other impacts on their “lifestyle” were warring tribes, slavery, cannibalism, infanticide and utu.

      Tamati Waka Nene, chief of the Ngatihao Tribe, rose (during discussions at Waitangi in 1840) and said, “I shall speak first to us, to ourselves, Natives” (addressing them). “What do you say? The Governor to return? What, then, shall we do? Say here to me, O ye chiefs of the tribes of the northern part of New Zealand! what we, how we?” (Meaning, how, in such a case, are we henceforward to act?) “Is not the land already gone? is it not covered, all covered, with men, with strangers, foreigners—even as the grass and herbage–over whom we have no power? We, the chiefs and Natives of this land, are down low; they are up high, exalted. What, what do you say? The Governor to go back?

      I am sick, I am dead, killed by you. Had you spoken thus in the old time, when the traders and grog-sellers came–had you turned them away, then you could well say to the Governor, ‘Go back,’ and it would have been correct, straight; and I would also have said with you, ‘Go back;’–yes, we together as one; man, one voice. But now, as things are, no, no, no.” Turning to His Excellency, he resumed, “O Governor! sit. I, Tamati Waka, say to thee, sit. Do not thou go away from us; remain for us–a father, a judge, a peacemaker. Yes, it is good, it is straight. Sit thou here; dwell in our midst. Remain; do not go away. Do not thou listen to what [the chiefs of] Ngapuhi say. Stay thou, our friend, our father, our Governor.”

      16 True, but it neglects to mention that Henry Williams and his son (translators) were there helping with the discussions.

      Hobson reported 52 Chiefs out of 62 (83%) signed the Treaty. (from the Treaty of Waitangi by T.L.Buick pg 162)

      See full article here.

      17 True, but it neglects to mention that Henry Williams and his son (translators) were there helping with the discussions.

      Hobson reported 52 Chiefs out of 62 (83%) signed the Treaty. (from the Treaty of Waitangi by T.L.Buick pg 162)

      See full article here.

      18 540 Signatures were eventually gathered.

      19 540 Signatures were eventually gathered. Most of the Maori chiefs.

      20 Which version of the Treaty?

      Two Treaties – the Littlewood (drafted by Busby) and the James Freeman version.  There are only 2 differences between Littlewood draft and the Maori translation.

      Contradictions come from comparing the James Freeman version (used by the Waitangi Tribunal) to the Maori version.  The Littlewood treaty is an exact match, except for the date and the word ‘Maori’ is added to the Maori version.

      The Speeches of the Chiefs prove they knew that ceding sovereignty was the number one requirement of the Treaty.

      History backs this up. – 11 proofs that Maori ceded sovereignty.

      This is totally misleading.  Henry Williams said: “That the natives to whom I explained the treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt; …”

      21 The speeches of the chiefs and the Kohimarama Conference prove Maori knew they were ceding sovereignty,

      The idea that the governor only had power of British subjects is absolute rubbish.

      This is part of the revised history that is aimed at taking over New Zealand and perpetuating the gravy train of payment for Maori grievances.

      Maori understood the meaning was sovereignty (here are the proofs) that they knew sovereignty had been ceded).

      22 Correct – Becoming British citizens meant equality.

      The speeches of the Chiefs show that they knew that ceding sovereignty was the number one requirement of the Treaty.

      History backs this up. – the proofs that Maori ceded sovereignty

      23 Changed meanings:

      The Maori word “Taonga” used to mean “possessions gained by the spear”.

      Sir Hugh Kawharu reinterpreted Taonga to mean “Treasures”.  The original meaning would never have meant all of the items that are claimed today under “treasures”.

      The Treaty was to bring order to land transactions.  Once the land was sold the Chiefs had no claim to the land just as with modern day land transactions.

      24 Correct.  Maori would retain control over their land unless they sold it.

      Chiefs had power but everyone in New Zealand came under British Law – Article 3. 

      Chiefs iwi hapu could still preserve their culture but within the context the British system of Government.

      Land was sold, Maori lost control of sold land.

      25 Correct.

      This meant Maori had the same rights as other British subjects:

      • Property rights were protected by the Crown – Once land was sold it became the property of the purchaser.
      • The Crown was responsible for law and order.

      26 Wrong – Early records (e.g. Turton) show that pre 1840, more than 30% of New Zealand was willingly sold by Maori eager to buy European goods.

      The Treaty promised orderly laws around property ownership.

      Once Maori sold their land, they lost their rights – the same property laws as we have today.

      They weren’t “told” to sign the Treaty – they agreed to at Waitangi.

      27 Misleading – Maori were promised chieftanship would be protected within the context of ceding sovereignty to British rule.  Once property was sold and recorded it was no longer theirs (Maori) to rule over.

      Tino Rangatiratanga does not mean “absolute authority”. It means chieftanship/tribal structure. I.e. they had authority within their iwi/hapu but had surrendered sovereignty and were under British law along with all other New Zealanders.

      The British promised protection from others stealing their lands.

      They had absolute authority over things they owned – until they sold them.

      This meaning was revised in 1989 by Hugh Kawharu (Hugh asked David Lange if Hugh could give his interpretation of what Maori might have meant in 1840).

      28 Facts:

      • At least 30% of land was sold before 1840.  Maori were keen to sell their land in return for British/European goods/money.
      • The Government reselling land was a means of paying for the new colony.
      • Maori had been trading flax and kauri for decades.
      • There’s a subtle implication that settlers were responsible for all “progress” – trees cut/chimneys (Maori had fires before settlers).
      • Maori actually protested that the Government wasn’t buying land fast enough.

      See here for full article.

      Regarding the image above, Note the subliminal message.  A Maori looks at land cleared and the smoke coming out of the settler’s house. The settlers have decimated the environment.

      The truth:

      According to historian Michael Wright Maori wiped out 35 species of either birds or animals in New Zealand. (Michael Wright.  Illustrated History of New Zealand.  Bateman books. 2013. p.17).   

      At least half of the forests were destroyed by Maori. (Wright, page 15)  Why? How? They set the bush alight to flush out Moa. Michael Wright comments, “Some estimates suggest that up to half of the total food supply at this time was provided by Moa.” (page 15)

      It’s ironic that Maori activists today claim to have special knowledge about the environment and nature which would benefit all New Zealand.

      29 Facts

      • As above, at least 30% of the land was sold.
      • The Government resold land as a means of paying for the new colony.
      • Maori had been trading flax and kauri for decades.
      • There is a subtle implication that settlers were responsible for all “progress” – trees cut/chimneys (Maori had fires before settlers).
      • Maori actually protested that the Government wasn’t buying land fast enough.

       

      30 Missing important background information:

       

      • Warning after warning that the king movement was a rebellion and contravened the Treaty.
      • Maori were keen to sell land – angry with Government for not moving quickly enough on land sales.
      • Cheating over land was happening on both sides.
      • Maori started to say that the Government only had first right of purchase and they could sell if the government didn’t buy.
      • Background of Kohimarama Conference – Waikato king movement seen as rebellion.
      • Some Maori tribes joined in the fight against rebellious Maori tribes.

      31 Lands were confiscated as a result of some Maori breaking the Treaty. Much of these lands were returned by the Crown.

      Proof – Sir Apirana Ngata stated:

       “Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

      The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This it self is a Maori custom—revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

      32 See Sir Apirana Ngata’s commentary above.

      Excerpt: “The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled”

      War is hell, there are always tragic losses but we need to understand the cause of the war.

      Confiscations were a small percentage of NZ (Mike Butler).

      Much of the confiscated land was compensated (Justice Sim) 1927 t0 1960.

      Propaganda – Maori were keen to sell land (92%) (Mike Butler).

      33 This is vague.

      The implication is that Maori were the victims. 

      The truth is both sides were guilty of wrongdoing.

      Much of this arose because of rebellion.

      34 Did you know that full and final settlements were already done by the 1950s.

      1926-1950s – Justice Sim – Royal Commission for unlawful confiscations – all tribes reimbursed.

      See full article here.

      35 Totally misleading.

      • The Maori economy is worth 70 billion dollars (all tribes) – see here
      • Life expectancy was about 30 years – It’s now close to 70.
      • Justice Sim’s commission on land confiscation resulted in compensation.
      • Maori are treated well – Benefits of being Maori 
      • Maori culture is encouraged.
      • There are many Maori doing very well and others not doing well – just like other cultures.  It is not race that determines success or failure.

      36 Maori are hugely recognised in this country.

      Is the Waitangi Tribunal a Gravy Train for grievances?

      Are we being groomed for a takeover?

      Are we being lied to about the Treaty?

      Check here for examples of preferential treatment for Maori.

      37 See above – Government was listening a long time before the Waitangi Tribunal:

      Government ministers do not know their history.  Full and final settlements were supposedly reached with the Sim Commission.

      The comic says “It took a long time, but the government finally started listening to Maori. In 1975, it set up the Waitangi Tribunal.”

       The truth? The British have been ‘listening’ to Maori since 1831.   1831 is when 13 Ngapuhi Chiefs wrote to King William.  You can view the letter, and King Williams reply HERE

       Between 1831 and today, the government have been listening intently to Maori.  In fact, far too much so. 

       Right from 1840, the British tried to accommodate Maori.  For example, when Hobson set out for New Zealand in 1839, he was instructed by Lord Normanby to interact with Maori with “….mildness, justice and perfect sincerity.” Hobson was chosen by the British Parliament because “It is almost superfluous to say that, in selecting you [Hobson] for the discharge of this duty, I [Normanby, Colonial Secretary] have been guided by firm reliance on your uprightness and plain dealing.”  The Queen, in common with Her Majesty’s predecessor, disclaims for herself and Her subjects every pretension to seize on the Islands of New Zealand, or to govern them as a part of the Dominions of Great Britain unless the free intelligent consent of the natives, expressed according to their established usages, shall first be obtained.”

      In fact, so much attention was given to Maori by the British, that some British officials even complained that this was so.

       The first governor, Hobson, had died two years after taking office.  It was put down to stress.  The second governor, Fitzroy, committed suicide.

      What was causing all this stress?  There were many factors, but the main one, it was considered, was that the British had been too soft on Maori, bowing down to them and appeasing them.  

      Back then, in the early 1800s, Maori were using intimidation and bullying to manipulate British officials.

      As well, they started to realise that land was valuable so they were hiking up prices.  They had started to milk the system as far back as the early 1840s.  Professor Bain Attwood reports : “[Governor Fitzroy (1843-45) reported to the British government]…the exorbitant prices the natives were asking for their land.”[1]

      They began to disregard British law and authority, thus breaching the Treaty.  Sound familiar? (e.g. “Tweaking democracy”Maori wards” “The tyranny of the majority” “Taking revenge against Auckland City Councillors who voted ‘no’ to Maori wards” etc)

      Commenting on this problem, the former colonial secretary Lord John Russell (right)  said in 1843: “This is the consequence of want of firmness in not resisting unjust demands. Such conduct [being soft on Maori] appears humane and generous, and kind; 

      But really it is a weak yielding to intimidation and foolish concessions which lead to absurd demands.  Such is always the consequences, especially when you are dealing with savage tribes”.[2] 

      This is significant.  It’s the truth of history and we ought to learn from it.  Can you see how history is repeating itself?  

      Between 1840 and today, 2024, Maori have been relentless with their demands and complaining, and the government equally so with their accommodations and appeasing.  

      So is it true that the government have not been listening to Maori?  To suggest this is an eye watering lie.  The very opposite is true.

       

      [1] Bain Attwood.  Empire and the Making of Native Title. Sovereignty, Property, And Indigenous People. Cambridge University Press. 2022. p 252

       [2] Bain Attwood. Empire And The Making Of Native Title. Cambridge University Press. 2022. pp224-25 

      38 The Waitangi Tribunal is not a court.

      Any Maori can make a claim.

      All Maori legal and research costs are paid by the tax-payer.

      The other party is not allowed in to represent his side of the story (e.g. the farmer whose land is at risk). His legal costs are not paid by the tax-payer.

      39 The history of the Tribunal

      • The Waitangi Tribual is not a court – It investigates claims and makes recommendations. Currently all legal and research costs of claimants are paid for by the Govt / the tax-payer.  This means Maori can make a claim on any piece of land in NZ. If you want to contest a claim, you must pay all your own costs.
      • There is no forum in the Tribunal for opposing claims (from current land owners) to be heard.
      • Tribunal membership is loaded with activists.
      • Activist Maori are a network that are trying to take over the country.
      • 60 people are employed on big money.  We are paying for the takeover of our country.

      40 The Waitangi Tribunal is now a huge racket.

      • The Tribunal uses the James Freeman version of the treaty, revised by Sir Hugh Kawharu (who had conflict of interest)
      • All claimants expenses are paid for by government (taxes)
      • All research about claims is paid for by government (taxes)
      • Anyone who wants to dispute the claims must pay their own court/research costs (e.g. Alan Titford)
      • You can’t challenge the evidence given by researchers in the hearings – only one side is put to the tribunal and there is no accountability.
      • The “agreed account” is an agreement of all those on the same side.

      41 And yet there is so much opposition to taking a close look at the actual Treaty – Why?

      42 Could be many reasons.

      • A claim may be valid.
      • Many Maori are brought up in a culture of victimhood.
      • Tribal leaders get richer.

      Check these examples of preferential treatment to see why they are smiling in the picture.

      43 While there are elements of truth, it ignores several issues:

      • Payouts have been going on for 150 years.
      • Maori prison/poverty/suicide/child abuse statistics are still disproportionately high.
      • Money is not trickling down.
      • Many practical/tax advantages are available to Maori that are not available to others. See here.

       

      44 This review of the material is based on proveable fact, unlike many of the assertions/underlying messages of this document.

        This is about grooming, promoting deep sympathy for the activists’ cause based on a complete lack of balance.

        45 The fact is Maori ceded sovereignty at Waitangi in return for protection and progress (trading/goods and services/fair land deals).

        • Maori keep coming back for more “full and final settlements”.
        • The history of Maori breaking the Treaty is not told (see Sir Apirana Ngata).
        • There were “excessive confiscations”. The Sim Commission was set up and Maori were compensated. (That land was in the 8% that was not sold by Maori before 92%).
        • Discouraging the use of Te Reo was a policy that was supported by many of my Māori forebears and promoted by Māori leaders.” See Here.
        • Many say the incidences of being strapped for speaking Maori at school are exaggerated and caning was common for many actions.
        • You can’t change the past, but you can change yourself.

          Maori can still preserve their culture on the maraes but at a government level:

          • No man can serve two masters.
          • This is tribalism versus democracy. Chiefs versus “One law for all”.

          This is grooming, promoting deep sympathy for the activists’ cause based on a complete lack of balance.

          46 Twisting the Truth

          • Most Maori land was sold by Maori keen to aquire British goods.
          • The confiscated areas were 1 million out of  66 million acres.
          • Honouring the Treaty has been a feature of New Zealand history. (The Sim Commission, the Waitangi Tribunal).
          • Maori get special privileges.
          • Is this an underlying attempt to create guilt about the past?

           

          What is missing is the benefits of colonisation: law and order, technology, life expectancy increases, hospitals, improved health, roading, central organisation of resources, trade, government benefits – the list goes on and on.

          Also missing is the other side of the story – Maori-murdering-innocent-settlers.pdf

          47 The Treaty was all about equality.

          Many would say, based on what has been discussed above, that damages have been rectified.

          Maori were their own worst enemy during the Musket Wars. They invited the British here asking for help and protection.

          30% of Maori land was sold before 1840.

          Only 1.5% of New Zealand was confiscated land.

          Sir Apirana Ngata said the confiscations were justified.

          The Sim Commission returned much of the confiscations.

          Maori also dishonoured the Treaty – Maori-murdering-innocent-settlers.pdf

          We have had multiple “full and final settlements” but Maori want more. This proposes that the settlements should be ongoing. When will it end?

          Sovereignty was ceded to the British: See the proofs

          British citizenship was granted – we are equal. Maori are not special in terms of the law/benefits etc.

          48 The Treaty was all about equality.

          • Do you want a country where different outcomes are base on race or one where everyone is treated equally?
          • Do you want to go back to tribal blocs ruling New Zealand?
          • Name one thing that Maori can’t already take part in/access in New Zealand?

          The irony is that non-Maori have fewer rights than Maori.  For example:Maori get legal/research expenses for Waitangi Tribunal claims paid for by the taxpayer, cultural reports to reduce sentences, rates relief, priority hospital access, university places.

          “Publicly, the newly wealthy tribal corporations, with $10-billion belonging to trusts and post-settlement tribes, are lauded for contributing to the economy, but these entities pay little tax. Amendments to the Income Tax Act in 2003 meant that tribal trusts could function as charities. Treaty settlements are not taxed.

          Some concrete examples:

          Waikato-Tainui’s 2014 report says the Raupatu Land Trust had a net profit of $70.9-million, distributed $6.1-million, claimed a net worth of $783.7-million, and paid income tax of $342,000.

          Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu’s 2013 report listed a net operating surplus of $50.86 million, distributed $17.3 million, claimed a net worth of $877.26 million, and paid just $160,000 in tax.” Ref: https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/maori-only-privileges

          For a comprehensive list see here.

          Conclusion

          Numerous Maori object to the “special needs” status implied by the lingering paternalism shown in such special rights policies. However, special treatment appears in health, education, welfare, housing, prisons, government positions, seats on local councils, and seats in parliament. The question is why, after at least 175 years of co-existence, do we need a Waitangi Tribunal, a separate Maori department, and a myriad of race-based entitlements? Do these special needs policies foster dependence or independence?

          49 By trying to condense 150 years into comic form, much is left out.

          What about:

          – The Musket Wars, killing, slavery, cannibalism, infanticide.

          – The Christian influence on the British Parliament which changed the way (for the bettter) that colonisation was approached.

          – The wealth of historical proof that Maori ceded sovereignty:

          The Treaty

          What were the only ‘demands’ or ‘obligations’ of the British in the Treaty? HERE is final English draft of the Treaty, written by Busby, which was used to construct the Treaty in Maori.

          There are only four, and four only.

          1. Article 1: to establish a government. A democracy.
          2. Article 2: to protect the land, dwellings and property of all New Zealanders. In today’s language,  the British only ever intended Article 2 to agree to protect Maori house and contents.  That is to say, whatever land, dwellings, and contents Maori chiefs owned at 6 February 1840, the British agreed to protect.  They were effectively only saying to Maori, “We’ll stop other tribes and the French (the two big fears of Maori in 1840) from stealing your stuff.”  That is all.  Of course, the next big issue the British faced was arbitrating between Maori chiefs as to who owned what.  As you can imagine, disputes between chiefs were furious, especially now that money was involved.  The fact of the matter is that Maori went on to to sell 92% of their land, a fact conveniently never talked about today. HERE are the facts about the 92%. Maori activists today have twisted the narrative of Article 2 to mean that Maori were guaranteed ownership of all New Zealand forever! (tino rangatiratanga).  This is complete nonsense.  It’s BS to the highest degree.
          3. The British also agreed to buy land from Maori, which they did.
          4. Article 3: to grant Maori British citizenship. Which was granted. We all became equal citizens.

          Conclusion:

          This document does not present the facts accurately.

          It has a bias towards the current activist narrative.

          It should not be used in schools as it qualifies as propaganda.