He Puapua is a report which was commissioned in 2019 by Te Puni Kokiri (the Ministry of Maori Development) to guide the Government application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This divisive and highly controversial report, which proposes a comprehensive change to New Zealand governance, was kept secret until 2021. This is an excerpt from “He Puapua, Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand”, John Robinson 2021, published by Tross Publishing.

Prime Minister, when you announced last week that the country would move into a period of unprecedented “self-isolation”, you made it clear that enforcement of these measures would be provided by police officers and the military, Hobson’s Pledge spokesman Don Brash wrote today. 

The first four core beliefs set out on our Homepage of this website are to do with the Treaty of Waitangi. Our beliefs are that:

1. All New Zealanders should have the same rights, irrespective of when they or their ancestors arrived in New Zealand.
2. The Treaty of Waitangi is not in any meaningful sense New Zealand’s constitution.
3. The Treaty did, however, establish three important points, namely that: a. in signing the treaty, chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Crown; b. that in turn the Crown would protect the property rights of all New Zealanders; and c. that “tangata maori” would enjoy the rights and privileges of British subjects.
4. The Treaty of Waitangi did not create a “partnership” between Maori and the Crown.

This article gives a brief background to clarify the complicated issues surrounding the Treaty of Waitangi. We reproduce its three key texts, and show that all the Treaty actually says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including the right to possess property.

A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the nine copies of the Treaty at 34 locations around New Zealand between 6 February and 17 June 1840. The documents signed were written in the Maori language.

At the time, New Zealand was still part of New South Wales. It wasn’t until November 16, 1840, when the Letters Patent (commonly known as the Charter of 1840) was signed by the Queen, that New Zealand became an independent British colony.

The only signing at which an English text was incorporated was at Waikato Heads mission station on 11 April 1840. Five chiefs signed an A4-sized printed Maori text which was attached to an English text written on a large sheet of paper, and this large sheet was signed by a further 39 chiefs.

The larger piece of paper that had a Treaty text in English on it with a wobbly signature by Governor William Hobson, appears to have been used solely to collect the 39 chiefly signatures. These two texts were separated at some time and the English text was taken to be the official English text.

Problems associated with understanding the Treaty are 1. Differences between the official English text and Te Tiriti, and 2. The translation of the words “sovereignty” and “ownership”.

1. Differences between the official English text and Te Tiriti, involving the inclusion in article 2 of the untranslatable word “pre-emption” as well as the words “lands and estates forests fisheries”, indicate that Te Tiriti was not translated from the official English text. These differences also mean that the official English text was not translated from Te Tiriti. This means there is an original draft in English that is not being used by the treaty industry, for whatever reason.
2. The Treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. The word “sovereignty” in article 1 of the original Treaty draft was translated into “kawanatanga” in Te Tiriti, and the word “ownership” in article 2 was translated as “rangatiratanga”.

At 568 words, the official English text is much wordier than the 480-word Te Tiriti. The differences between the two texts led scholars to conclude that the final draft of the treaty in English had gone missing.

The apparent differences between the English and Maori texts and the use of the words “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga” remained uncontroversial until 1983, when the Waitangi Tribunal looked into claims by Te Atiawa about the discharge of untreated sewage at Motunui in Taranaki. The Motunui report rediscovered the Maori language text of the Treaty.

A new back-translation of Te Tiriti by Waitangi Tribunal member and Ngati Whatua claimant Sir Hugh Kawharu redefined “kawanatanga” as “government” and “rangatiratanga” as “chiefly authority”

This created a Treaty that claimants say gave the Governor limited authority to govern British settlers only while chiefs could carry on being chiefs, retaining the right to govern themselves.

A further development occurred in 1989 with the discovery by the Littlewood family of a handwritten 386-word document in an envelope marked “Treaty of Waitangi”. Analysis confirmed that:

1. The paper was manufactured prior to the treaty signing, having a W. Tucker 1833 watermark on it.
2. The handwriting was confirmed by National Archives treaty researcher Dr Phil Parkinson in 2000 as being that of British Resident James Busby.
3. In an official appraisal in 2006, historian Donald Loveridge said that the Littlewood text was either a back translation of the Maori text of the treaty or it was a copy of the missing final draft.[1]

There is just one word that differentiates the Busby February 4 1840 Littlewood text from Te Tiriti and that is the inclusion of the word “maori” yes, lower case “m”, in article 3 to clarify that the ordinary people of New Zealand would be protected by the Queen and be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.

In 1840, the word “maori” meant “ordinary”. It was only after 1850 did “Maori” refer to a distinctive group of people.

It is helpful to publish the English and Maori texts in sequence for comparison, starting with the Busby February 4, 1840, draft, followed by Te Tiriti and the so-called “official English text”, both of which are appended to legislation.

Busby’s 4 February 1840 draft (the Littlewood treaty)

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovreignty [sic] of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to Her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.-

Article first

The chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovreignty [sic] of their country.

Article second

The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

Article third

In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

Signed, William Hobson

Consul and Lieut. Governor.

Now we the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes of New Zealand assembled at Waitangi, and we the other tribes of New Zealand, having understood the meaning of these articles, accept them and agree to them all. In witness whereof our names or marks are affixed. Done at Waitangi on the 4th of February, 1840.

Te Tiriti o Waitangi Maori language translation

KO WIKITORIA te Kuini o Ingarani i tana mahara atawai ki nga Rangatira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani i tana hiahia hoki kia tohungia ki a ratou o ratou rangatiratanga me to ratou wenua, a kia mau tonu hoki te Rongo ki a ratou me te Atanoho hoki kua wakaaro ia he mea tika kia tukua mai tetahi Rangatira – hei kai wakarite ki nga Tangata maori o Nu Tirani – kia wakaaetia e nga Rangatira maori te Kawanatanga o te Kuini ki nga wahikatoa o te wenua nei me nga motu – na te mea hoki he tokomaha ke nga tangata o tona Iwi Kua noho ki tenei wenua, a e haere mai nei.

Na ko te Kuini e hiahia ana kia wakaritea te Kawanatanga kia kaua ai nga kino e puta mai ki te tangata Maori ki te Pakeha e noho ture kore ana. Na kua pai te Kuini kia tukua a hau a Wiremu Hopihona he Kapitana i te Roiara Nawi hei Kawana mo nga wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei amua atu ki te Kuini, e mea atu ana ia ki nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani me era Rangatira atu enei ture ka korerotia nei.

Ko te tuatahi

Ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa hoki ki hai i uru ki taua wakaminenga ka tuku rawa atu ki te Kuini o Ingarani ake tonu atu – te Kawanatanga katoa o o ratou wenua.

Ko te tuarua

Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

Ko te tuatoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

(signed) William Hobson, Consul and Lieutenant-Governor.

Na ko matou ko nga Rangatira o te Wakaminenga o nga hapu o Nu Tirani ka huihui nei ki Waitangi ko matou hoki ko nga Rangatira o Nu Tirani ka kite nei i te ritenga o enei kupu, ka tangohia ka wakaaetia katoatia e matou, koia ka tohungia ai o matou ingoa o matou tohu.

Ka meatia tenei ki Waitangi i te ono o nga ra o Pepueri i te tau kotahi mano, e waru rau e wa te kau o to tatou Ariki.

The single variation between the Littlewood and Maori texts is the addition of the word “maori” in article 3, to clarify that the ordinary people of New Zealand, not just the chiefs, would be protected and be granted the rights and privileges of British subjects.

The “official” English text

Preamble

HER MAJESTY VICTORIA Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland regarding with Her Royal Favour the Native Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and anxious to protect their just Rights and Property and to secure to them the enjoyment of Peace and Good Order has deemed it necessary in consequence of the great number of Her Majesty’s Subjects who have already settled in New Zealand and the rapid extension of Emigration both from Europe and Australia which is still in progress to constitute and appoint a functionary properly authorized to treat with the Aborigines of New Zealand for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands – Her Majesty therefore being desirous to establish a settled form of Civil Government with a view to avert the evil consequences which must result from the absence of the necessary Laws and Institutions alike to the native population and to Her subjects has been graciously pleased to empower and to authorize me William Hobson a Captain in Her Majesty’s Royal Navy Consul and Lieutenant Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may be or hereafter shall be ceded to her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

Article the First

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation or Individual Chiefs respectively exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereigns thereof.

Article the Second

Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession; but the Chiefs of the United Tribes and the individual Chiefs yield to Her Majesty the exclusive right of Pre-emption over such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to alienate at such prices as may be agreed upon between the respective Proprietors and persons appointed by Her Majesty to treat with them in that behalf.

Article the Third

In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

W HOBSON

Lieutenant Governor.

Now therefore We the Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand being assembled in Congress at Victoria in Waitangi and We the Separate and Independent Chiefs of New Zealand claiming authority over the Tribes and Territories which are specified after our respective names, having been made fully to understand the Provisions of the foregoing Treaty, accept and enter into the same in the full spirit and meaning thereof: in witness of which we have attached our signatures or marks at the places and the dates respectively specified.

Done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February in the year of Our Lord One thousand eight hundred and forty.

Governor Hobson’s secretary James Stuart Freeman sent this version to the New South Wales Governor Sir George Gipps on 8 February, and sent a further “certified copy” composite version, with three printed Maori copies, to Gipps on 21 February.

Sharp-eyed readers will note that, strictly speaking, the official English text was not “done at Waitangi this Sixth day of February”, as the postscript reads, because the only treaty signed that day was the Maori text.

Great Britain’s vast empire in the 19^th century brought contact with “natives” in numerous regions around the world. Enlightened attitudes in London on the rights of such inhabitants led to the practice of arranging treaties of cession rather than simply taking over the country by force.

The Treaty of Waitangi in New Zealand resulted from a number of drafts in which a standard treaty format was adapted to suit the New Zealand situation.

The high-sounding “official English text” taken from the first schedule to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 resembles the rough draft notes of Busby’s rejected 3 February draft, which omitted a reference in Article 2 to “all the people of New Zealand”.

Because the Treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori, the meaning and intent of the Treaty is clearly apparent in the English source document.

This means that there is no need for the Waitangi Tribunal to interpret the treaty for us.

The treaty agreement is simple. Through article 1, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the British Queen. Article 2 guaranteed to the chiefs, tribes and people of New Zealand that they owned what they owned and could sell what they owned to an agent of the Queen if they so wished. Article 3 confirmed that the ordinary people of New Zealand would be protected and would gain the rights of British subjects.

The scope of the Treaty is too narrow to be regarded as New Zealand’s constitution. A constitution is a body of established precedents according to which a state is acknowledged to be governed. The Treaty only concerns the cession of sovereignty and confirmation of the rights, as British subjects in the 19^th century, which includes the right to possess property

And finally, the Treaty has no mention of any partnership between “Maori” and “the Crown”. None of the three texts has anything that could be construed to mean “partnership”.

Hobson’s Pledge says that wherever it can be reasonably established that the Crown unlawfully confiscated property from any individual or group, compensation should be paid, provided however that any such compensation should be “full and final”. 

However, of the 79 settlements detailed below, which totalled $4.3-billion to December 31, 2019, fewer than half involve land confiscation which only occurred in Taranaki, Waikato, the Bay of Plenty, and some areas in Gisborne and northern Hawke’s Bay.

Treaty breaches alleged by the remaining claimant groups are mainly to do with the sale of land, with claimants wanting more money. Confiscation claimants also complained about land sales in their areas.

Although confiscations were highly contentious at the time, with substantial opposition in Parliament, they were nevertheless legally carried out under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.

Those of us living in the relative peace and security of the 21^st century often overlook the fact that 19^th century settlers were fighting a war they could not afford to lose and the threat of land confiscation had a real impact on which side tribes chose to support.

Another overlooked fact is that the total financial amount involved in each settlement, referred to as the “quantum”, is calculated by following a simple formula which is mainly to do with the land area the tribe claimed to own in 1840 and the number of tribe members today. (1)

Under that formula, the tribe that claimed the biggest land area in 1840 and the most registered members today would expect to get the biggest pay-out. Another assumption is that every claimant group should expect a pay-out.

The divisive process of Treaty settlements began more than 30 years ago, when a Labour Government made the highly unusual decision to commission a seven-member tribunal to settle all Maori grievances back to February 6, 1840, the date the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

Maori Affairs Minister Koro Wetere said this was to address “the mounting tension in the community that springs from the sense of injustice that is harboured about the grievances that are outstanding”. (2)

The first small settlement, at Waitomo, involving a $1 million loan, was achieved in 1990, followed by a commercial fisheries settlement worth $170 million in 1992. The first big land confiscation settlement, with Waikato-Tainui, also worth $170 million, was agreed in 1995.

There was a row over how much this was going to cost. The Bolger National Government proposed a cap of $1 billion, calling it a “fiscal envelope”. Tribes objected and the cap was dropped in 1996.

Nevertheless, the two big tribes that had settled early negotiated into their settlements a clause that entitled them to a proportion of all settlements over $1 billion in 1992 dollars.

Waikato-Tainui would get 17 percent of all future treaty settlements and Ngai Tahu 16.1 percent. Top-ups started in June of 2012, when the $1 billion mark (in 1994 dollars) was reached.

The amounts of these ongoing top-ups are not reported by the Government, although they can be found in the annual financial reports of both tribes. The total amount of these top-ups, as detailed in the table below, is $543.8 million, which is substantially more than both tribes received in their 1990s settlements.

The process is explained in detail in the “red book” titled Healing the past, building a future, which is published by the Office of Treaty Settlements. (3)

Of course, the promise of cash brought a flood of grievances. A total of 2034 claims were registered by September 1, 2008, the deadline for historical claims. This compared with just nine grievances a delegation of chiefs took to Queen Victoria in 1882.

Investigation of grievances has a long history with investigations by land sale commissioners in the 1840s, confiscation compensation commissions in the 1860s, the Native Land Commission in 1920, and others.

A further commission chaired by Supreme Court Judge William Sim in 1926 led to a series of settlements – including the Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1944, the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944, the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, and more.

A number of claims have been settled a number of times. For instance, Ngai Tahu’s $170 million settlement in 1998 was the fifth settlement originally generated by a single complaint to do with the tribe’s sale of 20 million acres in 1848, known as the Kemp purchase. The complaint was about reserves not being marked out.

Both the Treaty settlement policy and process ignore basic assumptions we have about our democratic system.

Democracy is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and participate in making important decisions.

At no stage has the New Zealand public been given any say in the increasingly expensive policy of paying cash compensation for events that occurred up to 178 years ago.

The Treaty settlement process circumvents our democratic processes. Once a settlement is signed, the agreement becomes legally binding and legislation to implement the settlement is merely a rubber-stamping exercise.

Groups created through the settlement process, which are known as post settlement governance entities, benefit from the system without being required to contribute.

Amendments to the Charities Act meant that from April 1, 2003, any organisation that administers a marae situated on a Maori reservation may qualify for an income tax exemption as a charity. These tax-exempt tribal entities don’t contribute to the government coffers that provided their seed capital.

The 30-year Treaty settlement process has created a network of wealthy claimant groups with substantial political power.

These groups have regular meetings with the Prime Minister, have been granted co-governance rights on a number of councils, are demanding the right to control water, and expect to help determine resource consents under the proposed iwi clauses in the Resource Management Act.

Settlement deals include rights of first refusal to surplus Crown properties (for up to 176 years), statutory acknowledgements of interest in streams, rivers, lakes, mountains, and scenic areas, geographic place name changes, and co-governance arrangements with local bodies. These arrangements entrench race-based co-governance for years to come.

The financial redress of the 79 settlements detailed below were compiled from details on the Office of Treaty Settlements website and include claimant group, date of settlement, and dollar value to December 31, 2019.

That website publishes a quarterly report that lists all settlements to date without publishing the financial redress of each settlement. That conceals the total amount paid in financial redress.

Each settlement includes financial redress (cash and/or property), rights of first refusal on the purchase of properties within the claim area, cultural redress, and co-governance arrangements. 

* The relativity clauses in the settlements of both Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu transform, for those two tribes, an additional settlement of historical grievances to a gift that keeps on giving. The clauses mean that both tribes can make a request for payment every five years ensure that the value of their settlement remains relative to the total value of all Treaty settlements – which is 17 percent for Waikato-Tainui and 16.1 percent for Ngai Tahu. Bear in mind that conflicting information exists about these payments.

* Taranaki tribe Ngati Tama announced in 2012 that it lost its entire $14.5-million settlement received in 2003 blaming poor investments

*Central North Island Forests Iwi Collective also received $223-million in forest rentals held in trust since 1989. That is not included in the financial redress total because it was regarded as tribal money from 1989.

* By mid-2013, bad investments and bailouts were blamed for wiping out almost half the value off Taupo tribe Tuwharetoa’s $66-million share of the 2008 “Treelord’s” settlement.

*Waikato River. The Office of Treaty Settlements argues that this is not historical redress and so should not be included in the settlement total. This is despite the fact that the settlement is named the “Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement where “raupatu” means “confiscation”. The $211.8-million total includes all payments for 27 years. A total of $130.8-million was paid up front.

*Ngati Manawa also received $12.2-million worth of Central North Island forestland included in the Central North Island deal.

Sources

1. Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, December 18, 1984. Hansard

2.Healing the past, building a future. https://www.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Red-Book-Healing-the-past-building-a-future.pdf

1. Letter, Office of Treaty Settlements to He Toa Takitini, September 5, 2013. http://www.hetoatakitini.iwi.nz/uploads///Quantum_factors_for_He_Toa_Takitini_Letter-_5_September_2013.pdf

Indoctrination is the process of instilling ideas and attitudes by persistent instruction. The New Zealand government systematically fosters politically correct ideas and attitudes on the Treaty of Waitangi, our history, and the position of Maori people in society.
Once upon a time, New Zealand culture was heavily dominated by British culture and traditions.  Older New Zealanders would remember going to the movies and being required to stand for a rendition of the British national anthem ‘God Save the Queen’, singing Anglican hymns and reading the Bible at school prize-givings, and listening to a speech by some dignitary on the opening of anything official.
All that has changed.  Now, the use of Maori-culture welcoming ceremonies and choreographed war dances at official functions, school prize-givings, graduations, at the opening of government buildings, and at funerals, has created a Maori-cultural frame for day-to-day existence.
Official occasions in New Zealand in the 1950s appeared exclusively British. Today, despite the fact that we are now a multi-ethnic multi-cultural society, they appear Maori.
New Zealand government departments take politically correct thought very seriously.  In this policy area, those expressing ideas counter to the official narrative are condemned or shamed with accusations of racism.
Nurses must be trained in “cultural safety”. This home-grown concept emerged here in the late 1980s as a framework for the delivery of “more appropriate” health services for Maori people.
Culturally safe practices, according to the Nursing Council of New Zealand, include actions “which recognize and respect the cultural identities of others, and safely meet their needs, expectations and rights”. Such behaviour is contrasted with culturally unsafe practices which are “those that diminish, demean or disempower the cultural identity and well-being of an individual”. (1)
An early casualty of cultural safety in the 1990s was student Anna Penn, who said she had been “bounced out” of her nursing course for being branded culturally unsafe by the polytechnic’s Maori elder (kaumatua) after she questioned the denial of her right as a woman to speak on a marae.
Penn completed her training in Australia but has since returned to work in New Zealand.
There is a version of cultural safety for student teachers. At the application interview, prospective students must state their relationship with the Treaty of Waitangi and affirm loyalty to treaty principles.
During induction, Maori songs are learned and sung, Maori ceremonial greetings (mihis) are learned, and a trip to a Maori meeting house (marae) is customary.
Treaty principles form the moral code of the New Zealand curriculum. Woe betide any student who points out that the word “partnership” does not appear in the treaty.
The NZ Graduating Teacher standards say that “graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand – no recognition of the fact that New Zealand is no longer a bicultural country, but rather one where many cultures mingle. (2)
Every teacher has his or her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.

In universities too, getting approval to undertake a new research project often requires the researcher to show how the research relates to the Treaty, and would benefit Maori.

Most people won’t say a word against treaty orthodoxy for fear of being called racist. Such name calling is merely a bid to shut down debate and public scrutiny.

Sources
1. Nursing Council of New Zealand 2002, p.9
2. Preparing the parrots