HOW TINO RANGATIRATANGA IS BEING MISINTERPRETED TO CREATE RACISM, APARTHEID, AND OPEN THE DOOR TO TREATY FRAUD AND CORRUPTION Recently, I had an email exchange with a lady called Sue. She was making a comment on a blog post on another web site www.bassettbrashandhide.com SUE As Julian Batchelor says in his blog yesterday, National’s majority win in the election “is infinitely better than Labour, the Greens, and the Maori Party returning.” National aren’t renaming co-governance as partnership. National has simply ignored any reference to cogovernance or co-management in their policies. The tangible example of co-governance, 3 waters, is to be repealed and Co-governance can be consigned to the history blogs. Done and dusted! JULIAN No Sue, you are not correct about this. National is going to keep co-governance going with respect to the management of natural resources. They are calling it “co-management” to try and fly under the radar. The reason it’s wrong? If the government wants to co-manage natural resources with private enterprise, they should use a tender process to allow all the 160 cultures living here to have a go at winning the tender. This is called equal opportunity. It’s what democracy is all about. Why should one cultural group be given priority, to the exclusion of all others? This is apartheid, and racist, and a breach of the Treaty which guaranteed equality for all. (Article 3) SUE A tender process allowing all 160 cultures a go at winning? I think you misunderstand that co management of natural resources is not granted on race or ethnicity or to a cultural group, but it is granted on the basis of a treaty to the only party to sign the treaty with the Crown i.e. Māori. The treaty guaranteed ‘te tino rangatiratanga’ over their lands, villages and taonga. Similarly in the English version of the treaty Māori are granted full, exclusive and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates forests fisheries and other properties. This is not racism but abiding by an agreement, can you not see that? If there were no Treaty or 160 other cultures had signed it too, then yes, it would be unfair, but by allowing co management of resources with their treaty partner, the Crown is honouring the words of the Treaty, and that my friend is one example of equality. JULIAN ‘Tino RANGATIRATANGA’ does not mean what you say it means. There are some things you seem not to be aware of. Let me explain. Cook landed in New Zealand 1769, and he claimed it for the British. This was entirely legal through what’s known as ‘discovery’. It did not matter that Maori were already here. It was international law at the time that colonising countries could do this. Fast forward to the 1830’s. In the 1830’s in Britain, Christian missionary lobby groups were powerful and influencial. They lobbied the House of Commons to protect Maori and their land. They argued that Britian could not simply come to New Zealnad and claim the land as their own. They wanted the House of Commons to acknowledge, that New Zealand was a sovereign country and that Maori owned the land. 1
What they also insisted upon, and this is crucially important, is that to colonise New Zealand, invited by Maori to do so, to save Maori tribes from self annhilation, and to save them from the French who wanted to claim New Zealand as theirs, taking it by force, and for Britain to make New Zealand a British Colony, and establish a government, democracy, to bring law and order, the chiefs would have to cede sovereignty. Obtaining sovereignty was Britains bottom line. After sovereignty was obtained, and it was obtained emphatically and without doubt at Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840, the British planned to buy land from Maori, to on sell it to settlers, or retain it for use by the government in the development of the nation. This is what Article two of the Treaty was about, no more, no less. Here is article 2 of the Treaty. ------------Article two: “The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession (tino rangatiratanga) of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the 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.” --------------------The word ‘possession’ was translated by Williams (below) into Maori ‘tino rangatiratanga’. I have an actual 1840 Henry Williams Dictionary of Maori words. Rangatiratanga means ‘evidence of breeding and greatness’. (right) That’s Henry on the left. What were the Treaty writers trying to achieve by using tino rangatiratanga? First, they were saying to Maori chiefs “you will still own your land. We are not taking this away from you.” The fact is, Maori were keen to sell land in exchange for British goods. But it was much more than this. To fully understand what the Treaty writers were intending, we have to have knowledge of Maori society prior to 1840. Maori knew that only a person of greatness and breeding in a tribe could ‘own’ anything. And who was the only person in a tribe who fitted this description? Correct. A chief. He (occasionally a she) was the only person with “breeding and greatness”. So the Treaty writers carefully chose this phrase tino rangatiratanga to convey the idea to all Maori that the British would view them, before the law, as “people of greatness and breeding.” i.e. like a chief. And what’s the significance of that? Ordinary Maori, all those other than a chief, would have clicked. “We can now be like a chief and own land, dwellings and property.” That is to say, if the chiefs decided to sell land to the British, which they did, Maori who were not chiefs could then buy it from the British. 2
For all Maori who were not a chief, this would have a Lotto win. Prior to the Treaty, all Maori other than a chief were viewed by the chief as sub human, people worth nothing, having nothing, expecting nothing, other than to be used by the chief as instruments of war or labour or a source of food. Life expectancy was in the 20’s. For the chiefs, relinquishing their right to be the sole owner of people and property was no small sacrifice. Instead of hoarding land, dwellings and property for themselves, as sole owners of everything, they were having to release all Maori to own the same.
Essentially, by signing the Treaty, the chiefs were opening the door of the cage, setting their own people free to own land, dwellings, and property. What motivated them to make this sacrifice? Definitely not altruism. No. They wanted all the things the British were offering (e.g. Protection from the French, British citizenship, British Government, British law and order, especially British goods and prosperity etc) more than they were wanting to hoard land, dwellings and property and Lord it over their people. This interpretation of tino rangatiratanga is entirely consistent with Article 3 where all Maori were given British citizenship. That is to say, if you were a British citizen, as Maori were made to be, you had equal status with all other British citizens, including chiefs, with respect to land, dwellings, and property. This interpretation is also entirely consistent with Article one where Maori ceded sovereignty ‘entirely and forever’ to the Crown. Here is Article 1. Article One: “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.” What does this mean? It meant that all Maori, including chiefs, would come under (i.e submit to) the British democratic system of property ownership and government. What was that system? The British democratic system meant one law for all, and equal status for all citizens. That is to say, all the citizens of New Zealand would be treated equally. This is what ‘ceding sovereignty’ meant, and this is what the chiefs who signed the Treaty understood it meant on February 6th, 1840. If they were to be treated equally, then it was necessary that they must all have equal rights with respect to land, dwellings, and property. Herein lies the downfall of Hugh Kawharu’s (right) interpretation of Tino 3
Rangatiratanga. In 1989 Hugh Kawharu was invited by the government of the day to “attempt to reconstruct the literal translation of the Treaty.” In other words, say what he thought the chiefs ‘might have been thinking’ when they signed the Treaty on February 6th, 1840. Kawharu’s interpretation has been the basis of tremendous fraud and corruption since 1989. He said tino rangatiratanga meant ‘unqualified exercise of chieftainship’. In other words, the chiefs did not give up their chieftainship, but remained chiefs over New Zealand.1 That is to say, they did not cede sovereignty. This also meant that the chiefs were not equal with all other Maori. They were superior. What is the problem with this? It ought to be obvious. One can’t cede sovereignty in Article one, then take it all back in Article two. One can’t have equality in Article 3, and inequality in Article 2. This would make the treaty a nonsense. Why? Because, according to law, Treaties, like all legal documents, can’t contain contradictions. Lawyer and KC Garry Judd (left) says “In law, there is what is called ‘a contradiction principle’. It’s saying one thing, and at the same time saying another. It’s speaking out of both sides of ones mouth. In law, contradictions are impossible. So the Treaty could not contain a contradiction, or it would be a nonsense and therefore to be completely disregarded.”2 or not?
So how can one tell if an interpretation of a word in the treaty, any word, is correct
Singularly, the interpretation, whatever it is, cannot create a contradiction. If it does, that interpretation must be discarded. Kawharu’s interpretation of ‘tino rangatiratanga’ creates glaring contradictions so it must be discarded. No no. The chiefs relinquished their chieftainship at Waitangi on February 6th, 1840. 3 One can’t be made an equal citizen (i.e. A British citizen) in one breath and then be treated differently having superior rights to all other citizens in another.
1 It needs to be noted here that chiefs could still be chiefs in the ceremonial sense. There would still be Chiefs, Iwi, and Hapu, and tribal organisational structure. Being British did not change this. The big change was the all Maori were now equal before the law. The pre-Treaty class structure of Maori society, where the chief was top dog, and everyone else a nothing, legally speaking, was abolished. With the Treaty, all Maori, before the law, were equal. 2 https://www.stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/The-Treaty-does-not-trump-democracy-ifit-did-it-would-be-self-contradictory-and-meaningless.pdf 3 This did not mean that chiefs would be stripped of their role as chiefs in a tribe. Maori could still have their chiefs, tribes, Iwi, and hapu. But what they could not have is chiefs being superior before the law compared with other Maori. No. All Maori, chief or non chief, before the law, were made equal through the Treaty. 4
Sue, your interpretation of ‘te tino RANGATIRATANGA’ is a modern day invention, given to you by a con man, Hugh Kawharu. His ideas have been fed to you via the media and activists. When he wrote his interpretation of the Treaty, he was at the time a Tribunal member, a claimant, and a Maori. The conflicts of interest were glaring and it should never have been allowed to happen.
Post script (put as simply as possible)
What you have to realise is that when the British arrived here, New Zealand was a mess in every respect. Tribes fighting, cannibalism, infanticide, slavery, war, plunder, rape, murder, settlers fighting, lawlessness was everywhere. There are no peace and no government. Chaos reigned. The first thing the British needed to do was get permission from the chiefs to get complete control of the country i.e. Cede sovereignty. The British knew well, from other colonisation exploits, that you can’t have two cooks in the kitchen. It was either settlers in control, or Maori in control, or the British government in control. Only one of the three could be in control. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty about co-governance or partnership or Maori chiefs maintaining their chieftainship or 50/50 power sharing. Talk of this is pure spin, lies. In the minds of the British it was either get complete control (i.e. sovereignty), or move out. Lord Normanby had made this clear in his instructions to Hobson. Well, what happened? Answer? The British got control. Maori ceded sovereignty in Article one. Next, they had to sort out who owned what. As I have said, the British government had made it clear that they considered that Maori owned all of New Zealand i.e. land, dwellings, and property. Eveything, other than that which had beeen sold to settlers prior to February 6th, 1840. Herein lay a great challenge for the British. With tribes continually stealing each others land and possessions, taking slaves from each other, eating each other - the problem was sorting out who owned what was enormous. Land ‘ownership’ was continually shifting and moving. So the British said “OK, on February 6th, 1840, the brakes go on. Whoever owns what at that moment in time is what they own. No more stealing and plundering and raping and pillaging. Whatever you own / possess as at the 6th of February 1840, we’ll protect so that no one can steal it from you. In 5
the months / years following the signing, we’ll send in surveyors to survey off who owns what land and make it all official. Then you can legally buy and sell land, through the Crown, and titles will be issued. We have to get ‘order’ with respect to the buying and selling of land. Oh, and one more thing. We’ve heard that settlers have been doing lots of deals with Maori to buy land on the cheap, and Maori too have been ripping off settlers by selling the same piece of land to 2, 3, or 4 buyers at the same time, so let’s stop all that too. To protect Maori, and settlers, we’ll make a law that only the crown can buy land from Maori. This will protect them from unscrupulous settlers and protect settlers from unscrupulous Maori.” This was all achieved in Article two. Next, the British said “None of this is going to work unless we make New Zealand a democracy, the same as we’ve had in Britain. We’ve trialled democracy in Great Britain and it works. This is the only way to get peace, order, and prosperity. So, to do that, we have to make everyone British citizens. In this way, all people will be equal before the law. This also means that they would have to obey the law handed down to them by the British. In this way, all citizens of New Zealand will all have the same rights and responsibilities. In New Zealand, it will be one law for all, and one democratic government for all. Above all, Maori will get what they REALLY wanted which was the protection of the might of Britain. We have the testimony of Rev. Samuel Warren writing in 1863: “I was present at the great meeting at Waitangi when the celebrated treaty was signed, and also at a meeting which took place subsequently on the same subject at Hokianga. There was a great deal of talk by the natives, principally on the subject of securing their proprietary right to the land, and their personal liberty. Everything else they were only too happy to yield to the Queen, as they said repeatedly, because they knew they could only be saved from the rule of other nations by sitting under the shadow of the Queen of England. In my hearing they frequently remarked, ‘Let us be one people. We had the gospel from England, let us have the law from England. My impression at the time was that the natives perfectly understood that, by signing the treaty, they became British subjects, and though I lived amongst them more than fifteen years after the event, and often conversed with them on the subject, I never saw the slightest reason to change my opinion. The natives were at the time in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when they placed the British lion between themselves and the French eagle.”4 This was all achieved in Article three.
Article three: “In return for the cession of their sovereignty 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.” There was never an idea of two governments, Maori and the rest, one rule for one group and one for another. There was never an idea of Maori being ‘partners’ with the British. Remember, you can only have one cook in the kitchen. There would never be one group having special rights which others did not have. 4 Twisting the Treaty. Tross Publishing, p48. 6
To do this would have been the absolute opposite of democracy, a ridiculous idea to the British. The British would never have been successful in bringing order, government, and peace to New Zealand had there been a dual government. The idea of the British setting up a dual government arrangement is a modern day nonsense, simply made up by activists to suit their fraudulent deceitful purposes. It was not what the Treaty was about. What’s really interesting is that by 1900 Maori had sold 97% of New Zealand. So what are we doing paying Maori compensation for land which they had sold? It’s just fraud and corruption. I am certain we’d all like to be paid 2-3 times for old land sales. Author and Treaty commentator Mike Butler (left) writes: “During the 19th century, most land in New Zealand was sold by its Maori owners to the government. Maori sovereignty radicals say it was “stolen” but, apart from 1.6 million acres that were confiscated after the 1860s conflicts, and the land that remains in Maori customary title, nearly 66 million acres (the entire land area of New Zealand) was actually sold. Claims about land sales before 1840, about sales between 1840 and 1865, and sales through the Native Land Court, amount to claims for more money for those old sales.” For references, Click HERE and HERE And what about so called ‘land confiscations’? Sir Apirana Ngata (right) writes: “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. 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” 5
-------------------------Sue, I need to point out to you that you are using the wrong version of the Treaty too. Te Tiriti, the Treaty in Maori, makes no mention of forests and fisheries. Why? There was no need. First, Maori had absolutley no concept of the fisheries belonging to anyone. The belonged to eveyone. So what about forests? Again, Maori had no concept of ‘forests’ belonging to any Maori. They belonged to every Maori. What they wanted ownership of, and what the British promised to protect, was the land around their pa sites which they were cultivating to produce food. Te Tiriti was a translation of the final English draft, called the Littlewood draft. Sue, you also mention the word Taonga. This word means “property acquired by the spear” not treasures, as Hugh Kawharu said. 5 Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty Of Waitangi. An Explanation. pp 15-16 7
I hope all this is helpful. ------------------------------------IMPLICATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS For the past 45 years, activists, politicians, the media, and woke white liberal Maorification lovers / Treaty twisters have waved the tino rangatiratanga card like it’s a magic wand. Those who hear it are instantly spellbound. Once you have tino rangatiratanga dust sprinkled over you, you come under the control of the spell. You accept whatever explanation is given by the speaker as being perfectly true and right and unchallengeable. Why? You don’t have a clue what they are talking about. Sometimes they have told us it means “self determination”. Which means? Maori want to separate off from the rest of society, set up their own Parliament, and do their own thing, like a country within a country. Separatism like this is not in the Treaty. Such a concept would have been abhorrent to the British. Why? Separatism is the antithesis of democracy and democracy what the type of government installed by the British. By the way, non Maori, of course, will pay for a separate Maori parliament. Then Maori want non Maori to give them $20 billion annually to sustain the arrangement. The reality is, in fact, much worse than 50/50. Maori want complete control of the entire country by 2040. This according to He Puapua they achieve this through the power of Veto. Acclaimed author and researcher Dr John Robinson has written a book on He Puapua (left) . Below are two quotes from his book. “Many of the activists and iwi leaders intend a totally dual government system with separate Maori and non-Maori houses of parliament, and a Maori veto on all legislation.” “A Maori veto on all legislation” means private tribal companies have the final say on everything that goes on in New Zealand, on what laws and legislation are passed and accepted in both houses of parliament.” Dr Robinson goes on to say “The words [in the He Puapua report] insist that power, “full authority”, must go to Maori.” You can order this book from www.stopcogovernance.kiwi or phone 021 029 85419 Most often they say things like “through the Treaty we have tino rangatiratanga” without explaining what they mean. When you drill down, ask them what it means, they actually don’t know other than to say things like ‘: • ‘self determination’ or • ‘when our people can control our destiny’ or • ‘when Maori are fully acknowledged by the government as equal partners in the government of the country’ and so on. 8
Click HERE and HERE to watch video of Maori leaders doing exactly what I am describing here.
Tino Rangatiratanga means none of the things that these ‘leaders’ say it means. Their ideas are sheer fantasy. They are sprinkling Tino Rangatiratanga dust on their audience. As I have said, the bald reality is that Maori want to take complete control of the country. But they are doing it little by little, like the frog being boiled in the pot, so slowly and incrementally, that the frogs (that’s us) are being cooked (cooked means having our country taken over) without knowing it. 99.999% of people who hear tino rangatiratanga bandied around, just accept what those who use it are saying about it as absolutely true. This is particularly true if the person saying it is a Maori. They think “Oh well, it’s a Maori word and they are a Maori, they must know what they are talking about.” Stop doing this. Stop believing this nonsense. Don’t succumb to the spell put on you. What they are saying this phrase means is not true. They are simply making up the meaning. It’s the product of the fertile mind of a con man, Hugh Kawharu. This is the main reason the activists have got so far in the last 45 years. The public have deliberately been kept in ignorance so that they, the activists, can progress with their plans to take over New Zealand, unopposed. All you have to remember is the following and keep it fixed in your mind. It’s the truth of the meaning of these Maori words.
Tino Rangatiratanga is about two things. “First, an acknowlegement by the British that at the start of colonialisation, Maori chiefs ‘owned’ New Zealand. Between roughly 1800 and 1950, they sold 97% of their land to settlers. Many non-chief Maori purchased land during this time. Prior to 6th of February 1840, this would not have been possible. Only a cheif could own anything. Second, tino rangatiratanga was about equality. The Treaty ensured that all Maori (not just chiefs) could own land dwellings, and property. 9
And when and if they did come to own / possess these things, protection of the same was guaranteed by the British. It would be fair to say that the first paragraph of Article two of the Treaty was simply about recognising Maori ownership of the land. The second paragraph was about the British being able to buy land from Maori, after which they would be able to sell it to settlers or use it for the development of the nation. Thus tino rangatiratanga gave private property rights to all the people in New Zealand, including Maori. It had absolutely nothing to do with Maori ‘self determination’ or ‘self government’. These ideas are pure fantasy, a gross distoration or original word meanings.