A personal viewpoint: ‘Fraudulent Legislation: The 1975 Treaty Act’

In a series of articles Andy Oakley looks at why, in his view, The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 is fraudulent misrepresentation and must be repealed.

( Note: The Editor, Alan Tristram, strongly disagrees with this article)

‘A racist Act

By Andy Oakley

Only for part-Maori people

The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act is racist.

This is because the Act created a permanent Tribunal to hear claims that acts, or omissions, by the Crown may breach promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi (Te Tiriti o Waitangi).

In the Act it states that only Maori people can make claims and goes on to define Maori as a ‘race’.

The Act also states that any descendants of Maori are also Maori, never mind that they may have mostly European ancestry.

I wonder what scientists, biologists and anthropologists, who all denounced the concept of race many decades ago, make of the offspring of the union between a 1/64th Maori, or rather a 63/64th European with a 100% European and out pops a Maori baby.

So this Act is a social engineering Act, it is simply manufacturing Maori people from thin air.

No such group as Maori in 1840

The chiefs who signed in 1840 represented people who were variously known at the time as natives, aborigines and New Zealanders, not Maori.

My focus here is on just the very first sentence in the Preamble of the Act, which states: Whereas on 6 February 1840 a Treaty was entered into at Waitangi between her late Majesty Queen Victoria and the Maori people of New Zealand.

This is a lie, as there was not a collective of any people known as Maori in New Zealand on 6 February 1840.

At that time as Lord Normanby stated in his 1839 written instructions to Hobson, the people of New Zealand “composed of numerous dispersed and petty tribes, who possess few political relations to each other, and who are incompetent to act or even deliberate in concert.”

The early explorers noted in their journals that there appeared to be three different kinds of people in New Zealand and none of them were known as Maori.

Maori with a small m

The word Maori with a capital M referring to a single or collective of people was not in either the Maori language or any English Literature prior to the Treaty.

Nor does the word Maori with a capital M appear anywhere in the 1840 copies of Te Tiriti. This is easy to check, go to the New Zealand  History government website and read any of the 1840 te reo maori sheets which contain the signatures of chiefs and you will note that on all of them the word maori has a small ‘m’.

In 1840 the word maori simply meant “ordinary” and was used in Te Tiriti to distinguish between Chiefs or rangitira, and everyone else.

This is confirmed in William Williams A Dictionary of the Maori Language first published in 1844.

A New Zealander shown signing the Treaty in 1840

No English Treaty text read to chiefs in 1840

If however, you go to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 online, just google it and click on Schedule One. Firstly you will see the Text in English: this document did not even exist on February 6th 1840 and it was never read to any chief who subsequently signed the Treaty.

The original of that document was not in the hand writing of James Busby, who penned the Treaty draft in English, nor did it contain the same meanings as Te Tiriti.

It is an irrelevant and fraudulent document adopted by the government in ignorance and needs to be assigned to the bin.

There simply is no English Text Treaty. I will cover that fraudulent English text used in our legislation in a later article.

(To be continued.)

Apologies for predictive text: second to last line should read “riff-raff behaving as young chaps away from home and any form of discipline are apt to do”.

Mr Oakley rightly points out that the treaty was not read out in English to the chiefs at Waitangi and in fact all copies but one that we’re signed are in Te Reo Māori. Significantly the wording in English – ceding sovereignty- would never have been signed. Māori were keen for the British to govern their own, many of whom were whalers, sailors, traders, riff-ruff behaving as young chaps away from home and any form of discharge apt to do. Of course descendants of those who signed expect the treaty to be held good for them: I am glad it protects my rights as non-Māori to continue living here in peace.

Mandy, You reveal such a sad shadow of a real person by resorting to a branding gag to shut down sensible debate.If you mean that Don stands for fairness and equality regardless of accident of birth or claimed superiority and privilege by some imagined blood group then I guess it is what Don Brash would wish for our people. If you see it otherwise maybe you are the contemptable racist with which you attempt to brand Don. However fear not, professional help is within reach for you.

Racist is a word that slips easily off the tongue and the pen. Something is racist if it is about situations or institutions which exclude people because of their ancestral mix, or if it denigrates people on the basis of their ethnic background. Any claims that articles are racist need to be based on evidence, not on emotion.
Andy’s article is about racism because he makes reference to the Waitangi Tribunal which prevents anyone without some Maori blood making a claim. Some years ago he tried to make a claim for Te Pakeha, but was rejected because he is not of the Maori race! Ironically his partner who is part Maori could, as could his children in the future.

I personally find this rhetoric racist and offensive, and struggle to see any other intention for it. It reeks of Don Brash and his Hobson’s Pledge rubbish to me.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.