Taonga, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

'Taonga' as defined by Hongi Hika

The Maori dictionary current in 1840 was the 1820 Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand by Cambridge University professor Samuel Lee.

Lee’s linguistic consultant was no honky with an axe to grind.

It was none other than the great Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

(He loved axes too — tomahawks, to be precise — but was in England looking to upgrade to muskets.)

And Hongi defined taonga as property procured by the spear, etc.

It was purely physical

Hongi Hika’s down-to-earth definition of the 1820s could hardly be more removed from the ‘sacred relic’ status conferred by the Treaty negotiators of the 2010s.

To that corrupt one-eyed kangaroo court the Waitangi Tribunal, taonga now means anything our tribal clients can get their hands on.

Physical or metaphysical, doesn’t matter. If it can turn a dollar, it’s a taonga.

But to Hongi Hika, and Hone Heke and the other 511 chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, their taonga was their stuff.

It was any tool that could give a tribesman an edge in a massively hostile environment where both man and nature were doing their best to kill him.

It was any weapon that could give a chief an edge over the cannibal communist dictator down the road, who might at any time spring from the bushes, hack his head off and swallow his eyeballs.

Remember, these were the times of the Musket Wars.

Between 1807 and 1842, between 20,000 and 60,000 — up to half of all Maori — were slaughtered in an orgy of inter-tribal utu.

And Hongi Hika, who finally got his muskets in Sydney, was the chief slaughterman. (Rivalled only by Te Rauparaha.)

It wasn’t Te Reo or te radio

I just very much doubt that Hongi Hika, or Hone Heke, Te Rauparaha and the other 510  chiefs who put their marks on Te Tiriti, spent much time thinking abstract thoughts about saving their language (which was hardly under threat) or the electromagnetic spectrum.

If they did, they didn’t tell the guys who wrote the dictionaries.

Now maybe you think the 1820 Dictionary might have been out of date by 1840. Maybe you think taonga might have evolved by the time of the Treaty to mean what it means now.

I thought so too. So I got a second opinion. From the second Maori dictionary.

This was the Dictionary of the New Zealand Language by William Williams, published in 1844. (Four years after the Treaty.)

Here’s its entry for taonga.

Still property, but no mention of spears this time.

But on that subject, look what I found a few lines further up…

Now I don’t pretend to be any scholar of Te Reo.

But I do believe nga is the plural of the.

I also thought  the nga always came before the noun, so I’m probably wrong, but…

Could it be that taonga started out meaning spears?

I’m expecting to be ridiculed by a Ranginui Walker type for jumping to a false conclusion here.

But I thought I’d ask.

Why does it matter?

Why does it matter what taonga meant in 1840?

Because the Treaty was signed in 1840. Not 1975, not 1987, not 2012 — 1840.

So it’s only fair that we understand not so much what the words mean, but what they meant. In 1840.

Words change their meaning over time. According to my dictionaries, taonga has evolved in four stages:

  1. Property procured by the spear, etc.
  2. Property.
  3. Property, treasure.
  4. Treasure.

Once it meant solely property. Now it means solely treasure.

But in 1840 it meant property.

And that makes Treaty claims for such things as radio waves grossly dishonest.

47 thoughts on “'Taonga' as defined by Hongi Hika

  1. Objective analysis, with supporting evidence and logical conclusion? Oh dear, oh dear: that is soooo “last millennium.” 😉

  2. It’s patently obvious isn’t it, that Taonga didn’t mean in 1840 what they are taking it to mean today. Half the things they are reading into it today, didn’t exist in 1840 and life was so simple then that they couldn’t have meant more than those simple things they knew about at that time.

  3. Helen-Of course it doesn’t.You are right because of course the things that would have been treasured by the British are not so important now.Like Treaties.They were crucial in forming boundaries in new relationships with other cultures.Now …many dont recognize them as important.However,the intention of the Treaties still stand through the system that is law.
    So,if we look at the intention from then it was to create a partnership with Maori.
    It told Maori that we could have cheiftanship over our Taonga.
    Just as inanimate objects which for the settlers would have been things like axes and nails etc etc…and for Maori the Taonga of that time would have also been the same things…it all changes…we now consider our possessions to be our Taonga like our cars,our computers,our homes and our businesses.
    Taonga for Maori includes all things we consider important and that is where non Maori should have been more specific in the wording because those who translated it if they knew the Maori language well would have picked that up.
    Was it intentional? I think so.I think they knew what might happen to Maori and set about to warn and protect us in some way because they had seen and knew of other places where the British had enforced treaties …and had an idea of the outcomes.Lets not forget the men who wrote and interpreted the Treaty were god fearing men…they at least could have a clear conscience and their effort would be marked in history.

  4. John…
    To that corrupt one-eyed kangaroo court the Waitangi Tribunal, taonga now means anything our tribal clients can get their hands on.
    Physical or metaphysical, doesn’t matter. If it can turn a dollar, it’s a taonga.
    But to Hongi Hika, and Hone Heke and the other 511 chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, their taonga was their stuff.

    *You are right Tao means spear.
    The rangatira did have Tao with them …this is a sign of their heritage and their lines …alot like Tamoko on their body.
    Not all Taonga has a money value on it but are gifted according to lineage and where you fall in it ….like korowai ( feather cloak).
    In some tribes korowai are used for funerals…in others they are for oratory( speakers) …they dont mean a lot to non maori and may not have a price tag but are prized and sort after.

  5. Wahine, with all due respect, the Treaty was only ever a very simple document designed to bring us all together as one people. There was never ever a ‘Partnership’ created, only equality. If you read the Treaty you won’t see ‘partnership’ mentioned at all. Once the Treaty achieved its aim of bringing us together as one people, it should have been consigned to history long ago. It was a Treaty for the time and over 170 years later we have all become inextricably nicely blended and the lines have blurred. The people of today are not the same people as the ones who signed the Treaty.

    ‘Partnership’ has only become mentioned since the fraudulent Principles created by Geoffery Palmer were put into law in 1986 and Justice Robin Cooke mentioned the word but he has since explained that he didn’t mean a partnership in the sense that some could make of it, and has since admitted he may have in effect used the wrong word for what he was implying. However, naturally, this word has since been latched upon and is now flogged to death as if it was indeed meant and written in the Treaty.

    Considering the British bent over backwards for the Maori people and didn’t even have to actually go through the process of a Treaty because Natives were deemed not to have any rights in those days, it’s totally incredible that so much is being made of a simple little document so as to extract endless money, land, assets, etc from the taxpayer (all of us) that is simply not due. We are all supposed to be ONE for heavens sake and should long ago have been so, but the greed and duplicity of the Treaty Gravytrainers is astounding. We are still bending over backwards so obviously that is not the way to go because more and more just continue to be demanded with no let-up and the negative statistics are increasing. In 1840 Maori were terrified the Portuguese or the French would take over New Zealand. I can assure you they wouldn’t have been remotely as understanding as the British have been by a long shot.

    So, please, Wahine, let us hear no more about partnership and treasures of today’s world. The Treaty achieved its aim long ago and we should now all concentrate on being New Zealanders together and halt all of this divisive racist separatist ‘you owe me’ nonsense. A Colourblind State is the only way to go. We must be New Zealanders first and foremost is we are ever to have a peaceful lovely little country.

  6. Taonga = property. Seems simple to me, in consideration of the language of the time.

    It is said, “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still!”

    Thought about this when watching the news on TV, Hon. Pita Sharples said with a smile, “Surely, it’s our language and if its our language we can make it mean anything we want it to.

  7. Pita Sharples has hit the nail right on the head ” We can make it mean anything we want ” and that is exactly what is happening
    neverending grievance A simple document designed to bring people
    together used as a tool to divide

  8. The term Taonga can be deduced linguistically by its association to other Pacific (Polynesian/Austronesian) languages. The term “tōga” as in the Samoan term “ie toga” (‘treasured fine mat’) means ‘treasured’ or ‘valuable’ though in this sense it refers to products produced by women as opposed to those produced by men and has a non-material element to it – it moves into the ethereal realm. Samoan being an older language, points to the meaning of taonga or taoga or “tōga” being ‘treasured.’

    The definition of the vernacular used in 1820 of which you refer may have been a little too simplified. Or, the definition of such is.

    Does treasure and property have different meanings depending on context? Perhaps if you had the opportunity to learn Maori you may understand the meaning of taonga as opposed to the concept of property.

  9. That’s one way of twisting it, Robert.

    Or you might look a few places above ‘taonga’ in the 1820 dictionary (whose linguistic consultant was the great chief Hongi Hika) and see that ‘tao’ means ‘spear’.

    That accords entirely with the meaning of ‘taonga’: ‘property procured by the spear’. Wouldn’t you say?

    I’ve had Maori confirm this.

    And even if it did mean ‘treasure’ as it does now, a Maori chief’s idea of treasure in the early 1800s was things like nails.

    When Samuel Marsden was travelling through the Northland countryside and spied a chief in the distance, his assistant said to him “That man is a great chief – give him a nail”.

    He did not say: “Give him a share of the electro-magnetic spectrum”.

    1. Hi John just one little thing , you know how Maori get settlements and stuff from grievances and this is a monetary gain and/or land transfer etc ……… yes my question is how is your revenue collecting any different to Maori ? how many websites do you have that protest the gross miss-Justice you claim off the treaty of Waitangi or the biggest growing industry in advising the people that what to believe you ……. ? life is good on the teat of the treaty E Hoa

  10. Did Samuel know what the electro-magnetic spectrum was? His world was possibly only about nails and spears. Wouldn’t you say?

    Is this also what your world is about? Nails and spears.

    But you forget about the intangible nuances of meaning which perhaps Hongi Hika did not have the English ability to properly describe. This may have properly been described in times to come by Maori who did have better ability to do so – perhaps.

    Kia piki te ora

  11. The Nga in Taonga is not pluralization. taonga at best is a pacification of tao. just like haerenga is to haere , haere = go haerenga = trip of journey (which is ‘go’ in action).

    Also ‘tao’ also means to weigh down, to cook.
    Taonga = property, goods, possessions, effects, treasure, anything prized

    taonga used in the form of ‘the language is a taonga’ is stating ‘the language is a treasure in the possession of us’

    You should first learn the language and at the same time learn the culture, as the language comes from the culture, before ranting on like an ignorant idiot.

  12. Ignorant?

    The words must have the meaning that was attributed to them at that time, nuances and subtleties notwithstanding. I.e. it had to use what might be termed the ‘legal language’ of the era.

    How else could the Treaty draft-in-English have been translated into
    the Maori language, back then and still remain relevant?

    The same applies to any language. Back then ‘gay’ had the meaning of jollity. Since then, it has been arrogated by some as a euphemism for homosexuality.

    Hippy once meant having big hips. Later, the word acquired a semi-synonomous meaning of a type of counter-culture. Lexical drift is a well-known phenomenon.

  13. Hippynz: thanks for the assistance.

    Here’s some for you: read my whole post before calling me an idiot.

    If you had, you would have seen that I am not disputing what ‘taonga’ means now.

    I am objecting to using today’s meaning instead of the meaning it had at the time of the Treaty.

    Robert Finigan suggests that Hongi would not have had the linguistic knowhow to express a more nuanced meaning.

    Nice try, Robert.

    But would you also suggest that Rev. William Williams, who had lived among Maori for 18 years when he compiled his 1844 dictionary, was similarly ignorant?

    Because that dictionary also defined ‘taonga’ as ‘property’. No spear this time – but no treasure either.

    1. Also John what does procured mean in reference to the spear and what would be the modern day equivalent of the spear perhaps its a metaphor but for what I ask ? Maybe the pen in mightier then the sword could be a literal translation ……. ?

      1. I think most people would say that “property procured by the spear” means “property won in battle” or, more literally, “property secured by my ability to fight for it”.

        A chief’s property was his stuff – the everyday things he needed to survive. It did not include the inventions of people he had not met, or their descendants.

      2. That’s abit of a materialistic view John ,you are leading me to believe that Maori are viewed as narrow minded yet they showed a interest in the world other then just the long white cloud, the notion of a treaty is beyond their mental perception , give the guy credit Hongi was shown the world ,Hongi wasn’t overwhelmed but took the experience on board

  14. “How else could the Treaty draft-in-English have been translated into
    the Maori language, back then and still remain relevant?” well the treaty was not translated correctly anyway, Hobson used a word that meant governorship as a translation for sovereignty . governorship and sovereignty are not the same thing. get your facts correct.

    1. Te Maori Ma: Would you accept the word of Sir Apirana Ngata? This is what he had to say about government and sovereignty:

      The First Article:

      “The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all of their lands”.

      These are but a few words, but they indicate a complete cession.

      This was the transfer by the Maori Chiefs to the Queen of England for ever of the Government of all their lands.

      What was the thing they transferred? What was the thing which they gave away so freely for ever?

      It was the Government of their lands.

      You are somewhat confused with the purport of those words “their lands” as being just a land matter.

      No, their real meaning includes “their boundaries or territories”.

      The English word in the English version of the Treaty: “territories”.

      What is a “Government”?

      The English word is “Sovereignty”. The English word for such a personage as a King or a Queen is “Sovereign”.

      This is the same as the Maori words “Ariki Tapairu” and is referred to as the absolute authority.

      The “Sovereign Power” of the English rests with the King or Queen and his or her Council called Parliament.

      This gives a clearer understanding of the term “Government” as used in this article of the Treaty.

      That is, it is the absolute authority over the people which the article transmits into the hands of the Queen and Her Parliamentary Council.

      1. lol nice try john but is apirana ngata of same mind and interpretation of 1840 ……. if you can use your taonga theory on Maori then I can as well

      2. Richard, what do you mean? I am not “using [my] taonga theory on Maori”, I’m stating a fact.

        The fact is that the only dictionary in existence at the time of the Treaty defines ‘taonga’ as ‘property procured by the spear’.

        The corroborating fact is that the definition was provided by chief Hongi Hika.

        These are not “theories”.

        Have you read Ngata’s ‘The Treaty of Waitangi — An Explanation’? I suggest you click here: https://treatygate.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-treaty-beautifully-explained-by-a-wise-and-honest-maori-leader/

        You will find his definition of ‘taonga’ was the same as Hongi Hika’s, minus reference to the spear:

        There are two main provisions in this article of the Treaty.

        They are:

        1.The permanent establishment to the Maori of title to his land and his property.

        Property. Not treasures. Not all future inventions of the white man that Maori take a shine to.

        He also had this to say about why Maori should not complain too loudly about injustice:

        In times past, rates were not levied on Maori lands. This was not because of the Treaty of Waitangi.

        Likewise, in days gone by Maori lands were not affected by taxation. And again, it was not because of any provisions in the Treaty.

        The Treaty had provided for

        “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

        If the law had adhered to the spirit of the Treaty, Maori land would have borne the burden of rates and taxation long ago.

        It was in the year 1894 that Maori lands were subjected to rates, and then it was half of the rate.

        It was not until 1910 that full rates as for European lands were levied.

        1. It was only in the year 1893 that Maori lands were taxed.

        It was a light tax, half of the tax payable by the Pakeha. However, only leasehold Maori lands were taxable.

        It was in the year 1917 that a heavier tax was levied on leased Maori land equivalent to half the rate of taxation on European lands.

        2. At present, if the levies on our lands were in accordance with all that the law provides these would not be anywhere near as heavy as what are levied on Pakeha lands.

        Maori lands not clothed with title cannot be charged with rates.

        County Councils have very devious procedures to follow to put a charge on Maori land for non-payment of rates.

        Only Maori lands under lease were subject to taxes, and these at half the amount charged against European lands.

        All other Maori lands that were not under lease, being farmed and occupied by the Maori owners, and Pa areas were not affected by taxation.

        3. Various laws made it possible to sidestep many of the levies which should have affected our lands in accordance with the words of the Treaty “all the rights and privileges of British subjects”.

        Could it be the laws were wrong and were contravening the Treaty?

        To all those who are agitating under the Treaty for remedies for our grievances, I say:

        “Be careful, lest you awaken the legal experts of the Pakeha people, who will say:

        ‘Let them have what they are asking for. Let the purport of the Treaty be exercised to the very end: Put the same levies on the Maori as are levied on the Pakeha’.”

        Perhaps it’s time this injustice was rectified too?

      3. so when you mean tax was the wages on par with the Europeans of the time …….. books are good for a written history but can be misinterpreted by the Author because of unfamiliar or not understanding from the subject/Topic he is witnessing ,

      4. Sorry my post from above was meant to be concerning this post with regards to procurement

  15. but Pakeha lied by stating something different in the maori version than the english version. you did not show the diffence

    1. Not if you use the correct English draft. Certainly the bogus “official English Treaty” is very different.

      Maori radicals conveniently split hairs about the meaning of ‘kawanatanga’.

      Apirana Ngata, on the other hand – and, more importantly, the chiefs at Waitangi who spoke vehemently against giving up their control – were in no doubt that it meant sovereignty.

      By an amazing double standard, the same radical hair-splitters who insist on taking ‘kawanatanga’ literally as ‘governorship’ – and making a huge distinction between that and sovereignty – also insist that “all the people of New Zealand” must not be taken literally!

      They’re playing a joke, folks, and it’s time we all got it.

  16. The ‘Littlewood’ version which was the final draft mirrors the Maori text as far as is able. However, the English version which is in legislation because they couldn’t find the Littlewood version does vary a little and leaves out the important words ‘and all New Zealanders’ which is in the Maori text. They only found the Littlewood treaty in 1989.

    This was not the version that was translated into Maori.

    We need to go by the Maori treaty because that was the one signed and understood by the Chiefs. However, the Littlewood one is handy because it is the one the Maori version was translated from.

    I hope this clears up the differences for you Te Maori Ma.

    1. Through Government propaganda, NZers. are led to believe there is such a thing as an English Treaty.

      Gvnr. Hobson authorised only one Tiriti, Maori, by writing, “That in the Maori language is de facto our Tiriti, all other signatures are but a testament to this document.

      That is the reason the false English treaty was signed in April but carries the statement, “Done at Waitangi on 06-02-1840”.

      The false English treaty was never authorised by Hobson as such and, unauthorised, was used as a piece of paper to catch the overspill of signatures to our genuine Tiriti.

      This false treaty was written by a guy called Freeman, the Freeman document, when only Busby was authorised to write our Treaty under Hobson’s supervision.

      Busby penned Hobson’s final English draft and from this our Tiriti was translated. Though not a Treaty, it could be used to tidy up any confusion within our Maori text but the problem is it is not politically correct.

      Governments have tried to disprove its authenticity, see http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz , but have failed to succeed with as little as one point. This was admitted by Hon. Christopher Finlayson at the Otaki Foreshore and Seabed submissions meeting in the Memorial Hall on 17th of April 2010 at a time when he was not only the Minister in Charge of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations but Attorney General.

      He also admitted that in international law if there is more than one Treaty and one is in the native language that in the native language takes precedence over all others.

      Has he done anything about his admissions? No!!!!!!!

      What exclusive rights for Maoris are held within our genuine Maori text?

      There are none and all 9 members of the Maori Affairs Select Committee hearing a submission on the Marine Bill were unable to provide an answer. I was there to witness it all, fact.

      The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and the Waitangi Tribunal were founded solely on the above false English Treaty.

      Our Maori Tiriti was included in the above Act in 1985, but not fully implement or the Act and the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal would have been annulled.

      Where does this leave all decisions made by the Tribunal?

      What does the above do to politicians when the fact is, “ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law?”

  17. Excellent, Rangi. You are so right. The Maori Treaty is the one everyone should be going by. The so-called ‘Littlewood’ Treaty was the final draft and was then translated into Maori so anyone who can’t speak Maori just needs to read the Littlewood version which more or less mirrors the Maori text.

    The Freeman copy was an earlier draft and used, as you said, to collect the overflow of signatures.

    If everyone went by the Maori Treaty all of this settlement nonsense, costing billions of taxpayers money, would disappear overnight.

    If only you could shout your views from the rooftops Rangi. It’s just so encouraging to hear someone of your racial heritage actually speaking the truth and not telling porkies so as to gain as much from the taxpayer as is possible.

    What is happening, is another grievance industry currently in the making for the people who are being cheated and not being treated equally as the Treaty said.

    Thank you Rangi. Maybe there is hope for equality after all.

    1. Well, when I witnessed the Pakeha fellah challenging Finlayson at Otaki, we Maoris were there in numbers.

      Hardly a white face to be seen, they just don’t seem to care as I do about all this divisive stuff.

      Talk about courage! There he was, mouthing all this stuff that anyone would believe might be the death of him, but how did Maori react?

      He was the only guy who received round after round of applause, proving that the common Maori guy you see walking down the street are not for the (Hone Harewera words censored here) you hear from politicians and Maori elite because of Govt changing laws.

      It’s Governments (plural) to blame, they started it and any change of Govt. pushes the divide wider.

      It’s sad see our once beautiful ‘one people country’ going down the drain. One only needs look at the interbreeding to value the quality of racial harmony.

      Maori are $37 billion in pocket, but where does it all go when my pocket’s empty.

      Bring back our only true, togetherness, Maori Tiriti and we will all be better off with Government money going to where it should rather than where it shouldn’t, Maori elite, the rich guys.

  18. Your words give me hope, Rangi. It’s so encouraging to hear them from one of Maori descent. I know there are many of you of the same mind. It’s those we call the ‘Griever Maori’ who are the problem. They don’t have your wide outlook for the common good of everyone – together. Thanks, Rangi. Your words are a good start to my day.

    1. Well it’s like this, I’d be willing to bet that those Maori elite who make mega millions out of their spiritual beliefs like taniwhas, flora, fauna, water, air and etc. forget all of this when the time comes to eat, dress, work and sleep because not a single one of them live a traditional life.

      All of the following would be impossible for their ancestors; to sleep sound in a warm, cosy bed without the worry of being eaten in a surprise raid; to take their breakfast out the fridge/cupboard and cook it on an electric stove without the worry of them being eaten by someone else before they finish; travel to work with an easy mind, knowing they will arrive alive; return home afterwards without even a thought that their family will be alive inside their cosy, warm, modern home with all its mod cons; dinner will be a mind blowing nutritious meal with an alarming amount of herbs,spices and sauces available to please them from all over the world and they will know they will be alive to finish their meal.

      Next time you look out the back window watch the birds feeding, they peck and look for enemies, peck and look for enemies, always in a high state of alert for the neighbours cat. I think of these birds behaviour as to how my ancestors used to live, always expecting death to rush out the bush in frenzy.

      Not one of today’s elite who extol the virtues of traditional Maori life and spiritual beliefs live half naked in a whare in the bush, even now that the British have made it safe to do so.

      During the 1850 to 1870s Maori Wars wars for sovereignty (renamed Land Wars), if Maori had won the vow was to totally exterminate the White man.

      See the difference. When the White man won and the Maori king, Tawhiao, surrendered to Major Mair, Tawhiao and his whole tribe laying down their arms at Mair’s feet, not only was Tawhiao pardoned but offered a pension for the rest of his life, which he accepted, proving the Maori royal line was extinguished by accepting Queen Victoria as Queen of all New Zealand.

  19. You have obviously given it a great deal of thought, Rangi, and when you put it like that, absolutely no-one would be able to disagree. If only the ones causing all the problems would do the same. All they think about is how they can squeeze ever more from us all.

    They don’t appreciate what they already have or even think back to how it might have been if colonisation hadn’t taken place, or worse still if the colonists had been the French or other nationalities. I’m sure they wouldn’t have been as accommodating as has been the case.

    You are an inspiration, Rangi, and thank goodness we have people like you around.

  20. Rangi, how hard is it for how many of your ethnic contemporaries to agree with you? Why is it that you seem like a voice in the wilderness? That observation made, I applaud you for your stance. Would that you were one among the innumerable. Stay with it!

    1. Simple Simon, see my comment on Sept. the 14th and you will find I’m far from alone.

      The White guy who spoke to a hall filled with Maoris received round after round of applause and he condemned everything the Government stood for, proving we don’t like this separation forced upon us by Government action.

      We aren’t to blame, without Government law changes, ideas and leadership we would still be one people as Govnr Hobson promised.

      “He iwi tahi tatou (we are one people)” used to be hung in all government buildings prior to the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, an Act which was founded solely on Governments unauthorised, false English treaty as was the Waitangi Tribunal.

      What is are laws worth if founded on false documentation?

      Sure wish a lawyer who loved his country enough would take this on as there’s a fare chance our present constitutional review could drive us into the third world by considering the the 3rd world constitution of Bolivia.


  21. Rangi; valid points, well said. I’m sure I will not be alone in keeping an eye out for more level-headed posts from you. Cheers.

  22. I might also add that confusion over what words mean/meant what only adds fuel to the fire with which I (and many others) think should be used to burn the Treaty. Start afresh with a modern, straight-forward constitution, end any confusion and have it written in the most-used language of the country; English.

  23. Right. Yes, I did see those comments of yours. But that seems to be the exceptional example, rather than the rule. Apart from a few shining lights, the general NZ media seems mostly silent on such ‘achiever’ things. And the wooden headed ones in Wellie don’t seem to hear, notice or care.

  24. Peter C.. Your statement to burn our Tiriti is made in ignorance.

    Gvnr. Hobson authorised only one Tiriti, Maori, and it contains no Maori exclusive privilege. We need it like we need air to breathe.

    The forests and fish of all the people of New Zealand were stolen by use of the above mentioned false English treaty.

    Hobson never authorised it and it carries a date (06-02-1840), when it was actually signed in April.

    It was dated such to tie in with Hobson’s written statement, “That signed at Waitangi on 06-02-1840 is de facto our Treaty and all further signatures pertain to this document”.

    The “Partnership” between Maori and Crown was decided by the 1987 Appeal Court using a newly written Tiriti translation written by the claimant, Hugh Kawharu, acting for his tribe, which he called “an unauthorised reconstruction of the Treaty of Waitangi.”

    Yes, he admitted it was a reconstruction but the Court still accepted it to make its decision.

    How much is a court decision worth which is made by use of false documentation?

    Sure, there must be some lawyers out there that know this but are too gutless to stop their country from going down the tube.

    Where is the lawyer who will go down in history?

    It’s all here for the world and lawyers to see at http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s