A Response To 440 Church Leaders Who Sent Their Open Letter To Parliament, Asking MPs To Oppose David Seymour’s Treaty Principles Bill
First, please read what the 440 Church Leaders actually wrote in their Open Letter.
Open letter from Christian leaders to all Members of Parliament
E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? The one… who does what is righteous, who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind. (Psalm 15)
We support Te Tiriti o Waitangi and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill
As Christian leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand we express our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We affirm that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects the Tino Rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi. That rangatiratanga over land and taonga is to be upheld.
We therefore express our opposition to the proposed Treaty Principles Bill.
The proposed Bill is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in that it does not recognise the collective rights of iwi Māori or guarantee their relationship with the Crown. It would undermine what Te Tiriti guarantees, and what decades of law, jurisprudence and policy have sought to recognise.
We note with concern the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim report, Ngā Mātāpono –The Principles, including that the Bill “distorted the text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
The Treaty Principles Bill may destabilise and harm Aotearoa New Zealand
We note with deep concern the harmful impacts the Bill may cause to Aotearoa New Zealand’s social cohesion.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides a basis for finding common ground, recognising and reconciling past wrongs, and acts as a moral and equitable compass for our democracy. By contrast, we believe the Treaty Principles Bill will lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a covenantal relationship
We affirm the Church’s ongoing, special, and historic relationship with Te Tiriti o Waitangi which many Christians view as a sacred covenant.
As inheritors of the legacy of the missionaries involved in the drafting, promotion and signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we acknowledge a duty of care for upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.
We commit our own churches to deepening our Te Tiriti o Waitangi education and pursuing reconciliation. We will work to ensure the flourishing of life in Aotearoa New Zealand for all peoples living here, both Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua, as Te Tiriti of Waitangi enables. We call on all Members of Parliament to oppose the Treaty Principles Bill We therefore view with concern, and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill. We call on all Members of Parliament to do everything in their power to not take this Bill to Select Committee and to work towards the ongoing restoration of the Tiriti relationship. With love, and the hope for a flourishing and peaceful future for our people
Now here is a commentary on what the Christian Leaders wrote.
In the following pages, what the 440 Church leaders wrote is bounded by a rectangle E.g
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
Everything else is a response to what the Church leaders said.
This document contains hyperlinks. To access the hyperlinks, you have to read an online copy of this document. You can do this by scanning the following QR code:
We recommend you begin by downloading the final English draft of the Treaty. This was the document used to create the Treaty in Maori. So if you want to know what the Treaty in Maori says, this is the document to read. Click HERE to download it. I would urge you to read this document through a few times so you can thoroughly digest its content and meaning.
English version of the letter published by 440 Church Leaders, September 9, 20241
Open letter from Christian leaders to all Members of Parliament E ngā mana, e ngā reo, rau rangatira mā, tēnā koutou katoa
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. (Matthew 5:9)
The Christian leaders are using this verse out of context. Think about it. It was Jesus who said Matthew 5:9. Yet, in John 2:14-16 the same Jesus created chaos in the temple by making a whip. Whip in hand, He tipped over the tables of the money changers, and drove them out of the temple. Jesus created chaos by going to war with those peddling fraud and corruption. Hardly a peacemaker.
So is Jesus being hypocritical by saying one thing (Blessed are the peacemakers) and on another occasion doing another? (cleansing the temple). No, Jesus is not being hypocritical.
So how do we reconcile the two? When Jesus is talking about peacemakers, he is talking about people who work to reconcile people and God. What does this mean? Without going into too much detail, the Bible teaches that all people, because of their sin, are disconnected from God, or out of relationship with Him. They can be connected with God, and in relationship with Him, but only by turning from their sin, and asking Jesus for forgiveness. Christians call this ‘being
1 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Treaty-Principles-Bill-440-Christian-leaders-signopen-letter-asking-MPs-to-vote-no-RNZ-News.pdf
reconciled to God’. Christians who seek to reconcile people to God are ‘peacemakers’. Billy Graham was like that. Jesus, of course, was the ultimate peace maker.
Clearly, David Seymour’s Bill has absolutely nothing to do with New Zealanders being reconciled to God. And David is not trying to reconcile New Zealanders to God.
So why did the Christian leaders use this verse? It’s obvious- they were trying to say “David, through his Bill, is creating racial division. He should be trying to create ‘peace’ between Maori and the rest of New Zealand. The best way to do that, is to drop the Bill.”
In my view there are only two routes to ‘peace.’ First, we all become Maori and join in with the coup. This will peace based on lies, which is false peace, and therefore not peace at all. (Jeremiah 6:14).
Second, we rip the lid off all the fraud and corruption, confront it, fully restore democracy, and commit to honouring the Treaty as it was understood by all parties in 1840. This will achieve real and lasting peace because it’s peace based on truth.
New Zealanders are going to have to choose because it’s one or the other. We can’t have both.
OK, back to the Bible verse.
Shame on these church leaders for using a verse out of context, and using it for political purposes – a double condemnation. This is the kind of behaviour characteristic of Jesus’ arch enemies in the Bible, the scribes and Pharisees (right). Jesus calls them blind guides (Matt. 23:16), fools (Matt. 23:17), white supulchres…full of dead men’s bones, and of all uncleanness (Matt. 23:27), serpents (Matt. 23:33), vipers (Matt. 23:33), hypocrites (Luke 11:44).
Furthermore, the 440 Church leaders make no effort to say, precisely, where David Seymour’s Bill Breaches the Treaty, how it will create division, or how it spreads misinformation. They just say it does. For example “Where, exactly, in what articles of the Treaty, does David’s Bill breach the Treaty?” No detail is given by the Church leaders. Their letter is simply a series of unsubstantiated accusations. Again, this kind of behaviour is characteristic of the Scribes and Pharisees in Jesus’ day i.e. making accusations without proof to substantiate those accusations.
So is David and his Bill creating racial division? Absolutely not. His Bill, if successful, will create racial harmony like we haven’t seen for 50 years. How so? Read THIS.
But this is not all. The Church leaders use a second verse from the Bible in the same way they used the first – taking it out of context, and using it for political purposes.
Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? The one… who does what is righteous, who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind. (Psalm 15)
These Church leaders are trying to say through this verse from the Bible “An agreement was struck between the Crown and Maori in 1840 (i.e. the Treaty), and if the Crown wants to be deemed to be righteous (i.e. blameless and without fault) they must keep to the agreement and not change their mind.”
But I would say “Hang on a minute. Where, exactly, does David’s Bill breach the Treaty? Where does David ‘break the oath’?”
The short answer is “It doesn’t”. How so?
Here is David’s first principle: “The New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders.”
This is a completely accurate summary of Article One of the Treaty. Maori ceded sovereignty. Maori gave up the right to govern the country. This is what ‘ceding sovereignty’ means.
Here is David’s second principle before it was amended: “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property.”
This is exactly what the chiefs agreed to in 1840 via Article Two, sentence one, of the Treaty. Article Two, sentence one, says: “The Queen Confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession of the land, dwellings, and all their property.”2
What does this mean?
The best way to explain it is like this.3 Imagine a map of NZ. In the middle of the North Island, draw a
2 Note well, that the English word “possession” translates into Maori as “tino rangatiratanga”. fraudulently changed the meaning of ‘tino rangatiratanga’ to mean ‘unqualified exercise of chieftainship.’
3 There are four versions of the Treaty. The rogue James Freeman version (RJFV) which appears in Schedule 1 of the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975, the Littlewood final English Draft, the 1989 Hugh Kawharu version, and the Treaty in Maori. The only one of the four that mentions ‘fisheries’ is the rogue James Freeman version This precisely why Freeman’s version is called ‘rogue ’ The British never intended for Maori to ‘own’ the fisheries or coastline of New Zealand or the water. The fisheries, coastline, and water, as I will explain shortly, belonged to all New Zealanders, to be managed by the government. ‘Forests’ also appears in the RJFV, but not the other 3 versions. “Forests” are not an issue because if a tribe had a forest inside their 1cm², which was highly likely, the British considered that that tribe ‘owned’ it. The RJFV is the version which is causing all the problems, because of ‘fisheries.’ Activists have milked this, claiming all the coastline and fisheries belong to them. They do not. The RJFV ought never to have been accepted as the English version of the Treaty in the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act The English version of the Treaty is the Littlewood Final English draft. That the RJFV of the Treaty was inserted in the Treaty of Waitangi Act can be put down to MP history ignorance. If you want to know how the RJFV came into being, click HERE
red square 1cm x 1cm (right). Let’s say this square represents the land owned by a particular tribe at the 6th of February 1840.
The British considered that everything on that piece of land – including the land itself –dwellings, chattels, rivers, mountains, forests – everything – was literally ‘owned’ by that tribe. The British promised to protect that tribes ownership of everything inside that 1cm square. Definitely not the all the seabed and foreshore or water or air which is ‘owned’ by all New Zealanders This is all that article 2, sentence one, promised.
Roughly 540 chiefs signed the Treaty.
So in effect, we could say, there were 540 x 1cm² all over New Zealand, each square representing the land owned by each tribe. Not all the squares were 1cm². Some were smaller, some larger, depending on the size of the tribe and the size of the land they owned.
Now, go back to Article two sentence one again and focus on the word “property”. In the Maori version of the Treaty, the word property translates as “taonga”.
In 1840 this word meant “property procured by the spear”4 . In other words, tribes went on raids against other tribes pre-1840 and they used spears as weapons as they did so. When they entered the pa site of another tribe, they killed and ate the inhabitants, or enslaved them, and stole their possessions. Those possessions were said to be “procured by the spear.”
In 1989, the word “property” in Article 2 was translated by Hugh Kawharu as “treasures.” This widened the meaning of the word “taonga” to mean anything Maori treasure.
At this point, Treaty fraud really ramped up.
By changing the original meaning of this word, Maori started to “claim” things that were not in their 1cm² in 1840. An example would be awarding part of the 5G cell phone network in New Zealand to Maori “because the Treaty promised this”.5 Another example would be the claim by Maori that the Treaty “promised” to protect and promote the Maori language. Another would be that Maori own all the foreshore and seabed, or all the water. I can’t, now, think of one government department which does not require their institution to “Give effect to Te Tiriti O Waitangi and its principles supposedly “promised” in the Treaty?
How should we view these ‘awards’ or ‘settlements’ or ‘treaty claims / promises’ or ‘treasures’? In a word they are outright fraud. There is absolutely nothing in the Treaty about the British ‘guaranteeing’ these things to Maori.
Go back to the 1cm² analogy.
4 (1) Bruce Moon. NZ The Fair Colony. P5 (2) https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Taonga-by-Gary-Judd-KC-Thoughts-from-theNorth.pdf
5 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Maori-set-to-receive-quarter-of-key-5G-spectrumband-and-57m-under-Crown-deal-Stuff.pdf
Re: gifting Maori the 5G network. It’s impossible to procure a 5G network with a spear. For a start, the 5G network did not exist in 1840 so it was not inside a tribes 1cm². Re: the seabed and foreshore, and the water. That all New Zealanders “owned” the foreshore and seabed, the water and air in a Western Society “was a principle first written down, as far as records exist, by the Roman Emperor Justinian the Great, about 530 AD. He is famous for compiling and rewriting Roman law, which is still the basis of civil law in many modern states. His law of public commons states (in English) “By natural law itself these things are the common property of all: air, running water, the sea, and with it the shores of the sea.”6
What is this saying? It’s saying that according to British law, “the air, running water, the sea and with it the shores of the sea” are owned by the government, managed by them for the benefit of all New Zealanders. And because British law was installed here in 1840 via the cession of sovereignty in Article 1 of the Treaty, the same law applied here as well. It was implicit. Re: the Treaty promising to protect and promote the Maori language. Just read the Treaty and see if you can see this promise. It’s not there. The British understood that the Maori language, culture, and customs were to be preserved and promoted by Maori themselves as they went about their lives inside their 1cm² squares. Really, it’s a ridiculous idea that one culture (i.e. the British) would be made responsible for preserving and promoting the language, culture, customs of another culture (i.e. the Maori)
With every other cultural group in New Zealand, each cultural group is responsible to preserve and promote their own language, culture, and customs. In short, they delight to preserve and promote their culture because it’s ‘in them’ to do so. It’s part of their very DNA. When Maori put the onus on the government to promote Maori language and culture, things don’t add up.
Think about it – if Maori language, customs, and culture were really valuable to Maori, wouldn’t they want to take responsibility to pay for and promote their own culture, customs and language? So why have they not done this?
In New Zealand today, there are 160 cultures. One of those is the Maori culture. Maori are the only one of the 160 who demand that the government be responsible for promoting their language, culture, and customs. The other 159 want to fund and promote their own language and culture, but Maori want to be paid to do it. Doesn’t that seem odd?
6 Hugh Barr. Twisting The Treaty. The Tribal Grab For Wealth and Power. Tross Publishing. 2014. Page 196
There must be other motivations at play here. It does not require much effort to see what they are.
Think about it - Maori boast that they have a $70B Maori economy7, so why aren’t they using their own money to develop their language and culture? There is no valid reason to use taxpayers money, when they have plenty of their own. So just what is the reason?
Playing the ‘you promised to promote Maori language, customs, and culture through the Treaty’ card has proved to be a wonderful cash cow. It’s lucrative. To view just one example of the money going to Maori for the development of their language, customs, and culture, click HERE.
The 440 Church leaders are endorsing this corruption, this fraudulent understanding of the word ‘taonga’ which has been used by activists to get everything and anything.
Ok, back to the 1cm² squares.
One of the first tasks the British undertook in the early 1840s was to establish the size and boundaries of each tribe’s ‘square’. As I said, some were larger than others, depending on the size of the tribe. Once established, titles were issued.
The practice of surveying land and issuing title was described by Lord Normanby (i.e. Hobson’s superior in London) as “that system of sale [i.e. in anticipation of buying land from Maori] which experience has proved the wisdom, and the disregard of which has been so fatal to the prosperity of other British settlements.”8
In New Zealand today, 2024, the British system of surveying the land and issuing titles has been preserved. Every property in NZ today has to be surveyed, boundaries established, and a title issued.
So here is my main point – over the past 50 or so years, from 1974 onwards, activists have slowly moved the goal posts. The British only ever intended, and the Treaty only ever mandated, to protect the possession / ownership of Maori “land, dwellings, and property” inside their 1cm² squares. The activists now say the British “promised”, via the Treaty, to protect the Maori possession / ownership of all of the natural resources of all New Zealand forever This is a gross and fraudulent interpretation of what the Treaty promised. It’s pure fantasy. It’s akin to a magicians trick - putting a rose into a black bag and pulling out a rabbit.
It's like someone today owning a 50 acre farmlet with a stream running through the property.
7 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/The-Maori-economy-is-booming-and-will-be-worth100-billion-by-2030-says-Willie-Jackson-NZ-Herald-x.pdf
8https://issuu.com/esisite/docs/lord_normandby_s_instructions_to_hobson?fr=xKAE9_zU1NUJGQ00GO3U6BuAJ Gohu_msIQAjBQDvIdVBhwSY7FgbhCsH_BDIwMjTB_wIwN8H_A1NDR8gWBjoGyAocWEHIGAZACcjMm47VA
They tell everyone who visits that they own the water running through their property i.e. their 1cm². This is the truth.
Over time the story changes to “we own all the water in our entire district ” This is not the truth. Over more time the story changes further. It becomes “We own all the water in the entire country.” This is not the truth.
Can you see the goal post shift? From 50 acre farmlet, to whole district, to whole country.
To describe this “we own all of New Zealand” idea, activists use words “tino rangatiratanga” or “ mana motuhake” to bamboozle the public.
So when they use these words, you now know what they are talking about. They are talking about their supposed right, via the Treaty, to own all the resources of the whole country.
Can you see how ridiculous this has become? Yet this is what Maori activists’ believe and their ideas are going unchallenged. The 440 Church leaders are going along with it all.
-------------------------------------
What does all this have to do with the 440 Church Leader’s letter? Answer? Either through ignorance of the facts or wilfully, the 440 Church leaders are not just participating in this fraud, but perpetuating it.
Psalm 15, rather than supporting the 440 Church leaders, actually condemns them. How so? The 440 Church leaders, by peddling the Maori Activist’s narrative about the Treaty, and all their associated misinformation which I have cited, signal firmly to the public that the 440 Church Leaders and Maori Activists are one. That is to say, the only difference between a Maori activist and these 440 Church leaders is clothing. That is all.
Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? The one… who does what is righteous, who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind. (Psalm 15)
Here is all of Psalm 15: A psalm of David.
1 Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent? Who may live on your holy mountain?
2 The one whose walk is blameless, Blameless means ‘not a hint of wrong doing.’ Could we say that the 440 Church Leaders are not guilty of a hint of wrong doing with their Open Letter to MPs? No, we cannot say that. We could only say the opposite. Why? Because they are joining in with the Treaty fraud and corruption which I have just described, subscribing to the same narrative as Maori activists. who does what is righteous, “Righteous” means ‘morally right or excellent.’ Could we describe the behaviour of the 440 as “morally right and excellent’? No, we cannot say that. Why? Making harmful accusations against David Seymour without substantiation is not morally right.
who speaks the truth from their heart;
“Speaking the truth from the heart” means just that – only speaking the truth. Could we describe the behaviour of the 440 as “only speaking the truth”? No, we cannot say that. The Church Leaders have made a series of unsubstantiated claims about the Treaty, which are untruths. Untruths are the opposite of truth.
3 whose tongue utters no slander, “A tongue which utters no slander”. What is ‘slander’? It’s the action or crime of making a false spoken statement damaging to a person's reputation. Could we describe the behaviour of the 440 as showing no evidence of slandering anyone? No, we cannot say that. They have slandered David Seymour, accusing him of creating division, breaking oaths, spreading misinformation, and misinterpreting the Treaty, all without providing proof. This is not the first time David Seymour has been subjected to slander. Remember how Willy Jackson called David Seymour ‘A useless Maori’. Watch HERE.
We would expect better from 440 Church Leaders. who does no wrong to a neighbour,
“Someone who does no wrong to a neighbour” means just that. All New Zealanders are the neighbours of these 440 Church Leaders Have these Church Leaders done wrong to NZ’ers by publicising their letter? Yes. Chiefly by spreading Treaty misinformation to the general public. The 440 Church Leaders say things like “The proposed Bill is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in that it does not recognise the collective rights of iwi Māori or guarantee their relationship with the Crown.” This leads the reading public to think (wrongly) that David’s Bill is inconsistent with the Treaty, when in fact it is absolutely consistent. For these reasons, how could we way that these 440 Church leaders are “loving their neighbours”? We could not say this. “Loving your neighbour” means doing the highest good to your neighbour. Spreading Treaty misinformation is not loving one’s neighbour. and casts no slur on others; A slur is an insinuation or allegation about someone that is likely to insult them or damage their reputation. This is precisely what the 440 Church Leaders have done to David Seymour, their neighbour 4 who despises a vile person but honours those who fear the Lord; This just means ‘a person who knows right from wrong’ and who does the right. In doing what they did, it’s clear that the 440 Church Leaders do not know right from wrong, for if they did know, they would not have published their letter. How is it that these 440 “Church Leaders” do not know right from wrong? You know the answer. who keeps an oath even when it hurts, and does not change their mind;
Dr John Robinson has just written a book with the title “Who Really Broke analyses the relationship between Maori and the Crown since 1840, concluding that only Maori have breached the Treaty, not the it is Maori who have not kept ‘the oath’ of the Treaty. They have gone back on what the chiefs signed off on in 1840. Dr Robinson All Treaty settlements are based on the Crown having broken the Treaty. Since that is not so [i.e. the Crown have not broken the Treaty], all such settlements are a fraud. There is no justification for the continued either settlements or the Waitangi Tribunal.”10 It’s seems that the are history ignorant. who lends money to the poor without interest; who does not accept a bribe against the innocent. This is speaking about people who are generous, especially towards the poor. In the vast majority of cases, tribal elites (families at the top of tribes) are hoarding settlement payouts, even though the settlement was for the whole
In other words, Maori who are poor and in need in a tribe see nothing of the settlement money. Do we hear or see the 440 Church Leaders going in to bat for the least for the “non-tribal elite” Maori? Holding the tribal elites to account? Not that I know Whoever does these things will never be shaken.
Conclusion? The 440 Church leaders used Psalm 15:4 “who keeps an oath even when it hurts and does not change his mind” to convey the idea to MPs that they should stop David Seymour’s Bill because his Bill reneges on the Treaty as it was understood in 1840. Is this true? No, it is not true. How so?
The Treaty has five parts.
The Preamble of the Treaty made it clear if Maori ceded sovereignty, Britain would set up a government here to govern all the people of New Zealand (not just the British settlers, which is what Maori activists claim).
Article 1 of the Treaty made it clear that Maori ceded sovereignty completely and forever to the British. This meant that all the resources in our country would be managed by the government, except resources which were privately owned
Article 2 sentence one of the Treaty guaranteed Maori the possession of their land, dwellings and property. The first thing Britian did was survey the land each tribe said they owned, boundaries were established, and titles issued -the 1cm² squares. The British only guaranteed Maori the land, dwellings, and property (today we might say ‘Land, house, and contents’) that they owned at that time.
Maori went on to sell 92% of their land. Proof is HERE.
9 You can purchase this book from Tross Publishing. www.trosspublishing.com
10 Dr John Robinson. Who Really Broke The Treaty? Tross Publishing. 2024. Page 65
Today, we never hear about this. I wonder why? It’s a crucial piece of information which if advertised and known would derail the gravy train. The Maori activists would be left with no case to argue.
However, Maori activists today have fraudulently twisted the facts. They say the British guaranteed Maori all the land and all resources of all New Zealand forever.
Article 2, sentence two, also establishes an important land protocol. Only the British government could purchase land from Maori.
Article 3 granted Maori British citizenship. This made Maori equal with all other British citizens, something highly prized by Maori in 1840. Maori activists today try to tell us that Maori received ‘all the rights and privileges of British citizenship but did not become British citizens.’ This is absolute nonsense. It’s impossible to have all the rights and privileges of being a British citizen without actually becoming a British citizen.
The Affirmation, the final part of the Treaty. The chiefs had to affirm that they understood what they were signing and agreed to the Preamble and the 3 Articles.
So what is the point of summarising the Treaty in this way? I want to show you that David Seymour’s 3 Principles summarise the Treaty precisely and accurately. Here they are again:
1. The New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders. (A nice summary of Article 1, and the Preamble of the Treaty)
2. The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property. (A perfect summary of Article Two of the Treaty).
3. All New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties.(A perfect summary of Article 3 of the Treaty)
So why are the activists, now Church Leaders included, so opposed to this Bill?
Answer? They believe that Maori have superior rights to all other citizens. How do they come to this idea? Not from the Treaty. They say they are partners with the Crown, and being partners they should have a 50/50 say in everything that goes on in New Zealand i.e. co-govern New Zealand. They say that Maori are ‘partners’ and the rest of us who are not MPs are just spectators.
Why should these demands, these interpretations of the Treaty, be rejected?
First, Sir Apirana Ngata (left), New Zealand’s greatest Maori, would reject them. Read what he said:
“These are but few words [i.e. Article One] 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 their lands
…it is the absolute authority over the [Maori] people which the article transmits into the hands of the Queen and Parliamentary Council…the main purport was the transferring of the authority of the Maori chiefs for making laws to their respective tribes and sub-tribes under the Treaty of Waitangi to the Queen of England forever.”11
Sir Apirana clearly opines that Maori are not ‘partners’ with the government.
What is troubling about the 440 Church leaders letter is that they come across as knowing more about the Treaty than Sir Apirana Ngata. Yet he was fluent in Maori, and lived much closer to the February 6th, 1840 event. Really, it’s shameful for them to disrespect Sir Apirana Ngata in this way.
A telling paper has been written by Justice Willy explaining why the Treaty is not a partnership. Read is HERE.
There is a second reason why we should reject what the activists say (i.e. they say Maori are partners with the Crown, and being partners they should have a 50/50 say in everything that goes on in New Zealand i.e. co-govern New Zealand.) When Maori were granted British citizenship, they became British citizens. And when they became British citizens, they had the same rights and duties as all other British citizens. As I have said, is impossible for a group of people in a British colony to be British citizens and have superior rights over other British citizens.
That would be an oxymoron. A contradiction in terms. That would mean the British were going about the globe spreading a system of government which promoted apartheid and racism. The British did not do this.
There is a third reason why Maori are not 50/50 partners with the Crown When Maori ceded sovereignty, the management of all the resources of the country were transferred from Maori to the British, to be managed by the British, via democratic government.
Private property rights (i.e. land, dwellings, and property) would be protected by the British. If a tribe owned land, and sold all of it or part of it, the promise of protection was transferred to the new owner.
11 Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty of Waitangi. An Explanation. P.6
Most Kiwis think (wrongly) that activist Maori can’t get their hands on private property, but this is not so. Don’t be fooled. Local councils, in collaboration with Iwi and woke bureaucrats , can “re-classify” anyone’s land, anytime.
The following are just some of the classifications Iwi and councils have come up with as a first step to getting their hands on private land:
The RMA’s Section 6 notes the following:
• Outstanding Natural Landscapes (ONL)
• Outstanding Natural Features (ONF)
• Significant Natural Features (SNF)
• Rural Scenic Landscapes (RSL)
• Rural Scenic (RS)
• Sites and Areas of Significance to Māori (SASM)
• Significant Natural Area (SNA)
• Wahi Tapu (Sacred Maori Land)
I am speaking from first-hand experience. I received notification from Heritage NZ that my land was to be re-classified as “Wahi Tapu” (i.e. sacred Maori land) The story they came up with as to how / why it was sacred was found to be just made up. The upshot is that I have to keep paying the rates but Maori can walk all over my land. If I want to develop the land in any way, I have to get Iwi permission. Most land owners, when confronted with this kind of corruption, sell for a song to get out, and Maori move in to buy it. It’s a carefully worked strategy for Maori to get possession of private at bargain basement prices.
The law currently says that private land cannot be awarded to Maori, only state owned land. So bureaucrats and activists are working around the law. How so? How they are having a go at getting my land is one example. What’s another example? The government buys farms and large blocks of land when they come up for sale.12 Or ‘surplus’ state owned land is land banked. Either way, this land is then‘gifted’ to Maori in a settlement arrangement. Remember when the government purchased Ihumātao in the middle of Auckland from Fletchers for $30 million? And most of the land was eventually gifted to Maori?13
There is a double tragedy here. First, we, the taxpayer, paid for the land being given to Maori. That is to say, the government is using our money to buy the land, to then give it away.
Second, as I have said, Dr John Robinson, rightly, asserts that all “settlements” are based on fraud and ought not to be happening. “All Treaty settlements are based on the Crown having broken the Treaty. Since that is not so [i.e. the Crown have not broken the Treaty], all such settlements are a fraud. There is no justification for the continued existence of either settlements or the Waitangi Tribunal.”14
12 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Surplus-land-going-to-Maori.pdf
13 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Ihumatao-deal-done-Governments-30-million-deal-tobuy-the-land-NZ-Herald.pdf
14 Dr John Robinson. Who Really Broke The Treaty. Tross Publishing. 2024. Page 65
Another example of the fraud and corruption going on in the background of NZ?
The government signed off on deal with Maori in the South Island for Maori to build and own new police stations which they would then lease back to the government, all because police commissioner Coster says “this was a step towards a new model of practical partnership.”15 This should never have happened. Coster is unaware that the Treaty is not a partnership.
What should have happened?
The contract for building new police stations ought to have been put out to tender so that the other 159 cultures could have had equal opportunity to win the contract. Only an apartheid state would have allowed Maori special rights. The 440 Church leaders want to keep this corruption going. Really, their behaviour is shameful.
How does this relate to David Seymour’s Bill? David’s second principle (before it was amended) was a follows:
“The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property ”
David is trying to stop all the corruption going on in the background of New Zealand where private land and publicly owned property is being targeted by activists, yet astonishingly, unbelievably, the 440 Church leaders oppose David trying to stop this. They appear to support racism, apartheid, separatism, corruption.
David wants to put to the sword all the legislation and laws which have been passed which allow activist Maori corruption over private property rights. It is a fundamental right in a modern democracy that all citizens in a country can feel 100% secure with respect to the ownership and control of their private property.
How does this relate to the 440 Church leaders? As I have said, these leaders are corrupt in that they want to keep laws and legislation in place which allow Maori to threaten private property rights.
440 Christian leaders: “We support Te Tiriti o Waitangi and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill”
“As Christian leaders from across Aotearoa New Zealand we express our commitment to Te Tiriti o Waitangi. We affirm that Te Tiriti o Waitangi protects the Tino Rangatiratanga of hapū and iwi.”
In the final English draft, Article 2, sentence one, the word ‘possession’ was translated as ‘tino rangatiratanga’ in Maori. Activists have said this means ‘unqualified exercise of chieftainship’. Setting aside the their twisted mistranslation, I think there is no problem with this activist translation. Why? We can beat them at their own game. How?
15 https://stopcogovernance.kiwi/wp-content/uploads/2024/09/Ngai-Tahu-and-police-sign-deal-to-develop-policestations-in-the-South-Island-Stuff.pdf
Well, think about it. In 2024, if someone (Maori or non-Maori) owns a piece of land with a house on that land, and chattels, we could say that they are the chiefs of that land, that house, and those chattels. In other words, all Kiwis who own land, houses, property and chattels are the chiefs over their assets.
Maori want to make it sound as though being chiefs over assets is distinctly a Maori concept. It is not. It’s common to all New Zealanders who own property. Article two says so. Notice “…all the people of New Zealand” in this Article. “The Queen Confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand the possession (tino rangatiratanga) of the land, dwellings, and all their property.”
440 Christian leaders: “That rangatiratanga over land and taonga is to be upheld. ”
Here the word “taonga” pops up again. I have already talked about this.
As I said earlier, activists mistranslated this word to mean “treasures” meaning anything Maori treasure. We ought not to be concerned about this mistranslation either.
Why?
The Treaty clearly mandates that “..all the people of New Zealand” should have the ‘rangatiratanga’ (i.e. be the chiefs over their land) and their property (taonga / treasures).
Again, think about it.
The jet ski, or boat, or caravan, or jewellery, or car or whatever which is owned by a non- Maori private citizen, which is valuable to them, is their treasure.
Once again, Maori want to make it sound as though the word taonga is distinctly a Maori concept.
It is not.
What am I saying?
I am saying that all New Zealanders have taonga (treasures), personal property which is valuable to them. Is this true or not?
What does this have to do with David Seymour, his Bill, and the 440 Church leaders? David’s Bill wants to acknowledge that all New Zealanders who own land, dwellings and other property (i.e. their treasures) ought to be able to rest (be secure) knowing that “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property.”
Notice David’s use of the word “all” in this principle. This means all the people of New Zealand, not just Maori. Period.
Church leaders want to oppose David principle (i.e. David Seymour’s second principle before it was amended). They give no reason, which is appalling.
440 Christian leaders: “We therefore express our opposition to the proposed Treaty Principles Bill.”
Huh? Why? David’s original 3 principles reflect the true meaning and intent of the Treaty.
440 Christian leaders: “The proposed Bill is inconsistent with Te Tiriti o Waitangi in that it does not recognise the collective rights of iwi Māori or guarantee their relationship with the Crown.”
What rights? What ‘relationship?’
As usual, the Church leaders do not explain what they mean. They just make more unsubstantiated claims
We can only surmise that (again) what they are saying here is that the Crown and Maori are in partnership. That is to say, New Zealand is made up of three groups: the Crown (i.e. the government), Maori, and the rest of us. Maori and the Crown are off doing their own thing as 50/50 partners, and the rest of us watch on. Maori have special rights and privileges that all other New Zealanders do not have. In other words, we have a two tiered society in NZ – Maori and the rest. This is apartheid and racism.
These ideas – all of them – partnership, apartheid, racism, a two tiered society, special privilege and status for Maori – are nowhere to be found in the Treaty. Absolutely nowhere. Yet the Church leaders support them all.
These 440 Church leaders say all these claims are in the Treaty, but they produce no proof that they are there. They just say they are. Well, Church Leaders, shows us.
Our 440 Christian leaders seemingly can’t produce any evidence to condemn David Seymour and his principles.
440 Christian leaders: “It would undermine what Te Tiriti guarantees, and what decades of law, jurisprudence and policy have sought to recognise.”
Again, the Church leaders don’t give us specifics about exactly how David’s principles undermine the Treaty. Likewise, they don’t tell us what the Treaty “guarantees” or exactly what decades of law, jurisprudence and policy “recognise”?
Again, no evidence is provided.
It is well known that our courts and the Waitangi Tribunal have been hijacked by activists. So for the Church leaders to be hanging their hats on these bodies, these institutions, proves beyond doubt that these Church leaders are also activists.
Proof that the Waitangi Tribunal is run by activists is HERE
Proof that the courts have been infiltrated by activists is HERE.
440 Christian leaders: “We note with concern the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal’s interim report, Ngā Mātāpono – The Principles, including that the Bill “distorted the text of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
The Church leaders don’t tell us exactly how and where in the Treaty that David’s Bill “distorts” the text of the Treaty. So this is yet another baseless claim.
As I have already shown, the claim that the Bill distorts the Treaty is without foundation.
440 Christian leaders: “The Treaty Principles Bill may destabilise and harm Aotearoa New Zealand We note with deep concern the harmful impacts the Bill may cause to Aotearoa New Zealand’s social cohesion.”
It is true that the Bill will create division? No it is not true. To find out why, read HERE
440 Christian leaders: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi provides a basis for finding common ground,”
The Treaty only provides a basis “for finding common ground” when it’s interpreted accurately.
David’s original 3 principles do just that. David’s ‘original’ three principles summarised the Treaty accurately and faithfully.
The 440 Church leaders say their interpretation of the Treaty would give us common ground. This is nonsense. Their interpretation of the Treaty, as I have shown, it marinating in a mixture of misinformation and outright lies. I, for one, don’t want to build our country on a foundation of lies and misinformation.
440 Christian leaders: “recognising and reconciling past wrongs,”
Full and final settlements with Maori were reached in 1960.16 So how is it that settlements are still going on?
The short answer is that activists and tribal leaders are simply making up new claims. The corrupt and activist hijacked Waitangi Tribunal hears these fraudulent claims, and the 440 Church leaders support the Waitangi Tribunal.
16 Mike Butler, Twisting The Treaty. A Tribal Grab For Wealth And Power. Tross Publishing. 2013. P.173
It’s worth nothing here that Maori are now saying that they don’t want full and final settlements. They want to keep the grievances going forever. For proof, read HERE
As you have seen, Dr John Robinson argues that there ought never have been ANY settlements in the first place because they are all based on fraud.
Other authors have argued that whatever Maori perceive that they have suffered since 1840, they have been well and truly been paid back ( and then some) through all the benefits they have received since. E.g roads, schools, hospitals, social welfare, electricity, clothes, housing, cars, computers, phones, almost infinite food varieties, and so on. The list is endless. Their life expectancy has been raised from in the 20s in 1840 to in the 70s in 2024.
That is to say, Maori have been brought from the “guttermost (imploding and self-annihilating in 1840) to the uttermost (brought into a modern world with all its amenities and services)” through the wisdom, skill, investment, and hard work of the British.
Lawyer and author Stuart C Scott (left) is just one of these authors and he writes:
“One can, of course, see the problem. Land bought' for a penny an acre -which now seems a laughably small sum-is now 'worth' hundreds of pounds thousands of dollars an acre. Part of that is massive inflation, and part of it is supply and demand. But a great part of it is the increment arising from the breaking in of the land, farming it properly and developing niche markets which did not exist in 1840-and indeed were not imaginable in 1840-in fact until after the development of refrigeration. The opinion of the Appeal Court apparently is that--not the original hapu owners- but the Maori generally, are entitled to a large share of that unearned increment as the fictional owners of the soil. The commonsense view would be that they (the Maori) are already getting it by way of welfare, schools, hospitals and general amenities on a scale unimaginable in 1840.”17
440 Christian leaders: “…and acts as a moral and equitable compass for our democracy.”
Notice how the Church leaders throw the words “democracy” and “equitable” into the ring.
“Equitable” means ‘fair.”
Clearly, obviously, they do not know what these words mean. Which means what?
If one group of people in our society have superior rights over all other people, which is what our 440 Church leaders are promoting, then we are not living in a democracy.
Rather, we are living in an apartheid state, where unfairness rules and reigns.
To set up an apartheid state in one of their colonies would have been abhorrent to the British in 1840.
17 Stuart C. Scott. The Travesty of Waitangi. Towards Anarchy. Caxton Press, 1995. p.47
David Seymour’s Bill and his original 3 principles18, rather than an activist interpretation of the Treaty, provides a wonderful moral compass for our democracy. Who, in their right mind, would argue with David’s original 3 principles? Answer? Only Maori activists and these 440 Church leaders.
Clearly, these 440 Church leaders would prefer that we live in an apartheid state. No thanks.
This is not what the Treaty mandates, and certainly not what the chiefs in 1840 agreed to.
440 Christian leaders: “By contrast, we believe the Treaty Principles Bill will lead to division between the peoples of Aotearoa New Zealand, cause the spread of disinformation, and hinder efforts at healing and reconciliation.”
Ironically, the spread of misinformation is all coming from the activists, approved by the Church leaders. In bullet point form, this misinformation includes, but is not limited to, ideas like:
• The Treaty is a partnership.
• The Treaty mandated a two tier society.
• The Treaty mandated the formation of an apartheid state.
• Via the Treaty, Maori were to be afforded special rights and privileges over other citizens.
• Via the Treaty, Maori have the right to set up their own government.
• Via the Treaty, Maori can be appointed to governance roles (i.e. Maori wards) without being voted on.
• Via the Treaty, Maori must be involved in the leadership of our society, and in all organisations in society, as of right.
• Via the Treaty, Only Maori can interpret what the Treaty means.
• The Treaty is a sacred covenant.
• The Treaty is “a living document” and therefore its meaning can be changed according to the circumstance at hand.
• That the Treaty can only be truly understood by Maori language experts.
• And so on.
As I said, what’s most troubling of all is that the 440 Church leaders are supportive of this misinformation, endorsing it. For this, their Bible condemns them. These Church leaders are saying ‘right is wrong, and wrong is right.’
18 His ‘original’ 3 principles were: 1. The New Zealand Government has the right to govern all New Zealanders. 2. The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property. 3. All New Zealanders are equal under the law with the same rights and duties. Recently, David was forced by cabinet (i.e. Luxon and co) to change principle 2 to read : Rights of Hapū and Iwi Māori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapū and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreements with the Crown.” This change to principle 2 is a disaster, as it effectively maintains the status quo. We will be fighting to revert back to the original wording.
Isaiah 5:20 warns: "Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter."
This speaks to the inversion of truth and falsehood which is what the Church leaders are doing.
440 Christian leaders: “Te Tiriti o Waitangi as a covenantal relationship” We affirm the Church’s ongoing, special, and historic relationship with Te Tiriti o Waitangi which many Christians view as a sacred covenant.
The Treaty is not a sacred covenant. It is a fully secular Treaty. There is no mention in the speeches of the chiefs on the 5th of February or the 6th, or at any of the other signing ceremonies, that the Treaty was a sacred covenant.
When one reads the Treaty, there is not one mention of “God” or “sacred” or “covenant” anywhere. With no evidence to back their claim, we can only conclude that the 440 Church leaders are deliberately spreading misinformation (this is a nice way for saying ‘lying’). How would Jesus view Church leaders? You know the answer.
So why are activists now labelling the Treaty as a sacred covenant?
Answer?
Through the rulings of our corrupt courts and the Waitangi tribunal; through foolish legislation passed by governments since 1974; through the introduction of Treaty principles; through Hugh Kawharu’s fraudulent interpretation of the Treaty in 1989 – through all these means, and others, activists have the Treaty right where they want it.
Which means what? They want to be in control of its interpretation. They want to be the only ones who can say what it means. They want to control the entire narrative around the Treaty. Labelling it as “sacred” sends a clear message to all non-Maori that “You are not allowed to touch it ” (i.e. interpret it in any other way other than the way we interpret it) Labelling it as “sacred” is another way of saying “Don’t you dare touch our sacred cash cow.”
Why is this?
Answer?
Because the Treaty has been hugely profitable for Maori. As I said, it’s a cash cow. Dr Michael Bassett agrees HERE
But it is much more than this. Maori want to take over the country by 2040. They have openly said so.
For proof, read HERE
In their eyes, Maori activists are tracking nicely towards takeover.
David’s Bill has the potential to completely derail their plans.
This explains why the opposition to it has been so intense.
Maori activist employ 18 strategies to keep their goal of takeover on track. What are those strategies? Read HERE.
What is troubling about this is that the Church leaders are complicit with the activists in perpetrating this lie that the Treaty is a sacred covenant when it’s not.
440 Christian leaders: “As inheritors of the legacy of the missionaries involved in the drafting, promotion and signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi, we acknowledge a duty of care for upholding the mana of Te Tiriti o Waitangi.”
No doubt about what?
This is saying that today’s Church leaders are in the direct line of the missionaries who drafted and promoted the Treaty in 1840. If so, the 440 Church leaders must be joking. The missionaries in 1840 and our 440 Church leaders are chalk and cheese. The missionaries in 1840 went to extreme lengths to ensure that the chiefs understood the Treaty. For example Henry Williams and son Edward translated the final English draft into Maori on the night of the 4th of February. Then on the night of the 5th, Henry and his son spent the night with the chiefs in Ti Tii Marae at Waitangi to make sure the chiefs understood what they were signing. Henry wrote to Bishop Selwyn:
“The instruction of Captain Hobson was not to allow anyone to sign the treaty till he fully understood it.
To which instruction I did most strictly attend. That the natives to whom I explained the treaty understood the nature of the same, there can be no doubt.”19
That if the chiefs signed the Treaty, they were fully aware that they would be:
• Ceding sovereignty.
• Giving up the resources of their country, all of them, including water to be managed by the British government.
• Giving permission to the British go govern all the citizens of the country including all Maori.
19 Bruce Moon. Twisting The Treaty. A Tribal Grab For Wealth And Power. Tross Publishing. 2013. p 35
• Able to rest, knowing that the British would protect their ownership of their land, dwellings, and property i.e. their 1cm² squares.
• Giving up the coastline (seabed and foreshore) to the British, according to British common law, to be managed by them for the benefit of all New Zealanders.
• Having their land surveyed, and titles issued.
• Able to sell their land, if they wanted to, to the British Crown, at agreed prices. Maori did go on to sell 92% of their land. Proof is HERE
• Granted British citizenship and thus made equal with all other citizens.
The 1840 Missionaries made sure the chiefs understood these bullet points before they signed.
Yet, astonishingly, the 440 Church leaders tell us that the chiefs didn’t sign up to any of the bullet points.
If the 1840 Missionaries were alive today, they would disassociate quickly from today’s 440 Church leaders And rightly so.
440 Christian leaders: “We commit our own churches to deepening our Te Tiriti o Waitangi education”
By this they mean “we commit to brainwashing our congregations with a completely fraudulent understanding of the Treaty.”
Make no mistake – these 440 Church leaders want to hoodwink their congregations to do three things:
1. Drink in an activist understanding of the Treaty.
2. To not oppose the Maori takeover of our country.
3. To join in with the Maori takeover of our country, helping it along.
If you don’t believe radical Maori are trying to take over our country, read THIS
In other words, the 440 Church Leaders are activists.
440 Christian leaders: “and pursuing reconciliation.”
Maori activists love to play this victim card. They say that they are not “reconciled with the rest of NZ” The constant call for “reconciliation” is therefore a ruse and the Church leaders are joining in.20 It’s a ploy to keep getting cash and assets from the government. In other words Maori activists say “As long as the cash and assets and power keep coming to us, we feel we are being reconciled. If the cash and assets and power stop coming, we feel more reconciliation is needed.” That is to say “we are pursuing reconciliation” is code for “keep the cash and assets coming.”
20 an action intended to deceive someone; a trick.
440 Christian leaders: “We will work to ensure the flourishing of life in Aotearoa New Zealand for all peoples living here, both Tangata Tiriti and Tangata Whenua, as Te Tiriti of Waitangi enables.”
This is a line activists use often i.e. “Everyone in NZ will be better off when Maori are in charge of NZ.” This is just spin. It’s more propaganda and it’s therefore not true.
What they are saying is “Everyone will flourish under tribal rule.” We all they won’t.
Look at the photo below. It’s carefully staged to give the impression it’s white people pushing Maorification.
These signs are being erected around the place. What they are pleading for is for everyone to gather around the activist understand of the Treaty. In other words, Maorify, and join in with the coup It’s fluffy feel good stuff. It’s fake unity, because it’s all based on fraud and corruption
The 440 Church leaders endorse this. If anyone ought to know the consequence of building a house built on the sand (representing fraud, lies, deceit, darkness) instead of on the rock (truth), they should.
It’s worth noting too that these 440 Church leaders refer to New Zealand as “Aotearoa New Zealand” which is not the official name of our country. What do they do this for? They are virtue signalling, that is all. Jesus strongly condemned this kind of “fake” behaviour (e.g. Matthew 23:5).
Watch THIS video.
440 Christian leaders: “We call on all Members of Parliament to oppose the Treaty Principles Bill. We therefore view with concern, and oppose the proposed Treaty Principles Bill. We call on all Members of Parliament to do everything in their power to not take this Bill to Select Committee and to work towards the ongoing restoration of the Tiriti relationship. With love, and the hope for a flourishing and peaceful future for our people Signed by the following individuals… “
Why are the Church Leaders so concerned to stop the Bill going to select committee?
It’s obvious.
They don’t want to risk the possibility of massive public support for the Bill.
If this happens, and it’s likely, Luxon and Peters will be forced to support it.
Why? Because the last election was too close, and Luxon and Peters know it. They know that if they go against the will of a huge chunk of the electorate, they will be punished at the ballot box in 2026.
That is to say, not supporting the Bill past the first reading would seal their exit from Parliament at the next election.
Both tremble at the thought.
Despite what they tell us, re-election has always been, and will always be, the main concern of sitting MPs.
Maori activists, and our 440 Church leaders, know all this. This is why they tremble too.
Public support for David’s Bill could end the gravy train.
Finally?
Truly, sincerely, God help the parishioners who are left in the shrinking Churches of these 440 Church Leaders These parishioners need our prayers.
Are the 440 masquerading as “Church Leaders” but really they are Treaty ignorant Pharisees and activists?
Or are they bone fide Church Leaders?
Let the evidence speak for itself.