Page 2
The meaning of the word Taonga has been distorted / corrupted. Article Two of the Treaty in the Maori version says:
“The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.” The word taonga is translated ‘property’.
Historian Bruce Moon says “The word has an interesting history. In 1820 while assisting Kendall and Lee of Cambridge in compiling the first Maori dictionary, Hongi Hika had defined it as “property procured by the spear – tao”.
In an appeal for protection by 13 Ngapuhi chiefs to King William in 1831, they said “We are a people without possessions. We have nothing but timber, flax, pork and potatoes.” And their word for “possessions” was “taonga”. 1
Bruce Moon says “The word “taonga” that the Williams chose for “property” was precisely what it meant in 1840 – chattels or ordinary possessions.”2
The REAA has misinterpreted the meaning of this word, getting their meaning from Hugh Kawharu’s 1989 fraudulent back translation where he gave taonga a new meaning: treasures.
Kawharu was wrong. Taonga means physical / tangible objects able to be precured by the spear. In Article two of the Treaty document it means chattels or ordinary possessions.
So how can the REAA deem its course for Real Estate Agents ‘a taonga’? It’s neither a chattel or an ordinary possessions.
So when the REA course manual says “In Te Ao Māori (the Māori world), knowledge is a taonga (treasure). This educational topic is a taonga (treasure) we would like to gift to you” the authors are contracdicting historical evidence to the contrary. In 1840 Maori concepts and ideas about protocols in real estate sales were non existent. A real estate course is not something, either now or back in 1840, which could be procured by the spear. Nor is it a chattel or an ordinary possession.
Page 3
Module 1.
Why does a real estate agent need to know or pay homage to Maori protocols and practices i.e. 1-4 below?
1. Describe elements of the pōwhiri process (ceremonial welcome) – karanga
2. (ceremonial call), whaikōrero (formal speech), waiata, karakia (ritual chant), and pepeha (tribal expression),
3. Apply correct te reo (the Māori language) pronunciation in the workplace including the correct pronunciation of placenames, and
4. Apply basic greetings (mihimihi) in the workplace to enhance relationships.
Maori who want to buy or sell real estate want to know real estate facts e.g. how much their house will sell for, what they need to know to get the best price, how they can best help the real estate agent and so on. Or, if buying, how much the house is worth, what they can negotiate for the price, the condition of the property via a builders report etc. I worked as a real estate agent for 5 years and and had only one Maori client. Does the
1 Bruce Moon. NZ The Fair Colony. P5
2 Moon, page 5
REAA have statistics3 on how many Maoris are buying and selling property? Of those who have, have they researched whether following Maori protocols and practices is important them? Why would they be? They have absolutely no bearing on the sale or purchase of real estate.
Module one appears to be nothing but grooming, preparing real estate agents for tribal rule.
Module 2.
Te Tiriti o Waitangi - The Treaty of Waitangi
1. Understand the historical context leading up to the signing of Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) and He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence)
2. Describe the purpose of He Whakaputanga (the Declaration of Independence)
3. Describe the differences in interpretation of the Māori and English texts of the Treaty articles,
4. and Describe the purpose and origin of the Treaty principles,
5. and Identify where Treaty principles may apply in the real estate context.
6. Aim: To understand the historical context leading up to Te Tiriti o Waitangi and to gain an insight to Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the Treaty of Waitangi) as viewed from an Awanuiārangi perspective and the connection Te Tiriti may have in the context of real estate legislation.
I will deal with each of the issues raised here, one at a time.
The purpose of He Whakaputanga
Tribalist and Maori activists claim that He Whakaputanga is New Zealand’s founding document because, they claim, New Zealand was made, via He Whakaputanga, a sovereign country, to ruled by Maori alone. Therefore, they say, it trumps the Treaty of Waitangi. The implication is that all the settlers here (i.e. all non Maori) are here illegally. New Zealand, they say, ought to be given back to Maori, the legal owners.
Once again, this narrative contradicts the facts of history. To read the facts, click HERE.
Describe the differences in interpretation of the Māori and English texts of the Treaty articles
The first thing we need to realise is that there exists what we call “a James Freeman rogue version of the Treaty of Waitangi in English”. I will explain how this came into being. Then there is the genuine / real / bone fide final English draft of the Treaty. I have made a simple diagram below.
3 Any ‘research’ cited by the REAA needs to be carried out by an independent reputable research company, not made up in the lunch room by REAA staff.
(1) The final draft of the Treaty in English was penned by Busby. At 4pm on the 4th of February 1840 it was given to Henry Williams and son Edward to translate into Maori. This final English draft has come to be called the Littlewood draft. There is a reaon for this which will be explained later.
(5) His personal secretary, James Freeman, started to play up. He thought the original Treaty was too plain and simple so he began to formulate copies of the Treaty based on the discarded notes of the Treaty writers. His versions were flowery, wordy, written in royal style.
(4) On the March 1st, 1840 Hobson had a severe stroke.
(2) On the 5th of February, the Treaty in Maori, or Te Tiriti was read for the chiefs. All afternoon on the 5th and into the night Henry Williams and his son were with the chiefs explaining it to them, answering questions etc. The treaty in Maori is the Treaty. It’s the Treaty 540 for so Chiefs signed. 52 chiefs signed the Treaty at Waitangi on the 6th of February 1840
(6) On the 11th of April, 1840 a missionary called Maunsell was at the Waikato heads gathering the signatures of chiefs.
(3) On the 17th of February 1840, Colenso, a missionary printer, printed 200 copies of the Treaty in Maori on A4 size paper.
(7) Maunsell read the treaty in Maori to the chiefs. He was reading from one of Colenso’s A4 printed copies.
(8) Many more chiefs than Maunsell anticipated wanted to sign. There was insufficent space for all the signatures on the Colenso A4 size piece of paper. There was room for only five signatures on this copy. Maunsell had in his top pocket one of James Freeman’s rogue versions (JFRV) of the Treaty, written in English. He needed paper for signatures, and this was the only paper on hand.
(11) Maori activists and their woke fellow travellers exclaim “The JFRV is the official version of the Treaty in English! See it was signed by Hobson! See it has the signatures of the chiefs on it! See, the Littewood draft was not signed by chiefs! ” But there are huge holes in their reasoning. First, why would the chiefs sign the final English draft? They wouldn’t. It was only used to construct the treaty in Maori. All the British wanted was for Maori to sign the version in Maori, the language of the chiefs. Second, one doesn’t sign a draft.
Third, as I have said, the Treaty in English, the final English draft, must, logically, pre-date the the 5th of February. Only the Littlewood draft meets this requirement. Fourth, Busby said he penned the final English draft. The JFRV is in Freeman’s handwriting. This fact alone disqualifies it from being the Treaty in English. Sixth, about 540 signatures were gathered from chiefs. All are on a Maori version of the Treaty - except those gathered at Waikato heads. Doesn’t this fact raise a red flag? For these six reasons, we must decisively reject the JFRV as “the Treaty in English”
Yet, in schedule one of the Treaty Of Waitangi Act 1975, the JFRV is posted as the offical English version of the Treaty.
(9)The JFRV was only used to capture the overflow of 39 signatures, that is all. After all, when the chiefs at Waikato Heads signed the JFRV of the Treaty, they thought they were signing for the Treaty that they had just had read to them, which was in Maori. The Colenso copy and the JFRV were wax sealed and pinned together to indicate the relationship described between the two. It was taken to Hobson to sign. Hobson simply trusted Freeman that the English copy of the Treaty was an exact duplicate of James Busby’s final English draft (i.e. the Littewood draft). He was too sick to double check. It was a fatal mistake.
(10) Maori activists and their woke fellow travellers seized upon this JFRV as ‘the official English version of the Treaty’. It cannot possibly be this. Why ? First, it’s markedly different from the Treaty in Maori. Second, it’s dated 11th of April. The final English draft must pre-date February 5th. After all, it was from the final English draft that the Treaty in Maori was formulated. The final English draft, you’ll remember, was used on the night of the 4th of February to translate into Maori ready for meeting the chiefs on the 5th
(12) Why do tribalists, Maori activists / the woke cling to the JFRV like there is no tomorrow? And why do they equally vehemently reject the Littlewood draft? Below is Article two of the Treaty from the Littewood final draft and then in the JFRV.
As I have said, the Littlewood document’s text mirrors the Maori translation text perfectly throughout in terms of sequence of statements word weight per sentence, and the use of synonymous words in each language.
Under the strictest criteria one wishes to apply scientifically, the Littewood document fits the expected profile of the final english draft. Conclusion? The REAA is using the wrong Treaty document as the basis of all its course material.
(Article Two Of The Treaty: JFRV)
Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates, Forests, Fisheries and other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession.
(this version is very different from what the Treaty in Maori says. When quizzed about why this is so, Maori activists reply “Oh, Williams was a poor translater!”)
(Article Two Of The Treaty: Littlewood Final English Draft)
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.”
(this version is exactly what the Treaty in Maori says)
Spot the difference?
The word ‘possession’ in the Littlewood draft comes from the Maori ‘tino rangatirtang’a. What does it mean? Below is what is written in the 1840 Henry Williams dictionary of Maori words. To get the true meaning of words, we have to go back to what they meant in 1840, not what they mean to activist Maori today.
Maori chiefs were concerned that the British might steal their land. So Henry Williams went to great lengths to convey to the chiefs that their land was theirs and that it would not be stolen from them.
The land belonged to Maori, unless, of course, they sold it.
In English, the best translation of the Maori tino rangatiratanga is the English word “possession”, which is the word that appears in the final English draft (i.e the draft penned by Busy, called the Littlewood draft).
But for Maori? Henry Williams wanted to convey the idea that Maori would continue to be chiefs over their land, dwellings and all their property. In today’s language, we could say that the British guaranteed to protect whatever land, dwellings and property Maori had as at the time they signed the Treaty. House and contents. The same applied to ‘all the people of New Zealand’.
What did this actually mean? It meant that chiefs would have to decide among themselves where the boundaries of their land were situated. As you can image, when chiefs found out that money could be had from the sale of land, there were furious arguments between tribes / chiefs over boundaries. Now here are some points you need to know.
Activists say that:
1. All the Maori land was stolen. This is nonsense. Maori sold 92% of their land. HERE is the proof. Activists say that tino Rangatiratanga means Maori were guaranteed self determination. What’s do they think self determination means? For them it means that Maori could be self governing. But activists go further. They
prefer the JFRV because they think it gives them a mandate to be chiefs (i.e. owners) FOREVER over the land, estates, forests and fisheries of ALL of New Zealand “so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession.”
So not only do they still, in their mind, own all of New Zealand but they want to be self governing. When asked how this would work practically (i.e having two separate governments in New Zealand) they can’t tell you. They can’t provide ANY detail. They just want it.
2. Maori activists today say, using the JFRV, “Hey, see the Treaty says we can have our estates, forests, land and fisheries for as long as we wish to have them. Well, today in 2024 we wish to have all our land, forests, estates and fisheries so hand them back to us! And we want to be self governing. The Treaty guarantees us all this. This is what it promises us!”
This interpretation is a gross twisting of the truth. Actually, it’s pure fantasy, and I am, frankly, amazed that it’s been entertained for so long.
No matter which “version” of the Treaty one chooses, if Maori sold 92% of their land, and they did, they lost control of it at the point of sale, and so have absolutely no right to have it back.
How should we view all these twisted / contorted interpretations of the Treaty? We deal with them one at a time, logically and factually.
First, they are using the wrong version of the Treaty. We’ve already explained why the JFRV cannot possibly be the Treaty in English.
Second, they claim the Treaty gives them the right to be self governing. No it does not. In Article one of the Treaty Maori ceded sovereignty. HERE is the proof.
Third, it is true that British considered that Maori owned all of New Zealand to start with. However, well before 1840, Maori were selling land to incoming settlers. HERE is proof of Maori land sales pre-1840.
Maori selling their land continued after 1840, in spite of the fact that the British had stipulated that only the Crown, after 1840, could buy Maori land.
The fact is, as I have said, Maori went on to sell 92% of their land. They also cry out “We had a million acres confiscated!”. What they don’t tell you is that New Zealand is 66 million acres so 1 million acres is only a tiny proportion of the whole. They don’t tell you that between 1927 and 1960 Justice Sim conducted a royal commission to investigate Crown injustices to Maori and their land from the very beginning and compensation were awarded. Full and final settlements were reached.
Even so called ‘Land Confiscations’ are to be disputed. Why? Read the words of New Zealand’s greatest Maori, Sir Apirana Ngata, who was an MP in the 1920 and 30s.
“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.” 1
1 Sir Apirana Ngata. The Treaty Of Waitangi. An Explanation. pp 15-16
So what is going on here? Maori today are suffering from sellers remorse. Nearly everyone has experienced sellers remorse. I have. You probably have too. But Maori will not accept the fact that when land is sold, it’s sold. It’s gone, and you can’t have it back unless you pay to get it back.
Some may ask “Why was the wording ‘estates, forests, land, fisheries’ omitted from the final English draft? But retained in the JFRV? Answer? According to British law, the sea belonged to everyone. Because British democracy was about to be installed in New Zealand, and this included law about who owned the sea, it was not included in the Treaty. There was no need. As for forests, lands, and estates, the Treaty writers left that out too because it would have confused the situation. For example, all the chiefs owned land with forests on the land. Why separate out land from forests? It seemed unnecessary. Today, ordinarily, one one buys land, if there is ‘forest’ on the land, this is not separated out for sale separately. It is simply factored into the sale of the one title of land. So this phrase was omitted from the final English draft. But Freeman picked up those discarded notes, including this phrase, and, foolishly and unauthorised, incorporated it into his rogue versions.
The final English draft makes it very clear. In the minds of the British who wrote the Treaty, all the British were guaranteeing Maori was the possession of their land, dwellings, and all their property (i.e. Chattels or ordinary possessions) as at the time they signed the Treaty. If they sold their land after the signing, then they lost ‘possession’ of it. They were also guaranteeing the chiefs that the British would protect their property. That is to say, the British promised to stop inter-tribal warfare where one tribe would plunder another and steal their land, dwellings, and possessions. That is all.
And what about the phrase “...all the people of New Zealand”? Notice it is included in the final English draft (i.e. the Littlewood draft), but not the JFRV. It was included in the final English draft (i.e. the Littlewood draft) because the British were establishing universal property rights for all New Zealanders. Today a certain percentage of the population own their quarter acre piece of land plus house and contents. The boundaries of everyone’s property is strickly / accurately marked. The British brought hoards of surveyors here in the 1840s to set up New Zealand’s land information. Once land boundaries were established, the British promised to protect private property, via the police, the local council, and the government. This is still the case today. 2
Herein is another reason the tribalists / Maori activists today have latched on to the JFRV. They point out that the phrase “...all the people of New Zealand” is not in the JFRV (what they call ‘the English version of the Treaty’.) Why is this omission important to them? Watch this carefully. They claim, remember, that all the lands, estates, forests, and fisheries are theirs FOREVER i.e. the whole of New Zealand was originally theirs and therefore is still theirs today.
They say “See, the British were talking to Maori exclusively in the Treaty. No one else has any right to the estates, land, forests and fisheries. The British are acknowledging that they were originally ALL ours and we can keep them “so long as we wish and desire to retain the same in our possession.”
What’s interesting is that in the Maori version, Te Tiriti, the words “...all the people of New Zealand” is retained. Why is the important? It means that ALL NEW ZEALANDERS have rights to “estates, land, forests, and fisheries”, not just Maori.
Now, I hope, you can see why the JFRV was snapped up by activists in 1975 to be included in the Treaty of Waitangi Act as “..the official Treaty in English.”
2 This used to be the case. But under so called ‘co-governance’ arrangements with Maori, more and more private property is being deviously taken by Maori. My own land is one of those cases, so I am speaking from first hand experience. You can read my story HERE.
OK, let’s summarise the discussion so far, the thinking of activists, the thinking behind the REAA manual.
Combine:
1. EXCLUSIVITY: “..all the people of New Zealand” being omitted from the JFRV. For Maori activists, this means the Treaty is just between Maori and the Crown. No one else has rights to forests, fisheries, lands, and estates.
2. HE WHAKAPUTANGA - MAORI GET SOVEREIGNTY: in He Whakaputanga they claim they were ratified as an independent sovereign state ruled by Maori. Not true.
3. MAORI DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY IN THE TREATY OF WAITANGI: Maori claim that they didn’t cede sovereignty in the Treaty of Waitangi. Not true. They ceded sovereignty.
4. PERPETUAL OWNERSHIP OF OUR FORESTS, FISHERIES, LANDS, AND ESTATES. Maori claim that the Treaty promises Maori perpetual ownership of New Zealand. Not true.
5. SELLER’S REMORSE: Maori activists refuse to face the facts about the sale of their land. They sold 92% of their land. This is true.
6. LAND CONFISCATIONS: Sir Apirana Ngata says they were justified.
7. SELF GOVERNMENT OR SELF DETERMINATION: Maori activists claim that 1-6 above gives them the right to self government and self determination. But really, even in this, they are not telling the whole truth. They want to rule over all of New Zealand. How have they planned to do this? By the power of veto. What this effectively means is that in the 50/50 power sharing arrangement with Maori, we (i.e. non Maori) must get permission from Maori for everything we do. So it’s not 50/50 power sharing. It’s a transition from democracy to full blown tribal rule.
Dr John Robinson, New Zealand foremost researcher on these issues, states “Many of the activists and iwi leaders intend a totally dual government system with separate Maori and non-Maori houses of parliament, and a Maori veto on all legislation. A Maori veto on all legislation” means private tribal companies have the final say on everything that goes on in New Zealand, on what laws and legislation are passed and accepted in both houses of parliament. The words [in the He Puapua report] insist that power, “full authority”, must go to Maori.” 3
Module 2 of this course states the following: “Describe the purpose and origin of the Treaty principles, and Identify where Treaty principles may apply in the real estate context.”
There short answer is there are no principles in the Treaty. They were invented by Maori activists to enable them to make the Treaty say what it does not say. It was further fraudulant manipulation of the Treaty.
Professor Elizabeth Rata has written to this effect. You can read what she wrote HERE 3