Is the treaty the biggest con in our history?

Dr Bruce Moon certainly thinks so, and the growing amount of interest on the subject suggests he is not alone.

The Waitangi Tribunal has added and removed words from the original Treaty of Waitangi document, inflicting a false history into virtually every aspect of New Zealand life.

Modern reconstruction of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi

We have been conned into believing amendments to the original document by the Waitangi Tribunal are justified.? In fact, they are there because the Tribunal is justifying its existence. This extract from the book ‘The Waitangi Tribunal’ the Conscience of the Nation by Paul Temm QC (first published in 1990), quote:

“It would be pretty safe to say that 10 years ago very few New Zealanders had heard of the Waitangi Tribunal. When the Attorney-General, Jim McLay, telephoned me at my home one Saturday morning in 1982 and asked me if I would accept appointment to the Tribunal, I had never heard of it either.

I asked him what it was and he told me that it was a body set up under the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 to deal with any claims that arose under the Treaty. He went on to say that it would sit only one or two days a year and that it wasn’t likely to be an onerous task. What an understatement that turned out to be!End of quote.

And they are not going away anytime soon, they are entrenched, with a permanent mandate to deal with Maori claims under the treaty.? This from their website, quote:?

“The Waitangi Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry..”? End of quote.

To ensure their existence the Tribunal has moulded and shaped the treaty into a “living document” which would make the parties that signed it turn over in their graves.

Entirely appropriate in 1840, this ?living document? will keep the Waitangi Tribunal and Iwi on board the gravy train for many years to come. Quote.

?The Treaty is also important as a ?living document?, central to New Zealand?s present and future, as well as its past. It establishes a relationship ?akin to partnership? between the Crown and rangatira, and confers a set of rights and obligations on each Treaty partner.? End of quote.

The words partner and partnership are not found in the Treaty.? This “living document” contradicts the treaty which says we are “one people.” The ?living document? introduces a new concept of biculturalism, necessitating a partnership agreement.

The Waitangi Tribunal added the words “two separate nations with equal rights” into their interpretation of the treaty. You won’t find them in the original and it’s no wonder M?ori are insisting on their own governance, with some refusing to accept the authority of the crown.

This skewed view of the treaty is dangerous, and nowhere more so than in the fertile minds of our children, which is exactly where you find it.

Teachers are instilling the “relevance” of the treaty over and above anything else.

A paper prepared by an educational practitioner/researcher titled “Living the Treaty of Waitangi through a bicultural pedagogy in Early Childhood” states that teachers must provide a bicultural learning environment for children which, quote:

“..draws upon the significance of The Treaty with regards to its relevance in the early childhood education [ECE] context and discusses initiatives that were developed to provide equal opportunities for M?ori?

?The Royal Commission on Social Policy suggested three principles relevant to education and derived from the treaty-partnership, participation and protection?

?..committed towards a bicultural curriculum and development) (Bishop & Glynn, 1999).” End of quote.

Since when is partnership, participation and protection more important than reading, writing and arithmetic?

Maori were given and accepted equality and equal opportunity when they signed the treaty in 1840. We are not “two peoples” we are ?one people? because that is the basis on which the treaty was signed.

In case you are wondering where multiculturalism fits into this ?living document? the following excerpt from HRNZ 10 “Human Rights and the Treaty of Waitangi” will not reassure you about the Tribunal’s intentions, quote:

?While the Treaty established a bicultural foundation for New Zealand ? which has still to be fully realised ? it simultaneously established a basis for multiculturalism. Given the Crown?s responsibilities under Article 1 to govern and make laws for all New Zealanders, this could include the establishment of multicultural policies.? End of quote.

Can’t think of a better plan to fragment and divide a nation!

Bruce Moon said, quote:

“We are not merely awash with falsehoods; we are in a miasmatic swamp ? up to our necks. Unless we all endeavour to arrest the spread of false history we are on a certain course for increased racial disharmony and apartheid.End of quote.

Dr Moon was banned in April from presenting his views. Quote.

“Dr Moon was invited by the Nelson Institute to speak and he chose to present on what he calls the “fake history” of New Zealand, focusing on the Treaty of Waitangi, its interpretation and its implementation.” End of quote.

The Nelson City Council were unhappy at their venue being used to air Moon’s opinion of the treaty saying, quote:

“Both the Nelson City Council and the library felt a talk could disturb the peace and become a health and safety issue.End of quote

Really? Hard to imagine Dr Moon falling over in excitement and injuring himself, or protesters from sleepy, sunny Nelson, if they even exist, violently protesting.? This is a ridiculous argument.

But having already overstepped themselves, the Nelson City Council dragged up another pathetic excuse by saying, quote:

“The talk was cancelled was because a balanced discussion couldn’t be held at the venue”. End of quote.

Were any of the members of the Waitangi Tribunal or recipients of their gravy train invited to present counter-arguments at Dr Moon’s planned Nelson address? Don?t think so.

Since when is any council an arbiter of what its residents are allowed to think or debate?

Whatever this council is on, they must have shared it with Phil Goff who last week refused a venue for two Canadians to present views that the local Muslim community said would be offensive.

We need to stop this self-righteous behaviour from people who should be doing what they’re paid to do instead of flailing around protecting the gormless hiding behind them. How about cleaning up the sewage floating around in the harbour instead of closing down healthy debate?

Dr Moon?s opinion on being shut down is clear, he said, quote:

“?ultimately, cancelling the talk was “brutal censorship”, which he had even predicted in his talk, which said values like “truth, fairness and democracy” were “under threat”. End of quote.

He’s not wrong. It is critical that we get to hear alternate views from people who have taken the time to study any subject.? We are not a totalitarian society yet.

New Zealand is being conned and, as always, it?s about money.