top of page

Subscribe Form

Thanks for submitting!

Search

Open letter: Don Brash to the Prime Minister

Prime Minister,


Again and again, you and your Ministers refer to the “partnership” created by the Treaty of Waitangi. I wonder if you would be kind enough to explain to me (and to the many other New Zealanders who would be interested in your answer) where you found reference to “partnership”, or any synonym of “partnership”, in any version of the Treaty.


While there have been various attempts in recent decades to argue that the chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840 really didn’t cede sovereignty to Queen Victoria - despite the speeches made at the time and subsequently at a large conference of chiefs in Kohimarama in 1860 - there can be no doubt what the actual words of the Treaty provided.


I understand from Dr Michael Bassett (a member of the Waitangi Tribunal for a decade, a highly regarded New Zealand historian, and of course a long-time Labour Member of Parliament) that when he was on the Tribunal the translation of the Treaty which was generally accepted was that by Sir Hugh Kawharu. Sir Hugh translated the three clauses of the Treaty thus:


“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”


As you can see, there is not the slightest reference to a “partnership”, and leading Labour politicians such as David Lange frequently ridiculed the very idea that Queen Victoria would have been willing to enter into a partnership with 500 chiefs, none of whom she had even met.


On the contrary, what the Treaty guaranteed in Article III was a guarantee of “the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England”.


Surely no other interpretation of the Treaty is consistent with democracy and it would accordingly be reassuring if you were to make it absolutely clear that your Government will not sanction any policy which gives a preference to any New Zealander on the basis of their having a Maori ancestor.


Yours sincerely,


Don Brash


June 19, 2021

8,906 views159 comments

159 Kommentare


I distinctly remembering, around 40 years ago, at the information center in Waitangi, it went over the reason why the treaty was signed. It stated that the French were waiting out in the Bay wanting to take over NZ. If the Maori hadn't signed the treaty with the British, the French would have just taken over NZ and Maori definitely wouldn't have been treated kindly. In fact, they would have virtually wiped them out. The Maori knew that and that is one of the reasons they signed the treaty.

Now, can someone tell me why that part of history has been deleted?

Gefällt mir

aldo ferretti
aldo ferretti
28. Juni 2021

Crazy but true


Gefällt mir
aldo ferretti
aldo ferretti
28. Juni 2021
Antwort an

Luiz Rezende

Gefällt mir

Can this be tested in court? Sure, there would be a period of appeals etc. but at least it would get the sanitising glare of daylight!

Gefällt mir
Antwort an

This whole land and foreshore issues is getting totally out of hand? It wouldn't happen anywhere else in the world. New Zealand land and sea belongs to all New Zealanders. Obviously some very silly decisions have been made by judges in the past with no thought for the consequences. We have all suffered in the past because of decisions made by our ancestors. Enough is surely enough? Do the Romans claim Britain? Do the Spanish or French or British or whoever claim the US? Utter nonsense in my opinion.

Gefällt mir

Gast
23. Juni 2021

Jacinda is a cancel culture puppet of the UN and New Zealanders need to wake up before its too later

Gefällt mir

As you can see folks people like guest b33a do not want a democracy.

We now have:


A country whose name is changing without consultation

A government which buys the media

A media which is happy to be bought

A budget which favours and enriches 15% to 18% of people because of their skin colour

Certain businesses( Landlords) are taxed on income they haven't even received

A language imposed, which although has a " nice feel" to some, has no relevance overseas where we conduct our personal and business dealings

Free speech is to be shut down

The foreshore and seabed is gladly given to a few by the government and 200 more cases pending

Our important judicial decisions like…


Gefällt mir
bottom of page