Professor Paul Moon Discusses the Treaty of Waitangi

Michael Laws talks to Professor Paul Moon about the Treaty of Waitangi.
Watch the full interview at theplatform.kiwi/podcasts
Join Platform Plus for enhanced access and features: theplatform.kiwi/platform-plus
Download The Platform app for free:
App Store: apps.apple.com/us/app/the-pla...
Google Play: play.google.com/store/apps/de...
Call 0800 DEBATE or text us at 5050 (Standard SMS text charges will apply)
Listen to The Platform's straight-talking, free-thinking hosts every weekday.
Sean Plunket: 7am - 10am
Michael Laws: 10am - 1pm
Martin Devlin: 1pm - 4pm
#ThePlatformNZ

[@kimbliss1329]

Just listened to the full interview for better context. Very enlightening as to how we got to where we are and probably puts a lot of what he is saying into greater context.

[@murrayclarke2171]

Can you share a link?

[@kimbliss1329]

@murrayclarke2171 it's available to Platform Plus members via the Platform.AP - podcast tab.

[@HTDSNZ]

It's always interesting when those who for the most part have more English DNA than they do Maori DNA ( no DNA-dominated Maori are left) call others colonizers etc, they are more of the ethnicity of those they call bad people (who they say are only here as guest etc) than they are of the lot they say were colonized. Do they hate one side of thier ancestry for doing bad to the other?

[@rangisullivan1591]

I have brown skin and black hair I'm judged to be maori by packy haa by my appearance, yet I am 2 thirds irish who do I fight for packy ha ha? Pokokohau

[@HTDSNZ]

You dont want no smoke with the fighting Irish in you brother, best leave it alone lol @@rangisullivan1591

[@edenmonu9956]

I hear this excuse from europeans as if it actually means something lol it doesnt, one drop equates to a million drops, you cannot always decide who are your descendants and who inherits the same rights as their parents, black, white or green if you Maori you tangata whenua by birth right

[@manamaori100]

Any evidence that there’s no one with more than 50% Māori DNA? References?

[@mcgruff3309]

@@edenmonu9956 You sound like the Jews! 🤣 Did god promise you this land as well 🤣

[@stopcogovernance]

Paul Moon was leaned by AUT to either change his narrative about the Treaty or get another job. I used to meet with Paul regularly in a cafe in West Auckland (Westgate) just down the road from where he lives. I know his history / journey well. I felt very sad listening to this interview. As the saying goes, very man has his price.

[@fu8713]

Just like Shane Jones. All fake frauds and after hearing John Harawera Waitangi speech about him I don’t pay no attention to any of these paid off bums

[@DaHandDatFeeds]

Funny how you use co-governance to grift book sales. "Every man has their price" I guess. 🤷🏽‍♂

[@Kult365]

You're only sad because his journey has taken him through the process of facts and upon realisation of facts, his position has changed. Ya know, like any real researcher?

[@davidanscombe1106]

@Kult365 more bovine scattology,moon is a paid off scab,and if he had a conscience would be ashamed, because he knows the truth,but is too scared to stand up for it

[@davidanscombe1106]

@@Kult365 You're sad because the writing is on the wall,victimhood days are over,the majority of the population have had a gutsful of it,and are finally being given a chance to have their say. Tick tock mf

[@fumblebee4234]

You should intervies Bruce Moon, a very good NZ historian.

[@ericharvey3493]

That's what I was thinking, if only. I worry for Michael laws, lots of his views on the treaty are a bit woke lefty

[@myresponsesarelimited7895]

Terrific 👏

[@davethewave7248]

Nope, the confusion toward the treaty does not stem from 1840, but from the academic idea [Ruth Ross] in 1972, with a focus on the two 'texts', that the treaty is hopelessly confusing. Before the 70s, radicals cried oiut 'the treaty is a fraud'. After the 70s, it was 'honour the treaty'... or their interpretation of it as now it was acknowledged that it meant anything to anyone. Yet, to do history, you need to go back and see what it meant to the actual chiefs who signed... and they knew well enough what it meant, so much so that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign it.

[@davidanscombe1106]

Yes,agreed. You know how it is/was

[@djhemirukahemisphere8893]

Despite that trite. The Maori have been seriously wronged on a massive scale. Nz democracy is a sham imposed on the inhabitants and now a majority rules tyranny.

[@edenmonu9956]

My favourite thing about these videos is the comments. We see the clash between colonial and tangata whenua ideologies. One groups says the treaty confirms and guarantees full exclusive undisturbed possession and the other group says it was just a piece of paper "a simply nullity". The truth is under the treaty we could reset the national debt, make housing FREE for all and literally create prosperity for ALL peoples here. This government system and royals are just webs of international powers looking at taking over everything, housing, food, health, education, technology and NOT for our gain. We need a reset but not their version.

[@dgm2593]

Your actually onto something. The new world order. One Government and one currency. AI government to digital chip and control all man kind. Thats where everything is heading.

[@dgm2593]

A Treaty is basically a "Good Will Covenant"

[@badchefi]

Coming from you? Sure buddy…

[@dgm2593]

@@badchefi yeah. You bald heads didnt show good will. Now we dont show good will. You dont like the taste of your own medicine. Go back to england where you come from and belong. Dont ever come back!!!!!

[@edenmonu9956]

The Treaty is an international agreement between two sovereign nations, its a standard practice even today, have you heard of Natio? literally a treaty agreement

[@dgm2593]

@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.

[@dgm2593]

@@badchefi we showed good will by welcoming you into our natural world pakeha. Since you have been here last 184 years you have shown us nothing but disrespect, lies, no honor, theft, greed, racism, hate, disloyal, unfaithfulness, the list goes on. Hence Hone Heke cut the british flag down to insult and terminate the treaty and any future partnership and any future friendships. We didnt want you here pakeha once we seen your disrespect and no honour. We wanted you to go back to england straight away. And even today we still feel that way! Just go! They have planes now. We dont even want you hear ever since Hone Heke cut your flag down. Didnt yous get it when we cut the flag down? We dont want you here! GO NOW. LEAVE NOW!!! Now we show yous no good will. You burnt our good will 184 years ago. The HATE is very real.

[@gillcameron8105]

I'd like to hear Julian Batchelor, Winnie, and David Seymour's views on his interpretation... he used to be credible and objective but has been bought out by the funding monopoly. He'd lose his lofty position if he swayed into honest discussions. It's so transparent.

[@davidanscombe1106]

Exactly he's a sellout

[@DaHandDatFeeds]

Facts not feelings Gill

[@davidanscombe1106]

@DaHandDatFeeds She was discussing having expert opinion rather than unelected,self prescribed 'experts' telling us how it is. Thats called democracy,not 'feelings'

[@Kult365]

@@davidanscombe1106 Julian bachelor is an expert white supremacist. Let's ask him and ignore an educated rational Professor who has spent years and years and years studying the topic and eventually evolved his thinking to the truth 😆

[@davidanscombe1106]

@Kult365 Spout all the rhetoric and associated b.s. you like. Moon sold his soul to the devil. And you wouldn't know what a fact was if it hit you between the eyes. Denial is that river in egypt eh?

[@WOW-ed8pi]

After listening to this interview, I have a question: According to Wikipedia and others:" A treaty is a formal, legally binding written contract." (Wikipedia) The difference between a treaty and an agreement is that an agreement is less formal. According to Mr. Moon a treaty is less formal. That puzzles me a little. For 150 years both parties have honored (not totally as we know) the Treaty, but that all changed. So, what is the value of a Treaty if experts claim that it is more of a nice gesture?

[@malcolmhayward4431]

So in plain speak it’s a mess

[@davethewave7248]

I think there is room for the amateur historian today... they are not pressured to tow the line as an academic is with a career to protect. The British had every intention of not allowing barbaric customs to continue among the tribes - this is a clear intention to limit their 'sovereignty'/ absolute authority. The British also allowed the chiefs to continue in the customary role as an authority for the tribe [as long as it did not conflict with the prior statement]. The idea of heirarchy solves the perceived contradication here - Queen, governors, chiefs, tribes. Of course, in a nascent state, the expansion of law and enforcement could only develop with the building of institutions/ state machinery. The same old line that the British were invited to NZ in order to govern their own lawless subjects [the lawlessness of these vagabonds is always exaggerated]. This is the missionary line, and as far as some of the statesmen were also card-carrying members of the evangelical movement sweeping the church, was also their line. But there was also the hard-headed and pragmatic intention by the British to establish law throughout the territory [always territorial], which required a sovereignty over the whole lands, and over all living in those lands. This practicality is the crucial aspect of the treaty, where sovereignty [that chiefs little understood] was to be ceded, and accordingly requires emphasis. 'Maori complained how bad settlers were behaving'. lol This reads like a nice neat narrative to serve a political discourse. The historical reality is that the chiefs were much more worried about how other chiefs were going to behave... in utu for their having decimated the tribal populations in the south. The musket wars overshadowed all else, and the chiefs realised they couldn't govern themselves. "After the treaty was signed, British law didn't apply to Maori'. Really? Then why did the legalistic Shortland ask his superiors whether Britain had the right to interfer with the tribal warfar between Nga Te Rangi Na Te Arawa at Maketiu in 1841? The answer was to his quibbling was a resounding one - sovereignty had been declared over the whole of NZ a few months after the signing of the treaty [before the ink had even dried], and accordingly, there was a show of force/ of British law, and the hostilities ceased. The treaty, and British sovereignty is why the tribal wars ceased. The problem with Moon's history here is he takes a 'treaty-centric' approach [and accepts the modern interpreation of the treaty/ post 1970s that no-one thought at an earlier date]. he says at a later date that most come to [somehow[ accept the sovereignty of the British/ settler government... without recognizing that the British declared sovereignty over the whol country in May 1840 [a few months after the signing]. This was backed by the full force of the empire, not by a few signatures. Sovereignty was also achieved over the central North Island tribes, that had never signed and rejected British rule, through the 1860s wars, and eventual submission to the government of the king country in late 19 century. Moon downplays the musket wars. The tide had swung away from northern Nga Puhi, where they had been losing their raids on the southern tribes just previous to 1840. Why? Because the southern tribes had managed to arm themselves with muskets towards parity with northern tribes. They were coming for revenge... remember, whole populations were slaughtered... and the rest. This is why northern chiefs were keen to sign the treaty for lawa and order, and protection forom their own. On a positive note, good to hear Moon say that the treaty is not a legal contract.... but then. oh dear, uses the analogy of a wedding... and a partnership. lol Moon view on the treaty seems to tow the orthodox line since the Ruth Ross view came out in 1972 - that the treaty is a mess, and chaotic, and confusing yadeedyadeeya. The historical reality is different. The Brits had something definite to comunnicate, the did communicate the meaning orally and through much discussion to those that signed. They communicated it so well that some powerful chiefs to the south refused to sign [the trojan horse of the radicals]. That all said, it's a storm in a teacup as the Brits declared sovereignty over the whole country a few months after the treaty was signed. NZ politics was never, and can never be, 'treaty-centric'.

[@djhemirukahemisphere8893]

none the less. the British belong in britian and any agreement they make with Maori is binding . 500 chiefs did not cede

[@davethewave7248]

@@djhemirukahemisphere8893 You are right that some chiefs did not sign the treaty. But that is really irrlevant to history. The fact is the British *declared* sovereignty over all of NZ a few months after the signing.... and in the 1860s enforced that sovereignty over the powerful central North Island chiefs that rejected it. Consider also that before the signing of the treaty, there was no law, agreement, or morality - in the early 19th century, the most powerful tribes utterly destroyed the weaker ones with Hongi Hika, Te WheroWhero, and Te Rauparaha being the terror of the land.

[@jasonpoihegatama1347]

A treaty is an agreement between two or more countries.

[@brianmarshall1762]

Professor was very wrong in saying to say it did not take over sovereignty over Maori and British subjects alike. We know this as we have a record of the debates at the time. Some Maori chiefs such as Te Heu Heu declined to sign at the time because of it. (He was the man who gave Tongariro to the nation later on). Anything this professor says now, I will take as a piece of shit and ignore accordingly.

[@davidanscombe1106]

Yup,he's a sellout

[@dgm2593]

Only because it doesnt fit your false narrative. You seem to be sold on the idea that Maori gave all land and resources to enrich your lives while we live in poverty? What right mind would ever think that? Look here pakeha ill give you all my wealth for free so i can be poor and live in poverty? Yeah right! Its more like the crown will trick you into a peace treaty and not give you a copy so we can alter and make fradulent changes so we can sneak through the back door and confiscate your land. Thats called stealing pakeha. Do you UNDERSTAND what STEALING and THEFT means pakeha?? Its when you take something that doesnt belong to you. Pack of racist liers. Go back to england where you belong. You dont belong here with Maori and you never will. We hate you just as much as you hate us! Go now pakeha. Leave now!

[@fxt363]

Butt hurt much😂

[@brianmarshall1762]

@@fxt363 another PoS spouting rubbish. You should grow up. Living a lie makes you less and less smart.

[@willardnzcpfc3433]

he has changed the narrative.....what about the letter penned on behalf of 13 paramount Nga Puhi chiefs asking for the Kings protection...not from unruly settlers, but from other Maori and other colonial forces.....unruly settlers is a new concept to blame the Treaty on.....what a load of rubbish.....

[@StGammon77]

It's quite the oxymoron to say Pakeha were unruly and maori were well behaved lol

[@mikee4639]

It’s called progress IMO

[@Kult365]

Quite a surprise to hear a researcher back the fact that Maaori never ceded sovereignty.

[@honeyholly001]

I never signed it so therefore I never ceded sauverignty either.

[@Kult365]

@@honeyholly001 are you in NZ as an Anglo Saxon under Crown governance?

[@scipioafricanus4328]

Paul Moon is fake news. Even if you take the Maori version, it cedes governance absolutely, that is the ability to govern.

[@pgreen8531]

He is full of crap and everyone knows it

[@Kult365]

@@pgreen8531 do you have facts to back that up or...?

[@stephens2850]

How were Maori involved in with the 1852 constitutiuon act? Thanks

[@jasonpoihegatama1347]

The treaty is a agreement, In the Moden world that is much a contract which have laws. To think of the treat as a marriage is odd ball.

[@rod-contracts1616]

Care to disclose which law school you graduated from and date of your passing the bar exams?

[@jasonpoihegatama1347]

You don't have to go to law school to know an agreement is seen as a contract in moden days, If its a marriage can we get a divorce and claim half the assets @@rod-contracts1616

[@neilforeman]

et tu Paul??

[@marinedrive5484]

He lost me when he said that a treaty is not a contract. He must have a post-modernist view of language, where the meaning of words can be whatever you want them to be, also known as relativism. A treaty is a legally binding agreement i.e. a contract.

[@djhemirukahemisphere8893]

any view left after this discussion cannot conclude that British descendants have any mandate to rule nz or rule Maori

[@woofwoof9647]

🐾🐾 🐺

[@ronnymcdonald2543]

It is incorrect to label all New Zealands original settlers Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled in this nation.

[@manamaori100]

You mean original settlers from Great Britain?

[@ronnymcdonald2543]

@@manamaori100 The English are Saxons and it goes back to Ger-mania, NOT the Celts !

[@manamaori100]

@@ronnymcdonald2543 The point I was trying to make is how are they the original settlers when Māori were here hundreds of years prior.

[@ronnymcdonald2543]

@@manamaori100 Who says Maoris were the original settlers, there used to be videos I saw with my own eyes of Mori Ori elders talking about Mori Ori being on the main Islands of NZ and there's the question of Celtic ruins and of Asian boat wrecks earlier than Maoris ... People argue over what dies indigenous mean too ... Maoris don't originate from here and nor do the European settlers so Who is really indigenous ?

[@manamaori100]

@@ronnymcdonald2543 “It is incorrect to label all New Zealand’s original settlers as Anglo Saxon as Celts made up a very large number of the original Whalers that first settled this nation” they weren’t the first to settle this land, and why are pākeha so fixated on who’s really indigenous does it really matter? At the end of the day Māori had settled here centuries before Europeans arrived, I’ve read comments from Australians saying the Aboriginal aren’t indigenous, their culture is 50,000 years old how are they not indigenous, and by the way aren’t Anglo saxons and Celts all British anyway?

[@cullenkehoe5184]

I disagree somewhat with the final points. The British officials and missionaries had no idea what the Treaty meant? British had been making treaties with native peoples in North America for centuries. Centuries! Come on man. Nobody knew what it meant? Give me a break. It meant the settlers could live there under British law and the Maori were made British citizens so the settlers couldn't hastily put a militia together and wipe out villages due to land disputes. Wow...so complex. It seems to take the American Indian Reservation system as a starting point where tribal law still was in effect in their lands (while still living under a jurisdiction of the British Empire). But over time they kept leaving their lands to live among the settlers who had a higher standard of living. And over time it meant everyone came to view themselves as one people, not two. And Maori sold their land over time so their territories shrunk in size so the central govt in Wellington became the recognized law of the land. Also I am no expert but a small amount of research shows violence followed the Treaty of Waitangi from day 1. Settlers getting killed over disputes...all over the country. Hone Heke starting the Flagstaff Rebellion for no reason. A 1840's war around Wanganui / Wellington. These began to shape British governance in desiring a buffer zone between the major ciites like Auckland and Wellington and Maori settlements. But this observed policy led to the 1860's land wars. And perhaps an element was British asserting their dominance as a power not to be trifled with and needing examples to establish this. Violence begets violence...who knew?

[@dgm2593]

Your so uneducated. Alot of what your saying is false. What a joke!

[@davethewave7248]

The treaty was a nice humanitarian idea for the ceding of a said/ nominal sovereignty. The reality is though that the Brits declared sovereignty over the whole country [whether occupied by signed or unsigned chiefs/ tribes] before the ink had even dried on the treaty. This is the reality of Brirish power backed by an empire... in contrast to a nice idea backed by a few signatures. lol The whole problem today is the taking of a treaty-centric apporach to our politics. All the treaty established for maori was their legal rights, not political ones. That 'shadow' went to the Brits, and later to our Parliament.

[@shauntempley9757]

@@davethewave7248 How does that sit now that you have clearly stated that Parliament has acted illegally with the Treaty? Which is why conflict with Maori that never lived with settlers keeps occurring? Do you not think that Parliament has a duty to uphold all the laws that dominates them? Such as this Treaty?

[@davethewave7248]

@@shauntempley9757 How has Parliament acted illegally with the treaty?

[@shauntempley9757]

@@davethewave7248 Confiscated the foreshore and seabed because an iwi was using its Treaty Settlement, and that iwi's local council threw a tantrum because it had no authority to be involved. So, it went to Parliament, then confiscated the fish farming the iwi was doing, and burned them. Meanwhile, while Parliament was confiscating the foreshore and seabed for all, they attacked an iwi openly the same week. They banned Maori older than 50 from mortgages, banned Maori from the education in NZ working in the pharmaceutical industry, or any industry that could earn them enough money to buy land in large amounts. Those Maori that are in there learned their craft in the UK. Tried to ban Maori from tertiary education in the 90's, using "Maori Privilege" as the excuse. You should know the ass end of that term by now. You can blame your hero Plunket for starting that, he is the first in the world as a journalist to use Privilege as an attack on a people he did not like.

[@tiatamara11]

Paul Moon is a lazy researcher as he has shown when researching my 2nd cousin Haane Manahi's history. There is much he has missed ie the only cleric employed by England to cover the Irish famine is Haanes great grandfather....he is also my great grandfather who was asked by the King of England to finance General Wynyards British Army to New Zealand to protect the surveying and road making teams in the region of todays Auckland. No mention of this at all. There is more but no one seems interested in the old history of the ANZACS.

[@XXXX-yc6wv]

I notice you havent provided any specific context as to what exactly that these facts were missing from, nor any reason as to why those facts were relevant and should have been included. Biographical accounts invariably require omitting facts that aren't germane in order to ensure that written works aren't a million pages long. That doesn't make one "lazy".

[@annetteblack9573]

At least hes done better than the politicians.

[@tiatamara11]

Politics is about white lies and rounding up supporters....he better be better.@@annetteblack9573

[@tiatamara11]

It is not a dissertation....prove me wrong, dont just state your view.@@XXXX-yc6wv

[@johnmartin7158]

I’ve personally met Dr Paul Moon. I think the reason why the media use him is partly because he hasn’t got an axe to grind with any tribe and it’s easy for him to be completely subjective about the Treaty of Waitangi. Sure some won’t like his interpretations and that’s nothing new in the world of academia. Eg you can have 2 extreme right wingers in USA who will interpret the American Constitution in slightly different ways. Have you notified Dr Paul Moon concerning your 2nd cousin. He’s very approachable and a down to earth person. Cheers.

[@tama5570]

Someone listened. Paul Moon is the man.

[@davidanscombe1106]

Moon,should be offensive to you lot,y'know,browneye?? Moon is a schill

[@tama5570]

@@davidanscombe1106 I think you need a therapist. Not sure who ‘you lot’ refers to - I don’t expect you can write a coherent argument.

[@davidanscombe1106]

@tama5570 Unlike you,I dont need a therapist. 'You lot' are all the people who dont know,and will never realise that you are not victims. If you are not part of a united solution,you are part of the problem. Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing

[@davidanscombe1106]

@tama5570 Therapy is for people who have issues,often based on falsely identifying as a victim. I am in no need of therapy,unlike yourself and mr moon. I am not a victim, I enjoy the rights that everyone in new zealand are entitled to. Dividing people into racial groups and setting them against each other solves nothing, and what moon has done is tantamount to selling his soul,because he knows the truth

[@tatjanakane503]

There is something illogical in what Paul Moon says, and that is that British didn’t intend to govern Māori. British people knew English language very well and they explicitly said in their version of treaty that Māori will be subjects to British government. Therefore, their explicit intention was to govern. Whatever and however was that translated to Māori, and understood by Māori, is a completely different subject, but the clear intention of English empire was to have a governing system including Māori. Saying that, English seems to have allowed Māori to self govern to a certain degree, but as long as their self governing is within umbrella of the English law.

[@StGammon77]

Don't pretend you know anything about our Pakeha history

[@tatjanakane503]

@@StGammon77 word pakeha is racist because it determines people by their skin colour. It should not be used in a non-racist society. It is as bad as a “n” word.

[@edenmonu9956]

Not another so called "expert" trying to justify why NZ should not follow the laws of the treaty. We get it, you dont like the deal and you want to pretend its not important. The reason the treaty is still very relevant still today is because for 184 years the tangat whenua have been telling you we are the lawful owners of all these lands and your government is illegitimate and has no mandate over Maori except for those kupapa like Apirana Ngata

[@Kult365]

I think most New Zealanders would agree with your statement

[@davidanscombe1106]

Ignore moon,he is corrupt, and a sellout running false narratives

[@edenmonu9956]

Most New Zealanders know it but are in denial because they dont believe Maori are capable of ruling ourselves on our own lands like we done for thousands of years. Bloody sound like a terrorist to them on my own lands lol @@Kult365

[@davidanscombe1106]

Ignore moon,he is a quack and a sellout. Professor of bovine scattology

[@davethewave7248]

And that's why a war was fought in the 60s to show the tribes who was boss~