Poll Should Rebuff
Race-Based Policies

This Christmas holiday season should not be a time of idleness for those who have reason to plan for the next set of local government elections in October, 2016.

Less than two years remain to organise for concerned citizens and ratepayers who want to purge politicians and bureaucrats determined to implement and accelerate anti-democratic racialisation of local government.

Despite its claims to stand for “equal citizenship and equal opportunity” and “limited government”, the ruling National Party has striven instead, through its Parliamentary fast-tracked Treaty of Waitangi settlement legislation, to bankrupt and discredit both values at local government level.

Steered through by Treaty of Waitangi negotiations and associate Maori development minister Christopher Finlayson, National’s bicultural co-governance legislation has created numerous regulatory entities made up of democratically-elected public authorities and Maori tribal private interests.

It is these intrinsically corrupted institutional monstrosities that should be attacked in the next local government elections in a drive to restore political control to democratic majorities.

The Maori component of such political hybrids has lost no time in bossing everyone else around, entrenching non-accountability for itself in the process of pursuing its favoured objectives of rent seeking and veto wielding.

The latest example concerns 90 Mile Beach, nowadays styled as Te Oneroa-a-Tohe to suit Ngati Kuri in their Treaty settlement signed off by Mr Finlayson.

In the February 2014 media release to mark the event, Mr Finlayson stated that, “In general, all existing public access rights in relation to areas affected by this settlement will be preserved.”

By December of this year, Mr Finlayson’s assurances have been proven false.

Maori tribes, now ensconced permanently in co-governance of 90 Mile Beach with local government, are reportedly advancing with plans, since denied, for restricting access and charging for public use.

This is just one example of why the vast majority of New Zealanders, who are not Maori tribal interests expecting to profit in perpetuity from Mr Finlayson’s money-spinning Treaty settlements, should not trust his word.

He no doubt assumes that he’s on autopilot to become Sir Christopher under the honours system re-established by Prime Minister John Key.

If this must be so, then let’s at least have some truth in the matter by awarding Mr Finlayson his tarnished gong for exceptional services to increasing racial inequality and corroding democratic values in New Zealand.

The ACT Party, while licking its latest self-inflicted general election wounds and wondering what to do next about its vote plummeting to zero, could well consider how it might reinvigorate itself by running credible candidates at the next local government elections on a platform of fiscal prudence, zero tolerance for political correctness, and one law for all.

The ground should be fertile for a party like ACT to attract support and win representation in local government as it becomes apparent to ever more New Zealand ratepayers how they have become relegated to legal inferiority under the all-engulfing Treaty settlement process.

From that basis, the party could have some hope of rebuilding its Parliamentary presence across a wider electoral franchise than merely being the plaything of Mr Key’s arbitrary caprice in the Epsom electorate.

Auckland is ripe for a ratepayer revolt in 2016, given the way in which treaty settlement legislation has led to a racially biased Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan (PAUP).

Mayor Len Brown and his deputy, Penny Hulse, have promoted racial policies that favour of the part-Maori minority of its inhabitants, including encouraging the proliferation of sites of value and significance to Maori under the PAUP.

These sites are the basis of the Maori tribal cultural impact assessment industry in Auckland.

Neither elected official has ever had the courage or integrity to step up and explain truthfully what they’re doing to Auckland’s non-Maori majority.

Instead, it has been left to chief planner Roger Blakeley to advocate for race-based local government in Auckland.

Dr Blakeley evidently belongs to the Finlayson camp of fanciful ideas to suit the pro-Maori agenda when he can come out unilaterally in an official Auckland Council media release entitled “Cultural impact assessments: balance needed” with tendentious claims that do not appear to be supported by any evidence. Dr Blakeley stated:

It’s good to remember just how important protecting our Maori heritage is to Aucklanders – including recent arrivals who really embrace this aspect of their new home.

It is our point of difference in the world.

ACT and similar political movements, if they got cracking now, could mount effective campaigns to help remove the likes of Mr Brown and Ms Hulse come 2016 and take the city back for Aucklanders who don’t want race-based politics blighting their society.

Published with the kind permission of Michael Coote – first published in NBR.

18 thoughts on “Poll Should Rebuff Race Based Policies

  1. The problem goes much further than the Maori privilege thing. We now at both local and national level have a bloated over paid buraucracy which follows its own agenda regardless of the elected officials, particularly at the local body level. The elected candidates although well intentioned are largely ignorant of the laws regulating council matters and consequently are like putty in the hands of their functionaries. For example, it is the functionaries who organize and run courses to ‘educate’ the councillors on matters such as the RMA, treaty of waitangi and any other of their hobbyhorses!

    1. Our local body representatives are mostly well out of their depth. Central government has totally overloaded local government with useless duties. A complete reform is long overdue.

  2. This divisive separatist racial nonsense is becoming embedded in every aspect of our lives and must be not only halted but reversed. I’m totally against separatism and especial that new term ‘co-governance’. Since when did we need part-Maori to co-govern anything. We are all the same and ‘they’ know no more than anyone else. In fact in the 19th century and before, they didn’t give one iota about anything apart from marauding up and down the country, fighting, killing and eating each other and taking from the weaker tribes. They just didn’t give a hoot. So where has this wonderful affinity with the land come from?

    We MUST all be racially equal under the law, the fraudulent Waitangi Tribunal must be disbanded and all these equally fraudulent settlements must cease. In fact, there has now been a massive wrong done to the rest of us.

  3. We need to talk to people and convince them that they are being deceived. The book ‘Twisting the Treaty’ is one that every New Zealander should read.

  4. It really is time for the definition of Maori to be reviewed and redefined. What we have is a whole lot of low percentage of maori DNA wannabies claiming all sorts as it financially expedient. They are actually English, Scots, Irish or whatever by volume

    1. You are so right, Trevor. Many don’t even look ‘Maori’. They just have a smidgen of ‘Maori’ blood and because there is money in it, push their ‘Maori’ side for all it’s worth. We definitely must redefine just who is a ‘Maori’. However, even better would be to dispense with all this racist division once and for all and start treating everyone equally under the law with no special treatment based on race. It should be based on need only.

    1. Goodness knows who Morgan thinks he is. His work on the Treaty is just so ridiculous that it’s amazing anyone would publish it. It is so easy to point out the many parts he has got so radically wrong. He obviously didn’t do any proper research into the subject matter as the true history of it all is so easy to access.

  5. While I have no problem with trying to get the ACT party (or any party) to try and reverse the demolition of Democracy that is rapidly being forced on New Zealand by about 20% of the population consisting of Iwi and a self-selected elite of academics, functionaries in powerful positions (Basil Morrison) and even our elected so-called representatives (Andrew Judd), Michael Coote – as do many – implies that only a right wing party can/will do this because the Iwi takeover is a “Left wing” plot.

    Iwi and the Maori party are NOT left wing. Their whole philosophy predates any concept originating from 16th century France. They can be better described as feudal, but even that is millennia later than tribalism.

    What is happening is a well-coordinated and now well-funded Iwi + a group described as ”full of white middle class guilt” IS succeeding in changing the constitution to eliminate the concept of
    ONE PERSON = ONE VOTE to one where a tiny percentage (less than 10%) have the same rights as the remaining 90%. (It’s not all Maori but those Maori on the Maori roll)

    It is quite plain with the rejection of Maori wards by 80% that the majority don’t want this with New Plymouth ratepayers overwhelmingly voting against racist seats. The latest trick to avoid democracy happening is to put a Maori statutory board arrangement in place by a secret Treaty deal with Chris Finlayson. Something that cannot be voted down by local ratepayers.

    Most of the Parties in Parliament are now in favour of co-governance arrangements. How do we get the 80% (who vote against race-based Councillors) to start marching in the streets?

    1. You are overly optimistic. With the arrogant people, we, through our apathy, allow to govern us, I don’t believe street marches will achieve anything. Nothing short of a full-blown revolution will be required!

      1. It really doesn’t matter how the left and the right have come to support seperatism. It shows instead the lack of commitment to universal principles of liberty, freedom and equality. The same principles that featured in the protests during the Springboks tour. The loss of an understanding of universal equality is now so embedded in education, politics and goverment at both levels means that any real change is unlikely especially given the pervading fear of appearing to be racist. Perhaps the rollback should occur at the schools level. Parents should speak out against any separate status or rewrites of history.

        1. I agree but so far I don’t see that we are making much progress and the alarming tendency for settlements to contain already decided co-governance clauses is most alarming. Labour is rock solid in its support for the Maori tribal elite and National also shows little sign that it will move in its support. Just remember that Labour is probably more solid as it has almost regained the Maori seat which it lost and so is hardly likely to change its policy now. Kelvin Davis supported the TOW tribunal when it said that Nga Puhi had not ceded soverienty.

          1. The co governance to date is hugely variable. Where there is power or cash to be gained it is very much in the favor of the iwi. Where there is little to be gained or some costs to be covered, managemant is passed back to the Crown. What is morally wrong now is going to become a corrupt mess in the future. And don’t expect arrangement to be treated as a binding contract. Opting in or out will be at the whim of iwi committees.

      2. People grumble and complain the power being taken by elite Maori but as they won’t protest it seems incredibly unlikely that there will ever be a revolution on the matter or even marching in the streets. This is the really silly time of the year and we will soon see that Andrew Little will make the same soothing noises to Maori that happen at every Ratana gathering and then quite soon we will be into the yearly ritual of Waitangi Day with the same old platitudes. Nothing changes except it gradually gets worse!

  6. I agree that its not only the left who support the race based politics that we are now cursed with but the left are certainly strongly in support and as Elizabeth Rata says ; ‘The baffling question is this: Why has a political party comprised of those with a steadfast commitment to the democratic ideals of social justice for working people abandoned its commitment to universalism, the idea upon which democracy is founded?’
    This is question of course directed squarely at the Labour Party-(my comment).
    She continued : ‘Why has this commitment been exchanged for a return to race as the foundational identity, to tribe as the political category, and to ‘culture’ as the social authority? Why did the liberal-left and the liberal-right make the Cultural Turn.?’
    Comments please.

  7. I often ask myself the same questions, Roger. It seems that the ‘Maori’ voice has got stronger and stronger over time to the point where the Sheeple (people who behave like sheep) are afraid to speak out in case they appear to be ‘racist’. To me, they are stupid enough not to realise what their lack of action (cowardly?!) is doing to our country. Goodness knows where we will be in another 10 years. I’ve been speaking out since 1995 but have achieved absolutely zilch. I won’t give up though but I’m sure I’m usually speaking to the converted and the masses are living their comfortable lives completely oblivious as to how bad it is getting racially and divisively in this country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: