John Key funny

Arise Sir John


Whilst I have reblogged this article from another blog, and I do agree that John Key has been a disaster for this country, it does not mean I or 1Law4All agree with every statement made in the article. For example, I don’t believe we have true poverty in New Zealand. If you calculate the number of people living in poverty as the number living on a percentage of the average wage, then we will always have poverty, even if that same percentage are on an income of $100,000.00 a year. It’s a ridiculous way to decide if people are living in poverty. I also know that by always stating the number of kids, rather than the number of people, is designed to tug at the heart strings, (or guilt strings), because most of us know that if kids are living in poverty, it’s their parents fault. Not the Governments or the taxpayers.

Arise Sir John

For creating a New Zealand where there are over 250,000 kids living in poverty …

For refusing to get the bodies out of the Pike River mine and thereby helping individuals avoid justice …

For Dirty Politics …

For the increasing numbers of homeless sleeping rough …

For selling off shares in the electricity companies and in Air New Zealand and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the rest of us …

For presiding over the development of a housing crisis yet refusing to accept that one existed …

For increasing the Crown’s debt from $10 billion to $93 billion and claiming this was evidence of sound financial management …

For widening inequality in NZ …

For the widening sexist pay gap in NZ …

For legislating to give Sky City further gambling rights so that the convention centre can be built on the back of problem gamblers …

For attacking scientists, reporters and media …

For the repeated lie that every budget would result in a further 170,000 jobs being created …

For ruling out an increase in GST but then implementing one …

For stuffing up negotiations with Warner Bros, Rio Tinto, SkyCity …

For systematically under funding health …

For deliberately running down state housing stock …

For increased surveillance and “jihadi “brides” fear mongering …

For running down the education system with stupid ideological policies …

For the rising rates of “third world” diseases of poverty and overcrowding …

For claiming that tax cuts were fiscally neutral when they caused Crown debt to escalate …

For wanting to make New Zealand a nirvana for the 1% …

For harassing a waitress (and making us an international laughing stock) …

For the stupid failed “War on P” …

For wasting $26m on a failed vanity flag referendum …

For suspending local democracy in Canterbury …

For the creation of the working poor …

For under funding mental health and the highest suicide rates ever …

For claiming that he would apply higher Ministerial standards but then allowing Murray McCully to complete #sheepgate …

For destroying New Zealand’s ability to respond to climate change …

For the fiasco of private prisons …

For taxing paperboys and girls …

For forcing the TPP down our throats …

For turning your back on meaningful refugee increases …

For trying to use tax payer money to pay your Bradley Ambrose payout …

For destroying so many of our waterways in the name of intensified dairying …

For sheltering ministers who have been incompetent and worse …

For lying habitually about everything …

And for all that – achieving nothing of vision or significance …

For pandering to Maori demands, fueling resentment and entitlement and increasing racism in New Zealand…

For allowing mega companies to take our fresh water for nothing…

For championing racist policies which have destroyed New Zealand’s democracy…

Arise Sir John.

By: of The Standard

The last few in green I’ve added. I’m sure you can think of many more. Let’s hear them in the comments!




Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand


Posted on

Posted on: NZCPR.COM

Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box. Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of; land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district but will become subject to the wishes of unelected group.

However, given that there seems to be increasing disinterest in local body elections one may wonder whether this is necessarily such a bad thing. Why not leave it to the professional staff and an unelected pressure group to determine what activities are, and are not allowed to take place within a district. In other words is democracy such a necessary or good thing? To answer this question it is helpful to start with three aphorisms:

  • “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men.” – Lord Acton 1887.
  • “Democracy is a psychopathic expression of inferiority” – William Joyce, an American better known as Lord Haw Haw who broadcast defeatist propaganda from Berlin during to the war. He was hung as a traitor by the British at war’s end.
  • Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…” – Winston Churchill 1947.

Churchill uttered this in the aftermath of the general election in which Clement Attlee’s Labour government swept to power. It was an astonishing affirmation of the place of democracy as a political institution. Having lately been instrumental in salvaging the free world from German hegemony, Churchill was nevertheless comprehensively rejected by the United Kingdom voters. One would have expected some bitterness, or questioning of a political structure which intended to and did demolish much of the existing social norms into which he was born, and which his party represented. Not so – he continued to believe in the common sense and life experiences of the electorate in deciding who should govern the country. What then are some of the other forms about which Churchill spoke? To mention a few:

[Read more…]

Muriel Newman

Democracy Under Attack


By Dr Muriel Newman

NZCPR Weekly:

Democracy has been described as a ‘fragile flower’. Indeed it is, and it’s something we take for granted because our relatively young society has not yet experienced its collapse. But it’s that complacency along with a naive assumption that serious social disorder could never really happen here, that has created opportunities for those who seek to undermine democracy for their own personal gratification and enrichment.

The sad truth is that we have allowed those who want to subvert democracy to have a free reign.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator retired Judge and former university law lecturer Anthony Willy, outlines what’s been going on:

“Until the passing of the Resource Management Amendment Act 2017 the business of territorial local authorities was conducted by the elected representatives of the citizens living in the particular area. That is no longer the case. Henceforth councils will be required to share their statutory powers with self-selected, unelected entities. This marks the end of democratic local government in New Zealand for the obvious reason that the elected members are no longer sovereign but must take account of the wishes of the self-selected group none of whom will be required to submit to the ballot box.”

Anthony is, of course, referring to the consequences of the back-room political deal making  between the National and Maori parties earlier this year to unilaterally pass their ‘Mana Whakahono a Rohe’ agreements into law in such a way as to deny all public consultation and avoid any scrutiny by the wider public whatsoever.

By National’s own admission, the new powers that they granted are significant.  They will elevate any number of Maori tribal and family groups into positions of partnership with their local authorities for “plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities” – including over fresh water.

Anthony goes on to say, “Given that the activities of local authorities play an increasingly important role in our lives this has the potential for far reaching consequences. No longer will the contents of the district plans which control all important aspects of land and water use, and any activities involving discharges to the atmosphere, be arrived at with the consent and input of the occupants of the district, but they will become subject to the wishes of unelected groups.”

He further explains, “Democracy has fathered a notion of equal importance and that is the ‘Rule of Law’. This is a lawyer’s construct and little discussed or even understood by the general public. It involves the simple imperative that laws enacted by our democratically elected government will be applied equally to all irrespective of creed, colour or social circumstance. The combination of democratic government and the rule of law are the twin pillars on which all of our freedoms rest. Without the support of both pillars the house cannot stand. Absent either of these foundations, the liberties  we hold dear cannot survive and one of the competing forms of government will come back to haunt us.”

In legislating Maori tribal groups into the status of an elite ruling class that is totally unaccountable to the public, the National Party has undermined the Rule of Law in New Zealand and corrupted democracy as we know it.

It’s fair to ask, how on earth it could have got to this stage – has the nation been asleep while iwi leaders have been advancing their sovereignty agenda?

While the iwi agenda has not been secret, it has not been entirely open either. Much of their manoeuvring has been carried out under the guise of helping disadvantaged Maori. As a result, most New Zealanders have been totally unaware that a long-running and well-planned offensive has been underway.

Some, however, have been trying to raise the alarm for years.

For more than two decades, Professor Elizabeth Rata of Auckland University has warned of the threat being posed by the bicultural movement in New Zealand. She has outlined how a powerful cultural elite from within Maoridom – who were committed to subverting democracy – were positioned inside the State system, to destroy it from within.

According to Professor Rata, biculturalism arose in the seventies, driven by left wing activists who were seeking an alternative to traditional class politics.

What they found, of course, was cultural Marxism – a socialist philosophy originated by a former leader of the Italian Communist Party, Antonio Gramsci, who saw ‘culture’ as the way to win the class struggle. While the traditional battle to ‘liberate’ the working class involved taking control of the ‘economic means of production and distribution’, he focused on controlling the ‘cultural means of production’. His work inspired a literal socialist march through culture-forming institutions such as the media, universities, and churches – enlightening those within about the struggle for social justice by ‘oppressed’ groups in society, centred on race, gender, and sexuality.

Professor Rata explained that many ‘biculturalists’ moved into positions of power and influence in the education and health professions, social services, and government circles, as public servants and politicians, bringing with them their political commitment to the identity politics agenda: “Victimhood was subsequently understood as oppression by colonisation, the patriarchy, and ‘Western’ culture generally – an oppression experienced by ethnic groups, indigenous peoples, women, gays, and religious minorities rather than the capitalist exploitation of working class people.”

Over the years, New Zealanders have been deceived by the bicultural activists, who have claimed that the movement was a means to greater social justice for marginalised Maori. Yet, in reality, it has been used as a Trojan Horse to enable a rich and powerful tribal elite to grow stronger at a cost to disadvantaged Maori, who are little better off today than they were back then.

John Moore, writing on the Liberation blog run by Dr Bryce Edwards of Otago University, has called identity politics an “elitist scam” that enables the state largesse flowing to groups claiming to be marginalised, to end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups, instead of those in need: “Modern social-liberalism – in the form of identity politics – has been exposed as an elitist scam. Gender politics and tino rangatiratanga struggles were all presented as a way to alleviate the poverty, oppression and discrimination of those at the bottom of society. Instead these ideologies have acted to elevate… an elite of those from subjugated sectors of society…”

Professor Rata has also pointed out that while the agenda promoted by biculturalists occurs in the name of social justice, the path to social justice cannot be through ethnic division.

This was reinforced by former US President Barack Obama in 2006, when he said, “Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

The reality is that tribalism is an archaic social structure that suits the tribal elite, and no one else. Yet this is what National is supporting through massive state subsidies.

Policies enacted under the tribal ‘by Maori for Maori’ bicultural umbrella have led to separate Maori education systems, Maori university quotas, Maori health care, Maori welfare programmes, Maori housing schemes, and Maori justice programmes. There are Maori government departments and tribunals, Maori-only consultation rights, Maori-only co-governance rights, Maori-only tax rates, and Maori-only charitable status – to name but a few of a vast array of separatist privileges that now exist to support tribalism.

The problem is that the pressure for more tribal power and control is never-ending. Now the Maori Party not only wants to restructure the entire Justice System on “the basis of the Treaty of Waitangi and the foundation of partnership”, but it is also pushing “cultural competency” and a “Maori world view” across the whole of the public sector.

The education system is the latest victim, with cultural competency requirements having become compulsory from 1 July. As a result, all primary and secondary school teachers now have to “Demonstrate a commitment to a bicultural Aotearoa New Zealand” and prioritise “Maori learners as tangata whenua”.

As Professor Barend Vlaardingerbroek explained recently in an article for the NZCPR, “Passive acquiescence won’t do any more: teachers must now be personally committed to this political paradigm. This is where the new standards leave the democratic domain and enter the totalitarian realm. Bang go teachers’ rights as citizens to hold their own opinions without interference. New Zealand teachers are being deprived of a fundamental right of all citizens in a democracy – the right to disagree with ideological dicta promulgated by the political elite. This right is not about letting teachers get away with denigrating or abusing Maori kids, which falls foul of the duty of care and professional ethics. This is about hitting teachers who are actual or potential political dissenters with a stark choice: submit or vacate. And that is enforced ideological conformity – the antithesis of democracy and an infringement of teachers’ internationally acknowledged human rights.”

With there now being a critical shortage of teachers in New Zealand, one can’t help but wonder whether compulsory cultural competency requirements, that requires all teachers to not only swear an allegiance to the Maori sovereignty agenda, but to indoctrinate the children as well, is the straw that is breaking the camel’s back.

It’s all emerging as Professor Rata warned. The bicultural movement was captured by radical Maori separatists who will not stop until Maori control all governance processes – they want to return the country to Maori. “The bicultural movement in New Zealand has been a mistake – it is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori, and promoting a cultural elite within Maoridom.”

But she has also warned that there are two sides to biculturalism – the small elite group that are promoting it and the much larger group that is allowing it to happen.

And that’s where our fragile flower of democracy stands today.

So, what of the future and the possibility of a new government come 23 September?

The National Party has already said that if it wins sufficient support it would prefer to enter into another coalition agreement with the Maori Party after the election.

This news will have no doubt caused many former National voters to despair.

Anyone in doubt about the merits of National’s liaison with the Maori Party needs only reflect on the mess that National’s concession to the Maori Party over the foreshore and seabed has caused, whereby hundreds of Maori groups, gifted with millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money to fund their opportunistic grab for New Zealand’s coastline, have lodged claims covering every square inch of our coast, many times over, forcing citizens to have to fight to protect our public rights.

Labour, it appears, would be no better as their leader Andrew Little has already said he supports Maori sovereignty. So too does the Green Party, which also wants a new constitution based on the Treaty of Waitangi.

That’s also one of the goals of Gareth Morgan’s Opportunities Party – to increase Maori rights and put the Treaty at the heart of all Government affairs.

At this stage the only dissenting voice is that of Winston Peters with his call for a binding referendum of all voters on the future of the Maori seats – which, of course, are the power base of the bicultural movement and their Maori sovereignty agenda.

As the election jostling continues, one can only hope that more political parties will come to recognise the crucial importance of the Rule of Law and Democracy to New Zealanders – and realise that overwhelmingly, Kiwis want to live in a country where all citizens are treated equally.

Water WhitesWash


Back in April, 1Law4All published a blog item about two-faced Shonkey & Whinlayson handing off the water rights hot potato to local councils:

PM Delegates Water Give-Away
Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-water-law-for-all position.

For those who were adamant naysayers, it has “come to pass” as anticipated, as reported in the Gisborne Herald.

Water WhitesWash

Giving Iwi A Shared Role
Friday, 28 August, 2015
A UNANIMOUS vote by Gisborne District Council has given the go-ahead for a joint management agreement between the council and Te Runanganui o Ngati Porou to manage the Waiapu River catchment, a first of its kind in New Zealand. After listening to a presentation from the runanganui, the council instructed staff to develop the agreement, which will come back to the council’s October meeting for final adoption.

A packed public auditorium heard runanganui presenters Amo Houkamo and Tina Porou describe a historic “win-win” agreement that will allow the iwi to be involved in resource consent applications in the catchment. The sky would not fall because of the agreement, they told the council. Amo Houkamau said this unique agreement could only happen in this district because what was presented could only happen in this region. “We believe this is a win-win situation for the council, for Ngati Porou, the Gisborne district and for the country,” she said.

You whaaaat?
Good for the country?
Yeah, right!

Bye, bye missed equality pie . . .

Key Delegates Water Give-Away

PM Delegates Water Give-Away

by Mike Butler

Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-water-law-for-all position.

A report commissioned by the Iwi Leaders Group calling for an equitable, permanent share of water allocations was released today, following a recent Cabinet Paper proposing criteria to give preferential access on a case-by-case basis, to private tribal companies that pay little tax.

Talks between the powerful Iwi Leaders Group and the Government, fronted by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Environment Minister Nick Smith, are at a critical stage after ministers rejected a nationwide Waterlords settlement along the lines of the outrageous Sealords deal over Maori commercial fishing claims and the Treelords giveaway of Central North Island forestry.

The claim that tribes own the water has no merit and only exists because it has repeated so often that some have started to take it as a fact.

When nineteenth century chiefs sold the large blocks of land, they also sold the water, the trees, everything above the land, and everything below it, according to deeds of land purchases that the Iwi Leaders Group conveniently ignores.

For instance, Deed No. 420 in Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, by Henry Hanson Turton, for the Upper Waikato Block transaction says that the government paid the people of Ngatimahanga, Ngatitamainu and Ngatihourua £1000 on September 15, 1864, in a sale that included trees, minerals, waters, rivers, lakes, streams, and all appertaining to the said land or beneath the surface of the said land.

That £1000 for an area between the Waipa and Waikato rivers from Ngaruawahia to Lake Taupo, in 1864 would be worth $103,835.86 today, according to the Reserve Bank Inflation calculator.

These were standard deeds used in all transactions of that time.

How has the foolish Key-led government handled this latest opportunistic bid by tribal companies for water ownership? The government:
1. Acknowledges part-Maori interests and rights in freshwater;
2. Argues that the extent and nature of those rights are at issue;
3. Says that no one owns the water;
4. Is ready to delegate to regional councils the politically risky task of allocating water to private tribal companies.

Reference to catchment-by-catchment deals at a regional government level appears in the Cabinet paper already mentioned. The Government may set criteria by which local tribal companies can get preferential access to water on that catchment by catchment basis, Smith says.

Key’s duplicitous position of no one owning the water but regional councils can allocate rights to tribes coincides with central-government-driven bids to set up super councils in three regions: Northland, Hawke’s Bay, and Wellington. Each such super-council plan includes and un-elected and unaccountable part-Maori board plus co-governance tribal-council regional planning committees.

Lawyer James Dunne, a partner in Chen Palmer, warned of a possible uninformed public backlash in light of the controversy over the Foreshore and seabed issue.

There certainly should be a public backlash – unless New Zealanders enjoy being lied to and disadvantaged.

See Stuff Article

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day



There seems to be no end to the brain- or brown-washing of NZ. It just keeps coming, like a seismic wave of thoroughly well informed self-interest, ignorance and sophistry. Read the PM’s speech excerpt below.

Ground control to PM Key: the Treaty of Waitangi contains:

NO mention of any “principles”

NO mention of a “partnership”

NO mention of “forests”

NO mention of “fisheries”


Wake up and smell the parchment, Key, Finlayson, et al. The Treaty of Waitangi is no more a living document than any other Treaty. Just read the damned two-paragraph preamble, so expeditiously overlooked most everywhere, including Te Papa, our national storehouse of treaty fabrications.

Her Majesty Victoria, Queen of England in Her gracious consideration for the chiefs and people of New Zealand, and her desire to preserve to them their land and to maintain peace and order amongst them, has been pleased to appoint an officer to treat with them for the cession of the Sovereignty of their country and of the islands adjacent to the Queen. Seeing that many of Her Majesty’s subjects have already settled in the country and are constantly arriving; And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them.

Her Majesty has accordingly been pleased to appoint me William Hobson a captain in the Royal Navy to be Governor of such parts of New Zealand as may now or hereafter be ceded to her Majesty and proposes to the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the other chiefs to agree to the following articles.

Reality Check Essential

Once signed, a contract or treaty binds the signatories. End of story. Litigation on interpretation is possible. Renunciation is possible. But changing the words is not. Nor is arguing that a word scribed in a contract or treaty hundreds of years ago should be interpreted in today’s meaning. Lexical drift is a well known phenomena. It would be fatuous to pretend today that Fred Flinstone’s fifty-plus-year-old cartoon strip jingle “gay old time” meant a consorting group of homosexuals.

Critical Thinking Needed

The Treaty of Waitangi has – in and of itself – no validity in law, whether NZ law or international law. It can be part of New Zealand law ONLY by virtue of some Act of Parliament that says that any part of the Treaty applies.

The Prime Minister has pushed his agenda in his Waitangi speech at the upper marae on the Treaty grounds.

Mr Key said while the Treaty is a formal agreement, it must be interpreted over time and adapted accordingly.

He acknowledged the challenges Maori faced in the century after the Treaty was signed, as the Crown ignored many of its agreements.

“The spirit of generosity with which Maori entered into this partnership was forgotten or ignored by many over the following decades,” he said. “But the Treaty partnership we commemorate today acknowledges the bonds that have underpinned the creation of a special country.”

“The Treaty settlement process may not be to everyone’s satisfactions, but I’m a firm believer in the current process, which is addressing the wrongs done in the past to help Maori build their futures.”

“I am confident the next 25 years will deliver more promises, passion and achievements as we work together to tackle the challenges that will be thrown at us.”

What a load of codswallop!

Wake up New Zealand and smell the dozers:



Details Secret As Mighty River Power Reaches Lake Taupo Deal

Read and weep and pay till it hurts!
Full & final means nothing to the greedy,
part-Maori Iwi elite.

Details Secret As Mighty River Power Reaches Lake Taupo Deal
22 December, 2014

An agreement has been signed between Mighty River Power and Tuwharetoa Maori Trust Board over the use of Taupo basin. Talks began last year after the iwi group reportedly decided it might charge the power company millions of dollars for the use of Taupo lake bed – which it owns – as a water storage facility. A partial sell-off of the company’s shares had led to the discussions, with the Government’s prospectus saying Mighty River Power could legally be charged for future, current and past water use back to 2007.

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The powers of the Waitangi Tribunal were massively, unnecessarily and unpatriotically extended by the Lange/Palmer government for no other reason than to try to buy the votes of Maoris at the following election. The ensuing monster that became the toy of a series of radical Maori members of the Tribunal  – types like Ranginui Walker, “Judge”  Joe Williams and Tamati Reedy – and their liberal white lackeys is now a threat not only to our economy (the higher taxes we all have to pay to fund the never-ending and ever more expensive “Treaty settlements”) but also to our rights to formerly public areas and now even to our very sovereignty as a nation.

In November, this racist, unelected, and deeply compromised, if not corrupt, Tribunal issued Stage One of its enquiry into Ngapuhi’s (Northland tribe) Treaty claim, declaring that the chiefs did NOT cede sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the Treaty in February, 1840. This is a lie. A very deliberate lie and a self-interested lie from a Tribunal that seems to see its sole function as an advocacy group for part-Maori and to extract as much as possible off the ordinary New Zealander in terms of tax dollars, public resources (e.g. the loss of the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe) and, by its new ruling, even sovereignty itself.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a very simple document and the chiefs of Northland who signed it understood its terms very well. By Article One they “cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of the country”. These simple words were translated into Maori by Henry Williams, a Maori speaker, if not scholar, whom the Maoris trusted. (But the settlers didn’t!)

It is clear by the objections of some of the chiefs (quoted below) that they understood what they were signing – that they would henceforth be subject to a new and greater sovereignty and, as such, would no longer be allowed to act as independent chiefs, with their power depending on their own might and muskets. “What do we want of a Governor? We are not whites nor foreigners. We are the governor – we, the chiefs of this land of our ancestors.  Do not sign this paper. If you do, you will be reduced to the condition of slaves and be compelled to break stones on the roads. Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed,” said the Northland chief, Rewa at the time of signing. This hostility, which did not deter other chiefs from signing, shows that the cession of sovereignty was clearly understood and the speech is quoted here (as are those that follow) solely for the purpose of showing that the chiefs knew that they were signing away whatever sovereignty they possessed for a higher purpose, viz. the ending of the terrible inter-tribal fighting.

Another chief, Kemara of the Ngatikawa, said, ” If thou stayest as Governor, then perhaps Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that – even hang by the neck….Were we to be an equality, then perhaps Te Kemara will say yes.”  This chief also knew what the cession of sovereignty meant while his words clearly show that there was no “partnership” between the Crown and Maori as Key, Finlayson, The Tribunal and the Labour Party so erroneously claim, each for their own spurious and self-interested purposes. .

Yet another chief, Tareha, said, “No Governor for me – for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, the rulers. We will not be ruled over.. What, thou, a foreigner, up and I down! Thee high, and I Tareha, the great chief of the Ngatirehia tribes, low! No, no; never, never. ”

For the Tribunal and a few biased historians like Michael King and Claudia Orange to say a century and a half later that the poor, dumb chiefs didn’t know what they were doing is false, paternalist and racist.

Even though their culture was less advanced than that of the British, the chiefs were intelligent men in their own way and knew that, because of their endless bloody wars and tribal feuds, they could never choose a desperately needed superior sovereign among themselves and so they put themselves under British rule – a definite improvement to the rule of the musket which had hitherto prevailed.

In choosing the British, the chiefs showed their wisdom, if not their cunning, as in 1840 the British led the world in inventions, engineering, liberty, political stability and humane values, the United States at that time being nothing more than a hurriedly put together federation that was based on slavery while, from 1787 to the late nineteenth century, France teetered between dictatorship and rather bloody forms of republicanism.

“To turn around and now argue that Maori  signing the Treaty of Waitangi did not understand they were surrendering their sovereignty to an entity of even higher mana defies belief and history,” wrote Ian Wishart in his excellent book, The Great Divide. (Page 165)

The cession of sovereignty, which the Treaty enabled, is the very foundation of our rights and of our very existence as a modern, democratic nation (as opposed to the undemocratic, racist and feudal option that would ensue if the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation should be accepted by this feckless government). Article One of the Treaty (the cession of sovereignty) has been accepted by historians, politicians, judges and even Maori themselves for at least seven generations  and this nonsensical and false declaration by the Tribunal to the contrary should be seen for the crude, self-interested and nation-destroying fraud that it is.

Even more alarming is the refusal of the appeasing and unpatriotic National government to nip it in the bud by a declaration exposing this lie and upholding the sovereignty of our 175 year old nation.

Thousands of soldiers have died on the battlefield – in the Maori Wars and the two world wars – to uphold the sovereignty of New Zealand and, by failing to condemn this attack on our nation with the urgency and thoroughness that it deserves, John Key has shown yet again that he is seriously lacking in both patriotism and an understanding of our constitutional arrangements.

By attacking our sovereignty, our legal system and our long held rights in this deceitful manner, the Waitangi Tribunal and its ragtag bunch of members have shown that they are the enemy of every New Zealander except, of course, the tribal elite, of which so many of the Tribunal’s members are fully paid up subscribers.

At least the Germans in the two world wars and terrorists like Te Kooti were identifiable enemies whereas the members of this Tribunal are not only tolerated by our dim witted media but they are also showered with honours and high positions by governments both National and Labour. “National” and “Labour”, being two sides of the same racist coin, of course.

If the sovereignty of any other country was attacked by such a monstrous lie, there would be instant outrage. But in our heavily sedated, TV dominated society there was barely a murmur at this affront to our rights and our future.

That is the real problem and the members of the Tribunal who make these attacks on the rest of us know that, with mass-controlled thinking, an education system that is increasingly concerned with telling people what to think rather than how to think, and a government that is in permanent thrall to the tribal elite, it is not difficult for the Tribunal to disseminate its insidious lies and get away with it.

According to the Tribunal’s report, the chiefs believed that they were only giving Britain the right to govern its own settlers and to keep the peace but that Maori would continue to govern themselves. So, why didn’t they continue with their cannibalism, which meant so much to certain chiefs? And, if the Crown has not had the right to govern Maori, why are Maoris taking so much money from the Crown (taxpayer) in the form of pensions and benefits?

It is true that Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, reacted by saying that there was no question that the Crown had sovereignty in New Zealand and that the report doesn’t change that fact, but why was this potentially nation-smashing lie not knocked down immediately and permanently? Why allow the government to have time “to consider the report”?

And Whinlayson is not the best person to uphold the sovereignty of the nation as he is the biased and deeply compromised minister who undermined New Zealand’s sovereignty by forcing the nation into a “co-governance” agreement with the selfish and backward Tuhoe tribe in the Ureweras. Anything that Whinlayson says should be regarded with the utmost cynicism and one has to wonder if the reason why he said that the Crown does have sovereignty is that, to say otherwise, would be a denial of his own position as Treaty Minister and Attorney-General and so he would no longer be in a position to grant favours to his ex-client, Nga Tahu, and his other favoured tribes.

Among the more inane comments on this important  issue was that by Haami Piripi, described as a “Te Rarawa leader”, who said, “In 1840 Europeans had 5% of New Zealand’s land mass. What logic would lead you to believe Maori would cede the other 95%?” Apart from the inaccuracy of those figures (Maori own quite a lot more than 5% – more, in fact, in proportion to their numbers than other New Zealanders), the answer is that in 1840 and for a few decades thereafter New Zealand was short of a lot of things but land was not one of them. For example, there were only about 2,000 Maoris in the whole of the South Island and so it is not surprising that they sold so much of it to the government for valuable consideration so as to get the money that they needed to develop the  lands that they kept.

And, in a further dent to Mr. Piripi’s logic, the sad truth is that too many Maoris sold land for money and then drank the proceeds. By all its dodgy Treaty settlements the Waitangi Tribunal is now giving them a second bite of the cherry and in many cases they are no wiser, e.g. the purchase of expensive hospitality boxes at Hamilton’s rugby league ground out of Tainui’s Treaty settlement money so that the fat cats of that tribe can wallow in luxury while watching their favoured sport.

The current members of the Tribunal – the body that told this monstrous lie – are:
Chairperson: Wilson Isaac
Deputy Chairperson: Patrick Savage
Members: Robyn Anderson, John Baird, Angela Ballara, Tim Castle, Ronald Crosby, Miriama Evans, Aroha Harris, Richard Hill, Rawina Higgins, Sir Douglas Kidd, Hirini Moko Mead, Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison, Kihi Ngatai, Ann Parsonson, Grant Phillipson, Tamati Reedy, Tania Simpson, Monty Soutar, Paul Swain, Pou Temara, Carrie Wainwright, Keita Walker and Ranginui Walker.

Ranginui Walker, described in Twisting the Treaty as an “angry extremist” (Page 60), was formerly a member of the radical Maori activist group, Nga Tamatoa (The Young Warriors) who took inspiration from Marxist and indigenous rights groups around the world, including the gun carrying Maoist Black Panther gang.

Sir Douglas Kidd is a former National M.P. and no doubt likes the huge salary that he gets for his Tribunal membership. Tim Castle is a Wellington lawyer of European descent who is doing very nicely out of the lucrative Treaty industry. One has to wonder how he can justify being on such a mischievous and deceitful body with his membership of the law profession.

New Zealand is sliding down a slippery slope towards racism and apartheid and this lie of the Waitangi Tribunal is such a serious step on that downward path that it is incumbent on every New Zealander who cares for the future of this country to understand what it means and then tell as many people as possible of the dangers that we are facing.

Neither National nor Labour can be trusted on this issue and we have just under three years to spread the word of what is really happening to as many of our friends, relations, work colleagues, neighbours, team mates, etc, that we can. This is a war – a war for our rights, our sovereignty, our flag, our democracy – indeed for the very soul of our country. Truth must prevail over the lies of the media, of the government and of the Waitangi Tribunal. Our hard won democracy must prevail over the racism and feudalism to which the Tribunal is trying to revert us. A useful first step would be the abolition of this Tribunal which is steadily wrecking all that our ancestors and us have built in this country.

We must nail this lie as, with none of the mainstream media exposing it, it is starting to get legs. Green M.P., Catherine Delahunty, on the last day of parliament in 2014, screamed in the parliamentary chamber at the Prime Minister: “Why will not John Key accept what every high school student knows – that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840?” That shows how far the indoctrination of the young has gone.

For further reading on Article One of the Treaty see The Great Divide, by Ian Wishart (pages 164-194), and When Two Cultures Meet, Dr. John Robinson, Pages 101-7

Pahia Plaque

Pahia Plaque

Bureaucrats Wallowing In Cultural Correctness

– Sir Robert Jones in the NZ Herald, 9 September 2014

The Pope’s Losing Battle with the Mob, headlined Warsaw’s Polityka newspaper. Poland’s a Catholic country.

Nevertheless, the newspaper didn’t pull its punches with its cynicism towards the papal threats, publicised here, to defrock Italian priests displaying obsequious sycophancy towards the Mafia.

They’ve always done so, lured by the largesse these imbued-in-religiosity mobsters render to the clerics from their extortion practices. Like all foreign horror news items, we read of them, grateful for the pervading integrity of New Zealand life. Well don’t be too sure. Consider this. Recently, a shop tenancy changed in a modern 17-storey Auckland CBD office building owned by my company. The previous tenant had blocked off some of its window which we now intended putting back to a conventional shop front.

At this stage, sit down with a stiff drink and accept my assurance I’m not making this up. For we were then informed by a planner my Auckland office uses for council dealings (which can be laborious) that under the new council rules, changes to a building’s appearance require resource consent and we would be subject to penalty if we simply put back the window.

If that’s not outrageously absurd enough, things then became truly Kafkaesque and illustrate why the Government, against ill-considered opposition parties’ objections, wishes to tone down the Resource Management Act.

For we were then told that under the new Draft Unitary Plan, not yet enacted, our building being within 50 metres of a designated Maori heritage site, we needed RMA approval (for a new shop window, for God’s sake), this instantly forthcoming at a cost of $4500 plus the approval of 13 iwi.

The council refused to advise the addresses of these iwi outfits, yet added that without their consent, we can’t put back the window.

So the planner located, then wrote to the 13 iwi, ranging from Taranaki to Whangarei.

Five replied stating they had no concerns while others said they were considering the matter, presumably calling huis to weigh up this window crisis.

One respondent bearing that fine old Maori name of Jeff Lee, representing something called Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki, contacted the planner. (See the tribe’s financial report, below)

Look up their web site if you have tolerance for Maori sacred footstep in the earth guff, although it’s 100 per cent on the mark with its proclamation: our vision is only limited by our imagination.

I’m sceptical about Mr Lee’s vision but have no doubt about his imagination, for, after advising the planners verbally that no Cultural Impact Assessment Report was required for the window, he nevertheless asked them to consider it – brace yourselves – given his ancestors, centuries ago, gathered in the vicinity.

Lee then wrote, outlining his terms for assessing the window’s cultural impact which, he said, would take him a total of six to eight hours.

For this he sought $90 per hour plus GST and travel expenses of 0.77c / km.

At this stage we became involved and told the planners to tell Mr Lee to get stuffed. In the words of my company’s manager, a historian knowledgeable in Maori history and who speaks the language: It’s a classic case of bureaucrats worried about cultural correctness without thinking through the consequences.

I more succinctly call it a racket, just as with the Bay of Islands hole in the rock (our ancestors gathered feathers nearby and Captain Cook looked at it, so give us money.)

So too with the gangsterish extortion attempt with the Mighty River float. Evidently, all of these sacred sites hypocritically become desanctified by the payment of money.

The council has designated 61 sites across Auckland and nominated 3600 others of interest. Undertake earthworks (swimming pool, building foundations, a shed etc) within 50m of a scheduled site and one must engage (pay) iwi.

None are of Stonehenge moment but instead claptrap such as our ancestors beached canoes nearby and the feather-gathering ilk.

I sent this material to Alan Duff in France. It makes me sick, he replied, adding that an acquaintance had been confronted with a $90 an hour rort after buying a section and wishing to build a house.

Not even the New York Mafia would come at this nonsense. Six months after I bought a Wall St office tower, I received a panicky letter from the building managers, enclosing a letter from the Mafia’s lawyer, saying he would like a meeting with the owners to discuss his client’s offer to provide the building’s services. Treat them seriously, my manager urged.

Some hope! Instead I replied to the shyster lawyer, proposing a meeting in my Wellington office and heard no more.

But at least they would have provided the services, presumably clipping the various contractors’ tickets.

What’s happening here is far worse, being more aligned with the Italian Mafia’s offering of unneeded protection services. In their wrong-headed sycophancy to Maori nonsense, the council fools who naively allowed this to develop are no different in principle from the fawning Italian priests.


Ngai Tai Ki Tamaki Income Stmt

Decoding The Lies, Spin & BS

Guest post from Seymour Percy

Now, folks, this might seem like an odd request, but please bear with me.

Have a look at this video. It’s just under 7 minutes long. Especially, look at the faces of the audience towards the end. They did not like what they heard, did they?

The correspondence to the present takeover of NZ by the part-Maori apartheid proponents is glaringly obvious. But kiwis are not hearing about it, are they? Or, when they do, they’re either too busy to do anything about it, or too thick to see through the veil of deception and appreciate what’s going on! Have their BS antennae fallen off?

It’s all a matter of ‘how you package it,’ PLUS how perceptive the the NZ constituency audience is!

After you’ve watched the video and while it’s still fresh in your mind, look down at the media release that’s appended, just below.

Look very, very carefully at the parts marked in red. Look at how the deceptive trickery is carefully spun out by the clever use of ‘trigger’ words. Then move on down to one possible analysis, at the end.

Press Release – New Zealand Recreation Association

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.


FRIDAY, JUNE 6, 2014

High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments.

Maori and Aboriginal leaders will be among the speakers at an international Hui exploring the best models for protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand.

The Co-governance and Co-management of Parks and Environments Hui will take place at the Museum of New Zealand Te Papa Tongarewa in Wellington on June 17 and 18. It will provide an opportunity for Indigenous groups and representatives, parks agencies, land managers, recreation consultants, business leaders and policy makers to discuss co-governance and co-management of land and marine environments.

The event has been jointly organised by Parks Forum and the New Zealand Recreation Association (NZRA). It will be opened by Conservation Minister Hon Dr Nick Smith, with keynote presentations from paramount chief Sir Tumu te Heuheu T kino of Ng ti T wharetoa and Sir Mark Solomon of Ng i Tahu.

Keynote addresses will be complemented by workshops hosted by New Zealand and Australian parks organisations and Indigenous leaders, including Dr Matthew Ward, Regional Manager for Natural Resources Alinytjara Wiluara, a branch of the South Australia Department of Environment, Water and Natural Resources, and former M ori All Blacks coach Matt Te Pou, of Tuhoe.

NZRA Chief Executive Andrew Leslie says recent Treaty of Waitangi land settlements in New Zealand and the granting of access and land-use rights to Indigenous groups in Australia has highlighted the need for Indigenous leaders and people at all levels of parks management to share knowledge and experiences of how best to co-govern and co-manage land.

“The time is right too, for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well,” he says.

Parks Forum’s Chief Executive Margaret Morton says “Though the Australian experience is different from New Zealand, which has the Treaty as a guiding document, we’re interested in sharing our knowledge of taking a joint approach to protecting our natural environment.”

Australia’s 1993 Native Title Act recognises the rights of some Indigenous people to their land that come from their traditional laws and customs, including rights to live on the area, access and use the land historically occupied by Indigenous peoples.

Speakers and workshops will examine a range of outcomes including the experience of the Crown and Waikato-Tainui’s co-management of conservation resources five years on, Ngati Whatua Orakei Reserves Board’s co-governance experience 23 years on, and the current arrangements for Auckland’s new agency for co-governing and co-managing the city’s Maunga or volcanic cones.

The work undertaken to establish Wellington’s Oruaiti Reserve, formerly Point Dorset Reserve, will be the topic for another workshop. It looks at what Treaty settlement has meant for Taranaki Wh nui and council partnerships in Wellington. Oruaiti Reserve is the first of several joint management arrangements for reserves in Wellington.

The Australian perspective on joint management of parks and protected areas will be presented by traditional owners and park managers from the Northern Territory, Parks Victoria, South Australia and Western Australia. The workshops and masterclasses will explore what models have worked well and identify how we can all work together more effectively to manage our natural and cultural values.

The Hui will be preceded by an optional field trip to Wellington conservation programme’s Matiu (Somes) Island and Zealandia, on Monday June 16.

Now, here’s a few clues to wise you up to what’s going on.

1) Joint Media Release – “New Zealand Recreation Association.” Wow! They sound important, don’t they? They sound like a group that would take in hobby recreationists, like trampers, hunters, fishers, mountain climbers, river kayakers, national parks visitors, etc., don’t they? Don’t be fooled – they don’t! In reality they’re an “organisation for recreation professionals.” People who get to charge for what they do! Look at their web site. They’re a trade association! Using racially-biased agreements that make private citizen open space access into a pay-for privilege will make the recreation professionals so much more competitive, wont it? And the media release is “joint,” too. And – guess what? The other part of the joint is the Parks Forum – the NZ Recreation Assn Oz equivalent. From their web site: “Our vision is for a strong and vibrant parks industry.” Industry? I.e. both organisations are commercial rent-a-guides!

2) The hooey is “international.” Wow! That’s sounds important, right? An appeal to authority logical fallacy.

3) “best models for protecting natural environments” Sounds good, too, right? Who could disagree with that? (The unspecified best model will doubtless be iwi elite control with convenient commercial connections to the Oz Parks Forum and the NZ Recreation Assn!)

4) “High-level Hui explores models for shared protection of natural environments” The word ‘shared’ now appears, associated with ‘protection of natural environments,’ but only after a further appeal to authority logical fallacy of ‘High-level Hui.’ There will be nothing morally, ethically or democratically ‘high’ about the hooey’s hidden agenda!

5) Note that it’s a hooey, rather than a symposium, or conference or the like. Another subliminal, crafty insertion to soften readers / viewers / the media / suckers to the view that such high-powered things need to be hooeys because they’re so important.

6) “protecting natural environments in Australia and New Zealand” – Another logical fallacy. Viz. argumentum ad populum (appeal to the authority of the many). Wow! As well as being an international hooey, Australia’s singled out for special mention, so that must make it a good thing to do, right!

7) “The co-governance and co-management of Parks and Environments Hui.” Aha – now the reality of what the hooey is about becomes apparent, if the reader has not been blinded by the soothing and deceptively spun platitudes which preceded it. Later, the word ‘environments’ morphs into ‘natural environments.’

8) Then, just in case those co-words struck a nerve, a sedative / palliative is applied in this form: “The time is right too for an international Hui to pool knowledge, share experiences, and talk through common challenges and models that are working well.” What harm can there be in pooling knowledge, sharing experiences, talking through models that are working well and any challenges, right? Especially given the earlier repeated mantra of “protecting natural environments.”

9) In case you missed it, note the use of the words “natural environments.” Parks is fairly well defined. But natural environments takes in just about everything except a concrete jungle! Given what’s happened in Auckland, your backyard is in the ‘natural environment!’

10) Then, towards the end, slipped in, ever-so-sneakily, is “natural and cultural values.” What have cultural values got to do with protecting natural environments? Nothing at all. Another snake in the grass lying in wait for the casual outdoorsy types. And never forget, this born-again conservator-general BS is nothing but one of contemporary convenience. Who do they think they’re kidding? If such enviro-conservation ‘cultural values’ were of long standing, NZ would still have moas and huias, etc.

Whoever’s behind this knows what they’re about. And the person who wrote that media release really knew what they were doing. It’s very, very, very clever.

The brown-washed, brain-dead, PC media would fall for it, hook, line and sinker.

As would most of the rest of the NZ population.

That is what 1Law4All is up against.

Are they up to it? Are their members prolific enough and up to it?

If not, I don’t fancy their chances. Or New Zealand’s.


Comments are now closed

1 2
%d bloggers like this: