Photo of Alan Duff

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

Doug Graham: Who has got to him?

By Alan Duff

Published in the Rotorua Review 17 June 2017

There is no sense of remorse, or evidence of a conscience, or awareness of the extent of his public humiliation that will make Tuku Morgan apologise.

So this columnist is not going to waste more breath on him or his foolish political friends, who seem intent on going down with his ship already with just its prow out of the water.

If they sink with him, they’ll know who to blame for their lack of judgement and political cowardice.

Talking of judgement, ex-Justice Minister Doug Graham’s statements that we must all come to terms with there being one law for Maori and another for the rest of New Zealand is about as dunderheaded and “got at” as you can get. Brown men in suits down there in the capital must have got at him. Sly old brown foxes must have turned the hunt on him and made him the pursued.

He’s taken European legal principle and thrown it into the pot cooked up by cunning, self-serving jokers with the gall, the fee-charging effrontery, to call themselves Maori, representing, no-one bothers to check, themselves – a small group of them.

Doug Graham wont go down in history as the man who did so much to settle the long-standing Maori land grievances, not with statements like this. Instead, he’ll be remembered as the white man who sold out his fellow New Zealanders, part-Maori and non-Maori, to a bunch of brown gangsters and their pale brown thugs.

*(He’ll have lots of company in that club – John Key, Nick Smith, Bill English, Chris Finlayson and many others)

Undemocratic

There cannot be one law for Maori and another for the rest. It is undemocratic, divisive in the extreme. And anyway, it’s so stupid when you try to think of its application you would be right to question the intelligence of its advocates like Graham.

What happens to mixed blood marriages and their offspring? What are the children in the eyes of the law – Maori, European, half of each, what? Is my European wife under a separate law from myself?

Are our children, being quarter Maori, about the same percentage as Sir Tipene O’Regan, one or the other? Which part of their anatomy holds the trout-licence exemption? The eyes that spot the fish and think of which fly to tie? Or the hands and arms that cast the rod? Do their European first cousins fish along side them under threat of the law if they don’t have a fishing licence?

Can the law be broken by their mother but not me for the exact same recreational activity and catching fish which are not traditional but introduced? Is Doug Graham the ass the law can sometimes be?

What about our sports teams, say a rugby team? Same citizenry rights, to vote, to go to war, civil freedoms, but under separate law for certain things? Did Doug Graham see none of this when he opened his mouth? Can he really be that blind, that monumentally stupid, not to mention gutless for not standing up to these gangsters, that he fails to see the ramifications for his country? Has he got some sort of an agenda?

Screaming

Most of us are tired of screaming about lazy Maoris wanting money for nothing. Most of us are appalled at seeing Maoris attempt to carve up a state funded Maori television station among themselves while telling us they’re out for our interests.

Education trusts spend the money on paying burgeoning bureaucracy higher and higher salaries and perks, leaving nothing for the education. Tribal trusts blow their iwi’s funds. We’re still arguing four years later over the quarter billion dollar fisheries handout.

But the consultants and lawyers are still being paid. Public funding has become the Maori equivalent to robbery without arms. Hands are all that are needed. Fast ones. Working hard and having a work ethic, is considered dumb.

The best thieves get the most honour. They pin medals on their chests. The rest of Maoridom gets the pie in the sky promises whilst these jokers eat up large here on earth. The message goes out to Maoris that it’s a good thing not to earn money by the sweat of your own brow, just fill out the application form. And kick up brown hell if you get questioned too hard, let along turned down.

Accountants

Every state dollar meant to be thrown at Maori “problems” becomes only a “problem” for the accountants of the brown mafia as to where to channel the dosh. Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars meant to help “cure” Maori social woes and all they’ve done is get worse. Any wonder when the money’s not reaching anywhere near the problem.

Maoris now shamelessly kick up when they’re not consulted on every tiny civil matter. They kick up when they lose a legal argument, whine when public funding comes with a demand for accountability. They whine even when it doesn’t because it’s never enough. Neglectful Maori parents – of which the country’s overwhelming majority are Maori – never get it that you have to tell children their existence is wonderful.

They never get it that you have to make sacrifices for your children to advance beyond what you got given. They’ll continue to not get the picture on anything so long as they’ve got politicians like Doug Graham telling them they live under separate laws and rules.

This column is contributed and does not necessarily reflect the views of the Rotorua Review.

*Comment in green added by 1Law4All.

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

 

Good news, the Maori Statutory Board has been told to sling their hook by the High Court.

A bid to protect Auckland’s Maori cultural sites has been thrown out in the High Court due to a lack of evidence as to their importance.

The Independent Maori Statutory Board appealed a decision by Auckland Council to remove provisions relating to sites of value for mana whenua from the Unitary Plan.

However, in a ruling released to the public on Tuesday, Justice Edwin Wylie rejected the appeal, saying there wasn’t enough evidence of the sites’ significance.

Complete mumbo-jumbo in other words.

The board, comprising seven mana whenua group representatives and two mataawaka representatives, sought to incorporate sites of value to mana whenua in an overlay in the unitary plan.

In September 2012, a working draft of the proposed unitary plan was released to iwi authorities, which proposed two levels of protection for sites and places of Maori cultural heritage.

Included in the draft was a schedule detailing 61 sites and places of significance to Maori, and a cultural heritage layer which would cover about 2231 public and private sites.

That was whittled down from about 9000 different sites through consultation with public and mana whenua groups in September 2013.

The Auckland Unitary Plan Independent Hearings Panel (IHP) recommended Auckland Council delete a number of provisions affecting Maori from the proposed unitary plan, including the schedule of sites of value to mana whenua which was to be included in the district and regional plan section, until evidence of their significance had been established.

Justice Wylie found that of the 2213 sites proposed, only 140 had specific submissions and evidence provided from mana whenua, and only 16 were supported by detailed evidence at the hearing.

He said, having heard evidence from a large number of parties both for and against the overlay of sites, the panel was entitled to delete the overlay of sites from the proposed plan.

Without evidence of mana whenua values to support all sites, the provisions lacked sufficient evidence overall, Justice Wylie ruled.

Knock me down with a feather, Justice Wylie got one right for once.

Reblogged from: Whale Oil

Save

Ethnicity Anomalies

Ethnicity Anomalies

26 April 2016
The Editor
Northland Age

Many Kiwis are making valid protests about Waitangi claimants with very slight maori bloodlines (ethnicity) and looking for a formula on how to address this anomaly.  Well here’s the solution; it’s called the Ethnicity Equalisation Scheme (EES).

For openers, we must address the quixotic definition of maori in S.2 Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974 which most sensible Kiwis consider to be farcical because it seeks to create a statutory maori race.  If claimants are going to use any level of maori ethnicity for Waitangi claims etc. then a scheme is required with authenticated certified documents to ensure whakapapas are accurate, with Birth Certificates, Driver’s Licences and Passports, etc. endorsed all showing the degree of ethnicity attributed to claimants and this must be the minimum prerequisite legal requirement prior to obtaining any payments from Waitangi claims. All this actioned at the cost of the claimant.

It follows when looking at a tribe of say 2,000 ‘members’ there must be supporting documentation and evidence for each and every tribal member with lists made available for public inspection and then the ethnicity of the whole tribe must be averaged out.

Should the perceived grievance claim  or any other claim (hard to take seriously) for some reason be successful and for example assessed at say $32 million, then if the average maori ethnicity of the tribe is 1/8th the payment out would be only $4 million and the $28 million balance would be withheld along the same lines as the ‘contributory negligence doctrine’ to the extent of 7/8th representing the ethnicity percentage other than maori and funds returned to the NZ taxpayer via the Government, i.e, not paid out.

Now isn’t that a fair and equitable outcome because Kiwis are entitled as of right to know all those who are claiming to be statutory maori are providing accurate documentary proof and word of mouth mumbo jumbo is not good enough. If citizens don’t want special endorsement there is no need to complete any details and they will simply receive a normal Kiwi passport without notation – the choice is theirs. Of course other citizens could also choose to apply for the ethnicity endorsement at their own cost. Current assessments indicate no one can claim to have 50% maori ethnicity and therefore other than by virtue of the statutory definition everyone in NZ must currently be classified as non maori.

Rob Paterson
Matapihi

Twenty Two Mendacious Modern (part-)Maori Myths

A useful reference when challenged on your stance of 1Law4All:

  1. The Maoris are indigenous to NZ.

Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, gaggles of Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. a mere 400 years before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even the modern part-Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.

  1. The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white man.

Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.

  1. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.

This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.

  1. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.

The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a  settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.

No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.

This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.

  1. There are principles of the Treaty.

No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.

  1. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.

There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”

Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.

It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite -­ including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.

  1. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.

In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.

The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.

  1. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.

Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.

  1. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.

In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.

  1. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.

In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

  1. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.

This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power ­e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”

  1. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.

Wrong. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from their own narrow interests. By his co-governance agreements with Tuhoe and other favoured tribes, Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, is driving a racist, separatist sword through the nation’s sovereignty and undermining our hard-won democracy.

  1. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.

Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were­ just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.

In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.

  1. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.

Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.

  1. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.

There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.

Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.

  1. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.

Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.

Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.

  1. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.

No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.

  1. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.

Wrong. Some poll results:

* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)

* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)

* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)

* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)

81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)

* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)

* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)

* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)

* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)

* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012

* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013

* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012

* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012

* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015

* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)

* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished

  1. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.

Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.

  1. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.

This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.

These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.

A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed ­and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.

Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.


Click the ‘download’ button below to save a copy of these myths for your use and reference. Perhaps print a copy to have on hand, too? (Four A4 pages)
Download

Next Stop: New Zealand! (with or without a flag)

Next Stop: New Zealand! (with or without a flag)

Maori King claim to Auckland opens door for northern giant

King Tuheitia has launched a claim for Auckland extending north to Mahurangi, down the Firth of Thames and across to the Manukau Harbour and to Piha.

He told more than 500 people gathered at Turangawaewae Marae in Ngaruawahia, including Prime Minister John Key, he was determined to see the claim through. He said the tribe had moved into a “new era” of rights and claims.

If you thought Auckland’s purple dot disease was bad enough, how about just one big dot to cover it all?

New era obviously moves the greedy and grasping on from the

 

I Want It


………….to


I Want It ALL!

 

Wake up, New Zealand. You are sleep-walking your way to South African-style apartheid.

You don’t have to be mad to live here, but it surely helps.

Government must fix Maori obesity: researchers

Another article published in the Granny Herald which perpetuates the myth that all ills that befall Maori are the fault of the wicked white colonialists.

Really?

Seriously?

When are people going to stop being taken in by these accusations? You cannot judge the past by today’s standards. Things, life, was a whole lot different back then (1840 and the colonising years after 1840). Especially for Maori.

My comments, in italics, continue below in the article:

Government must fix Maori obesity: researchers

By Martin Johnston

Photo / Thinkstock

Photo / Thinkstock

The legacy of colonisation has predisposed Maori to having much higher rates of obesity than the total New Zealand population (how exactly? They never tell us how these things have had the effect they claim. They just make claims and idiots believe them) and the Government must do much more to address this inequity, a group of Otago University researchers say.

Citing the 2008/09 Adult Nutrition Survey, they say nearly half of Maori were obese.

The same survey found that 28 per cent of the total population were obese – and nearly 60 per cent of Pasifika.

“Since European settlement and the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840, Maori have been disadvantaged as a consequence of colonisation and repeated breaches of the Treaty …,” (again – how and where is the proof?) the researchers, Drs Reremoana Theodore, Rachael McLean and Lisa Te Morenga, say today in an commentary piece in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health.

“Loss of land resulted in high levels of poverty and loss of access to traditional food sources for many Maori. The Maori experience, which has been mirrored by many other indigenous groups, has resulted in: wide-scale migration into urban centres; increased consumption of cheap processed foods high in fat and sugar; reduced physical activity levels; and rising rates of obesity and cardiovascular diseases.”

(loss of traditional food sources occurred because they eat them to extinction, not because of loss of land, and the land was not ‘lost’, it was sold by the chiefs who were happy for a quick buck. They land was not making them any money before they sold it! Traditional food sources for Maori – NZ has no native land mammals, so their diet consisted of seafood, birds and plants, mostly fern and kumera before the colonialists introduced other vegetables. No one stopped them going fishing, or gathering shell fish. They could still grow their own vegetables. They had hunted and eaten most edible sized birds to extinction before the Treaty was signed – so what traditional food sources did they lose access to exactly? If life in their traditional villages was so wonderful, why did they migrate to the urban centres? Cheap processed foods with high fat and sugar are relatively new in New Zealand. They certainly weren’t around in the 1800s or early 1900s, so how can you blame colonisation for Maori eating them? No one is making them eat them. No one is forcing them. It’s not just cheap processed foods either – what about their famous ‘boil-ups’ which are full of grease? No one is forcing them to be less active. They are victims of their own poor decision making, not of colonisation!)

They add that Maori tended to be channelled into working-class jobs until the 1970s and were later affected disproportionately, compared with Europeans, by structural economic changes that were accompanied by higher levels of unemployment.

(“Channelled”? Given the level of educational achievement of most Maori at that time, working-class jobs was probably all they could get. Saying that they were “channelled” is an emotive attempt at blaming the colonialists, once again, for the under achievement of Maori. Well educated Maori made much more of themselves and included some great and well known policitians such as Apiarata Ngata, long before the 1970s.)

They urge a focus on the “historically driven social determinants of obesity” to avoid blaming Maori – and their choices – for their own ill health. (of course – can’t have them taking any responsibility for themselves and their choices can we? noooo, blame the nasty colonialists and the Crown and make them pay to fix the problem, like they always do.)

The researchers lament the demise of Health Eating-Health Action and its associated anti-obesity programmes. They also support the current Government’s Whanau Ora and Healthy Families NZ schemes as a “starting point for addressing obesity”, but say much more must be done and that the Government has a treaty responsibility to work in partnership with Maori to and to ensure Maori health equity. (The Treaty is NOT a partnership agreement and if there is an article in the Treaty which makes the Government responsible for the health of Maori, then it must be still lost somewhere because having read the Treaty many times I’ve still not found it!)

“A key issue, however, with Healthy Families NZ is that it focuses on educating people … to make better choices. Evidence increasingly suggests that interventions that rely on individual agency may actually increase socioeconomic inequalities in obesity.”

The policies they propose are in line with those of public health researchers who call for sugar and fat taxes and regulations to control the marketing of unhealthy food and drink to children – ideas repeatedly rejected by the Government. (rejected for good reason – why make everyone pay for the bad choices of a few?)

The Health Ministry, in response to the article, told Radio New Zealand that the creation of the Healthy Families NZ scheme in 10 locations was intended to encourage families to choose healthy foods, be physically active, maintain a healthy weight, not to smoke and to drink only moderate amounts of alcohol. The scheme was part of the Government’s approach to promoting good health.

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Giving away the Foreshore and the Beaches

Map 1In Twisting the Treaty, the Marine and Coastal Area Act is described as “the greatest swindle in New Zealand history” and that is exactly how it is turning out. A large part of the North Island (see map) is already under claim by greedy and opportunistic tribal groups. Often led by people who are only one eighth or one sixteenth Maori.

While some claims are decided in secret by the biased Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, others are proceeding through the High Court process.

The secret deals which strip the public of long held rights to our beaches and coast are done without the public having any input or being consulted in any way. To give some semblance of “respectability” to these dirty deals, Finlayson is handing oversight of them (on a jobs for the girls basis) to people from whom he gets the result he wants. People like Judith Potter, a retired High Court judge, whom he is paying with taxpayers’ money to advise him on the Ngati Porou claim on the East Coast. She has shown her bias from the start.

Known for her arrogance, she has carried this unfortunate trait over to her new job as Finlayson’s puppet by refusing to hear any argument against granting customary marine title to tribes from the Council of Outdoor Recreational Associations of New Zealand (CORANZ). That organisation represents tens of thousands of outdoor recreational people whose rights will be adversely affected by any grant of customary marine title that she might recommend.

Not all claims for customary marine title are going through Finlayson’s secret deal negotiations. Some are going through the High Court process – as allowed by the Act. Even here we can see the full extent of Finlayson’s machinations.

When a tribe wants to claim customary marine title through the High Court, it is required by the Marine and Coastal Area Act to insert one advertisement in the Public Notices section of one local daily paper ONCE ONLY. Finlayson sneaked this into the Act so as to keep the public in the dark as much as possible about this massive swindle of their rights. Who reads the Public Notices anyway?

Map 2Thus did a claim for two of the Titi islands, south-west of Stewart Island, get to the High Court without CORANZ or any other organisation becoming aware of it. When CORANZ eventually found out, they applied to become a party to the action so as to protect the public interest (nobody else was going to) but they were rejected for being out of time.

It is not possible for any organisation to read the Public Notices in every daily newspaper every day and so the claim over the Titi islands is more likely to proceed for the lack of opposition to the claim by anyone like CORANZ. It is the traditional role of the Attorney-General to protect the public interest but, as the biased and deeply compromised Treaty Minister Finlayson is also the Attorney-General, the people of New Zealand no longer have a Minister to protect the public interest protection that they have had in the past.

Fortunately CORANZ did become aware of the cheeky and greedy claim to the whole of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula (out to 22.2 km at sea) and from Paritu to the mouth of the Nuhaka River. The claim was lodged by the local part-Maori radical, Pauline Tangiora, JP, QSO, QSM, believed to have been born in Woodville and grown up in that area and Palmerston North.

Despite her civil awards, her past actions have included physically trying to stop the pouring of concrete for a public boat ramp and taking the Mahia Boating and Fishing Club to court to try to stop them building their clubhouse. She lost that one and was ordered to pay the club some thousands of dollars in costs. That was several years ago and they have never seen a cent of it. Yet she has the resources to mount an expensive claim as the spokesperson for her adopted coastal tribal group. In other words, she uses the law when it suits her and ignores it when it doesn’t.

By her claim Pauline Tangiora is causing unnecessary racial divisions and much unrest among landowners and local part-Maori, who have got along well together for generations. Furthermore she has only a very small amount of Maori blood and, but for her facial tattoo – presumably to give her some credibility – she could very well pass for a European.

Her claim is completely unjustifiable as the Rongomaiwahine tribe, which she fronts, has NOT had continuing and exclusive use of the foreshore and seabed of the Mahia peninsula as required by the Act in order to get customary marine title. So, in order to protect the public rights of access to the beaches and sea around this peninsula, CORANZ has become a party to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim in the High Court – as has the Gisborne District Council and the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, but the Councils’ resolution to see the matter through is extremely doubtful.

Map 3The case is costing CORANZ a lot of money in legal fees for, as with any complicated civil action, there is a hearing, then more papers, another hearing, and so on.

Here can be seen the full extent of Finlayson’s deviousness as, like his fellow lawyer, Geoffrey Palmer, who allowed claims to the Waitangi Tribunal to go all the way back to 1840, it seems that the greatest reason for the Marine and Coastal Area Act is to make things as complicated as possible so as to create a lawyers’ bonanza – just as Palmer did with hundreds of millions of dollars having gone into the pockets of lawyers from his Treaty process. And lots more to come.

Finlayson has done everything to prevent the public having any say in his theft of the foreshore and seabed. Governments are meant to protect the public interest but this Key government puts private interests – e.g. Sky City and the tribal elite – ahead of the public interest and that is why it is so dangerous.

CORANZ is doing the job that the government should be doing. Its financial resources to pay the continuing legal bills on this one Mahia claim are anything but unlimited and it desperately needs donations so that it can continue to oppose the Rongomaiwahine claim which, if left unopposed, might well succeed in whole or in part even though the tribe does not fulfil the requirements of the Act. These days judges do funny things – e.g. Sian Elias’ disgraceful behaviour in the Ngati Apa case when she deliberately ignored the stated law to indulge her own prejudices.

We have reached a terrible state when a relatively small, private organisation like CORANZ has to uphold the public interest because the government is failing to do so. Worse, in his secret negotiations with tribes who pursue that route rather than through the High Court, Finlayson is doling out to his favoured tribes rights that he has stolen off the public of New Zealand by his thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act

Map 41Law4All is very concerned at this theft of public commons and violation of the public interest for the sake of the racist and separatist agenda of this government. That is why 1Law4All sponsored a public meeting on the matter on 2nd February at the Napier Sailing Club. Dr. Hugh Barr, the secretary of CORANZ and author of the book, The Gathering Storm over the Foreshore and Seabed,  spoke to about 80 people and informed them of the issues.

1Law4All will continue to oppose this Mahia claim on the grounds that it is racist, separatist, thieving and does not meet the requirements of the Act. We strongly urge our members to bring this matter to the attention of as many people as possible. Perhaps even donate to the special account that has been set up by CORANZ for its legal costs and for no other purpose. It is CORANZ Rongomaiwahine Trust Fund Account 03-0566-0207094-26 or cheques to the same fund at CORANZ, P.O. Box 1876, Wellington 6140. This is one thing that we can do to ensure that future generations will have the same rights and enjoyment of the beaches and coast that we have. For now!

The beaches and seabed of our country should belong to all New Zealanders EQUALLY – as they did before Key’s National government descended into the muck of racist politics for selfish and crooked reasons. We are all New Zealanders whatever the colour of our skins or our bloodlines and there is nothing more repugnant than legislation that gives superior rights to people of a particular race or tribe.

We all pay the same taxes, we are all liable for service in war time, so why should people with one particular bloodline in a coastal tribe be given superior rights over other citizens? That is a throwback to the tribalism and feudalism that the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to get away from.

If we don’t stand up for our rights and for a democratic and non-racial New Zealand, then we will soon be second class citizens in the land that was built by the sweat and toil of out pioneer forebears.

Treaty Entrenchment by Stealth

Treaty Entrenchment by Stealth?

(What you don’t know can hurt you)

Background

As part of the Consideration of Constitutional Issues, which was agreed to in the 2008 Relationship Accord and Confidence and Supply Agreement between the National and Maori parties, a Constitutional Advisory Panel was appointed in August 2011. This panel was to ‘continue the conversation’ about how to govern the people, land and resources of New Zealand.

Whilst this panel had other items to discuss, such as the length of our parliamentary terms and the number of MPs in Government, it soon became clear that their main area of focus was to encourage and establish interest in entrenching the Treaty of Waitangi into a written constitution for New Zealand.

Had they succeeded in convincing enough people in New Zealand that this was best for New Zealand and the people who live here, it would have been the ultimate victory in a long and carefully strategized war against New Zealand’s democracy. A war which has been waged for the past 40 years by part-Maori activists and their Treatyist allies.

It must have been a bitter blow that they did not achieve their objective, despite 40 years of re-interpreting the Treaty of Waitangi. During that time, treatyists have been infiltrating education institutions to enable the teaching of their own ideological propaganda to innocent students, plus consistently and tirelessly putting down any discussion that questions their goals and aspirations with cries of ‘Racist!’

Time for Plan B?

Despite an overwhelming lack of support for a ToW entrenched constitution, which should have given a very clear message to the panel members putsching that agenda on just how New Zealanders felt about race based laws and power, the CAP’s report, presented in November 2013, made numerous recommendations to the Government which were designed to advance and enhance part-Maori power in both local and central Government.

13 polls 1 message update image

Credit: Graphic included with kind permission of John Ansell

Whilst the recommendations are numerous, the ones relevant to the point of this tale revolve around part-Maori representation in local Government. (See report link below) It seems that no matter how often the people of New Zealand exercise their democratic rights and vote against having unelected, unaccountable, race-based seats in local Government, activists pushing this agenda refuse to get the message. There seems to be no lengths to which they will not go in order to force their agenda upon the population at large.

We’ve seen the Auckland Super City amalgamation and the Statutory Maori Board forced onto Auckland by the Government and the absolute disaster that has become.

Northland, Hawke’s Bay, Tauranga and Wellington are all considering amalgamation plans put to them by the Local Government Commission. In every case, part of the amalgamation plan is the establishment of an unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori Board.

Mr Basil Morrison

Basil Morrison seems to be the public face of the force driving many of the strategies to enforce these race-based agendas.

Mr Morrison is currently Chair of the Local Government Commission, Chair of the Local Government New Zealand Superannuation Board of Trustees, a director of Landcorp Farming Ltd and Civic Assurance, and a member of the Waitangi Tribunal. In the past, he has been Chairman of the Ohinemuri County Council, Mayor of Hauraki District Council, a member of the Waikato Regional Council, President of Local Government New Zealand and Chair and Vice Chair of the Commonwealth Local Government Forum from 2005 to 2009. Basil Morrison therefore has considerable knowledge of local government matters at a local, national and international level.

Mr Morrison was also on the New Zealand Geographic Board from July 2010 until July 2013. It was under his watch that the ‘h’ was forced into Wanganui, in spite of the fact that 80% of people polled on the issue did not want it, and the North Island and South Island were given Maori names even though 81% said ‘No’ to that.

Now, in his role as Chairman of the Local Government Commission, which he holds at the same time as being a Waitangi Tribunal member, he is actively pushing the amalgamation of councils agenda, everywhere he can. And, in every case, the amalgamation proposal includes an unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori Board.

cartoon

Conclusion

Giving more and more power to only one part of any society, separated from the rest by either race, religion or culture, can only be a recipe for disaster. It is undemocratic and unconstitutional. It impinges on the human and democratic rights of every other person.

Having been denied public support for a Treaty of Waitangi based Constitution, this pressure to accept unelected and unaccountable-to-ratepayers part-Maori representation in local Government has all the appearance of a rear guard attack.

As the situation is Auckland has shown, once part-Maori Boards are established, huge amounts of money are demanded from the general rate take, for part-Maori aspirational projects which have little or no benefit to the rate payers in general. The aims being part-Maori focused, and not community focused.

Naturally they will protest that the community in general will benefit, but such Board s and Councillors have not shown exactly how that will happen.

And since these representatives are appointed, not voted for by the rate payers, they are not answerable to rate payers on any decisions they make or what they spend money on. Yet, having votes on Council decisions, they can have a huge influence on the lives of all rate payers.

The full report by the Constitutional Advisory Panel can be viewed here, with the recommendations to Government starting on Page 16.

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Reblogged from NZCPR
Tony Sayers

By

Sub title: An article from one of the little people

For many years as a practising teacher in New Zealand, I watched the gradual but tangible creep of Maori influence upon the NZ education system. ‘And what is wrong with that?’ the Maori educationists and culturally liberated activists, may cry.

‘Nothing at all’, I would reply, ‘so long as the same opportunity is offered to every other ethnic group in the country’. We know that becomes cumbersome and impractical.

Before I get branded as a redneck, (a favourite Maori term for anyone who does not subscribe to their way of thinking), or as anti-Maori; let me openly state that my political position is in favour of equality for all citizens of New Zealand, (sorry, ‘Aotearoa-New Zealand), regardless of their ethnicity. That said, let me get to the nub of the issue.

I am always in favour of implementing innovations that bring about improvement, but I honestly cannot say that the changes in education, pushed by Maori protagonists, have had a beneficial affect across the board, there have been more negatives than positives come out of it.

I have seen the newspaper articles about the ‘dumbing down’ of subject and exam content, and lowering of assessment levels so that Maori are not disadvantaged by the ‘Pakeha” system. I have heard Pita Sharples call for entry levels to University to be lowered exclusively for Maori students. He has suggested that students sitting NCEA exams in the Maori language, receive a percentage increment for their marks. Surely these are admissions of lower levels of attainment by Maori.

I recall the frustration of some of my Maori-teacher colleagues, regarding the attitudes of their Maori students. These teachers considered that the students did not make an effort, because they expected to get special considerations in the system, simply because they were Maori’. There have been enough manifestations of such practices to nurture such views.

I recall when I was teaching at Manutuke School, a representative from Maori Affairs came to the school to inform the Maori students about all the assistance that they could anticipate from the government. I was present, since my students were part of his target group. My thoughts at the time were, that I should marry a Maori woman, so that my children would be eligible for the same hand-outs. All of these inequalities hinged upon who your parents are. Individuals have no choice over who their parents are. Birth is a lottery and that is what makes it so unfair. Two babies born on the same day, in the same town, in the same country, have different rights and privileges simply because of their race. Something needs to change.

I clearly recall the principal of the school, at which I worked, (circa 2010), reporting to the staff about the conference he had attended. He told us that the keynote speaker at the conference, a Maori academic, ‘who had the ear of the Ministry’, advocated that, ‘In the first instance, the curriculum should be written specifically to address the needs of Maori students’.  He also stated that, ‘Non-Maori students would not be disadvantaged because they had traditionally achieved anyway’.

Hullo! Is this a race-based curriculum?

Is this apartheid in the NZ education system?

No we are not supposed to call it apartheid in NZ.

Oh I am sorry! We are not supposed to challenge any Maori initiatives if you work for the Ministry of Education.

It is not written down anywhere, but just watch the ‘inner circle of enlightened teachers’ around you scatter if you dare criticize the current bandwagon.    Uh-oh!   No-one wants to sit at your table for morning tea.

They do not want the principal to think that they sympathise with your views. Not a good career move.

Initially the changes were just to revive the Maori language and culture. No harm there, and it had the goodwill of us all. That went well, so other changes followed. At first they were minor, a process of de-sensitisation, and then changes grew bolder by increments.

Pita Sharples utterances became even more ridiculous.

Other manifestations of creeping Maori influence in education that I have witnessed first hand are:

  1. At Wairoa College, after being appointed to the job by the Board of trustees and commencing teaching duties, I was required to be observed teaching the subject of metalwork, by the Ministry Inspector for Maori Studies, (a rose by another name, for those who know to whom I refer). Was this to assess my suitability to teach Maori students?  If she was a skilled engineer then it was not apparent.

  2. Another lady inspector from the Ministry cruised into the workshop. She demanded to know ‘to what degree I had incorporated aspects of ‘Taha Maori’ into the metalwork programme’. I replied, “To the same degree as the Maori Studies Department has done with ‘Taha Metalwork’. I am still awaiting a supply of ships nails.” She was not amused and left the workshop.

  3. An edict was passed down from the Ministry that signage in classrooms had to be displayed in both Maori and English languages. The principal informed teachers that: frequently used terms and glossaries should also be available with their Maori equivalents. Keen to comply, I sought to find Maori equivalents for: micrometer, calliper, oxy-acetylene, and so on, to no avail. I sent a memo to the HOD of the Maori Studies Department, asking for assistance. He told me to disregard it, since it was all BS. I had to agree, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could nail down the faceless individuals who put this stuff in motion.

  4. The Maori Art & Crafts teacher plus other Maori teachers and students, held a ceremony to plant some ‘Pouwhenua’ in the school grounds. (No they’re not flowers.) These were duly blessed by a Ratana priest. Now they are tapu and cannot be interfered with. A lovely aesthetic touch don’t you think, but do Pakehas understand the political connotations, I think not. (Pouwhenua are carved poles, traditionally placed to stake out territory, or mark tapu locations. Take your pick.) Where was this headed I asked myself. Funny! I thought, this was a state school that belonged to everyone in the community. I do not recall any consultations with the wider community, it just happened, under the radar.

  5. I, along with other new staff at the school, had to compulsorily attend a three day ‘Marae Course’. What the objective was, or if there was any benefit to the teachers concerned, I am not sure, but the Marae collected some nice kohas. Why it took three days, remains a mystery. Was it to assess our suitability to teach Maori students, AFTER we had been appointed by the Board of Trustees, or was it some statement, or subtle form of intimidation? You’re on our turf. At other schools, new teachers to the school generally receive a compulsory welcome onto the school marae. One hour. Charming. I can get to recite my whakapapa.

  6. When I taught at Opotiki College, if any Maori student disrupted lessons, they were scheduled to be interviewed by the School Marae Committee, when it next convened. Non-Maori students were dealt with the same day and generally did detention. The difference in the results of the two protocols was markedly noticeable. There were no apologies or improvements in conduct from those students dealt with by the Marae Committee. Hang on!  Isn’t this a race-based protocol? Isn’t that called ‘apartheid’? Oh no, silly me.

  7. The Jim Moriarty Maori Drama Academy turned up at Opotiki College to give a performance. I do not recall the title of the performance, but what I do recall is the ‘race hate’ message of the play. It portrayed nasty pakehas and honourable Maoris. The acting was from the heart. I regarded the play content as offensive propaganda. I was astounded that the school administrators would allow such content into the school. The school administration routinely bent over backwards to appease the local iwi, (whose members had previously pulled down the NZ flag at the Council Building, hoisted the Kotahitanga flag and occupied the Council Chambers). Yes the school’s upper management resembled a croquet pitch. But never mind, the performance was an example that Maori were good actors and other young Maori would be similarly inspired. What was really remarkable was that non-Maori students had to compulsorily attend the performance, and pay an entry fee for the opportunity to be offended.

  8. Whilst teaching at Wairoa College and again at Opotiki College, part-way through my mathematics classes there was a regular exodus of Maori students headed to ‘Kapa Haka’ practice. The consequence was, that these students missed out on so much learning in the subject, that they were not able to reach the required achievement levels in numeracy. Let’s blame it on the Pakeha system that does not address Maori students’ needs.

  9. At the most recent school I taught in, the morning staff meetings had to begin with a ‘waiata’. We are doing this the Maori way, so get used to it.

A lot of this stuff is laughable BUT it is all evidence of a Maori agenda to manipulate the education system to their own ends.

They need to condition the teaching work-force to accept and implement their strategies without question or opposition.

In my examples above, note the number of times these Maori initiatives were compulsory.

‘Cultural Safety’ and political indoctrination are well entrenched into teacher training, as well as in nursing training. If you want to graduate then you must toe the political line. They call it cultural, but they are fooling no-one. A bit of web-surfing will produce the evidence. (The article I refer to, is in ‘Investigate’ Magazine Oct/Nov 2014, titled ‘Training Parrots’). I salute the author of that article for the conviction and courage to publicly voice their concern. I now add my voice to this cry and invite other teachers and nurses to raise the volume so that we are heard.

If you think that a Maori oriented education system will benefit the general populace of New Zealand, think again. The result would bring down the educational achievement levels of all ethnicities.

Not even Maori can deny that their education achievements need to rise, so that they can compete in the open job market. Non-Maori set the benchmark. It is for Maori to meet that challenge and not try to manipulate the system to achieve parity by de facto means. If the performance of our current Maori Minister of Education is a taste of what is to come, then God Defend New Zealand. I also question whether their ultimate objective relates not to achievement, language and culture, but to political ends.

Looking to the future, consider the following scenario:

A Maori initiative for the introduction of ‘A New History Of Aotearoa”. It would probably be edited by someone such as Sir Hugh Kawharu or Dr. Danny Keenan. This would be the exciting new history from a Maori perspective. It would have the objective of conditioning the up-coming generations to believe a fabricated history, according to the (discredited) Waitangi Tribunal. (The researchers for the book, might also have difficulty getting paid for their work, until they had portrayed the Maori as the aggrieved party). Written records of who said what would also be ‘reinterpreted’ regardless of eyewitness records to the contrary.

How much easier it would be in twenty years time, for Maori claims to gain a toehold, if the old history was replaced by the new history. To achieve this, Maori need to be able to pump this into the Education system without any opposition, and they are virtually there. The work force have been conditioned not to prod the sacred cow. The taxpayers will continue to fund Maori interests for eons, whilst the hospital waiting lists grow longer, because the Health system is deprived of the necessary funds.

Teachers who are currently employed in the system, and have woken up, are reluctant to make a stand under the present political and social climate. The teachers who are retired, are in a position to speak up without damage to their careers. They need to come forward and inform the general public of what has been, and still is, going on. So let’s have a few more retired teachers voice their anecdotes and opinions. If you say nothing, then this manifestation just festers away with dire consequences for the future. This topic needs to gain volume, so that politicians realise that it is an issue that must be addressed in their manifestos, for the next election.

By voicing my opinions on this controversial subject, I anticipate a tirade from enlightened, emancipated young teachers, freshly indoctrinated at university, with new world, politically correct and culturally safe views. Yes, I know, if you can’t take the heat then stay out of the kitchen. I am prepared to take the heat, but remember, I was once like you. The difference between you and me, is years of experience in education, that might well equate with the learning required to become a professor.

I was not born with opinions, they developed from my real experiences.

The examples that have formed my opinions, are far too common to be ignored.

If people are too scared to put their head above the parapet, then that is what Maori want.

It would be a relief to be proven wrong.


Click on the linked title below to refresh your minds about the NZ Colleges of Indoctrination, by re-reading an earlier blog post on what’s essentially the same matter. Prepare to be outraged, even more than you are, after reading the item above.

PREPARING THE PARROTS: A TRAINING COLLEGE GRADUATE ON THE CULTURAL CORRUPTION OF TEACHERS

 

a photo of Don Brash

Why I disagree with Gareth Morgan

Reblogged from NZCPR

By

a photo of Don Brash

Don Brash

In recent weeks, Gareth Morgan has written several articles for the “New Zealand Herald” promoting his book on the implications of the Treaty of Waitangi for modern New Zealand.  Then a couple of days before Waitangi Day I had a call from David Fisher of the “Herald” telling me that Dr Morgan would be going to the Orewa Rotary Club to give a speech criticising what he called “ignorant Brash-think” about the Treaty.  I made some comments suggesting that I disagreed quite fundamentally with his views and they appeared in the “Herald” the following day.  Later that day, I got a phone call from one of Dr Morgan’s staff (Gareth must have been too busy to call me himself) inviting me to attend the speech and make some comments in reply.  After giving the matter some thought, I accepted the invitation and have no regrets that I did so.

It was obvious that Dr Morgan had chosen the venue for maximum media impact, with my attendance also designed to increase the media appeal.  And there were certainly plenty of media in attendance – arguably as many media people as other audience members.  It turned out that, while we spoke at the premises used by the Orewa Rotary Club, this was not a meeting of the Orewa Rotary Club, which no doubt explains why the audience was so tiny.

Because the “debate” – really a speech by Dr Morgan and a relatively brief reply by me, followed by a small number of questions from the audience – attracted some media attention, I accepted Muriel’s invitation to write a brief piece on why I disagree with Dr Morgan.

Let me first acknowledge that Dr Morgan and I agree on some issues.  He is opposed to separate Maori electorates, Maori wards in local government (and by implication the Maori Statutory Board in Auckland) and quotas for Maori in educational institutions.  Granting any group special rights is contrary to Article 3 of the Treaty he believes, and I totally agree with that.

Having these special rights is also patronising, and implies that Maori aren’t quite competent enough to have their voices heard in the political arena, or get into some university courses, without a special leg up.  Of course that is nonsense: when I was in Parliament, there were 21 Maori in Parliament – roughly the same percentage of Maori Members of Parliament as Maori are in the wider population – only seven of them elected in the Maori electorates.  The other 14 were elected in general constituencies or were placed in a winnable position on a party’s list.  (Ironically, the person who chaired our debate in Orewa personified that fact – she was Georgina Beyer, herself Maori, who won the rural electorate of Wairarapa for the Labour Party in competition with Paul Henry.)

Similarly in Auckland: the first election of councillors after the super-city was established in 2010 saw three people of Maori descent elected – not in Maori wards but on their own merit – and again three Maori out of a total of 20 councillors meant that Maori on the Council were in roughly the same proportion as Maori in the general population.

But as explained in his recent Ngapuhi speech, Dr Morgan’s basic position seems to be that –

“.. the Treaty is whatever a reasonable person’s view of the following four taken together leads them to – not any one taken in isolation, but all taken together:

1)      Treaty of Waitangi
2)      Te Tiriti O Waitangi
3)      Principles of the Treaty
4)      Post-1975 Consensus on the Treaty.”

And I think that that is nonsense.  The so-called principles of the Treaty have often been referred to, frequently in legislation, but have never to my knowledge been fully explained, let alone agreed.  And to refer to a “post-1975 consensus on the Treaty” is again a meaningless concept – I know of no such consensus, and the whole reason for the ongoing debate is that there is no consensus about what the Treaty means, or should mean.

In one of his “Herald” articles Dr Morgan talked about Maori having a partnership with the Crown, making us, in his words, “one nation, two peoples”.  I also think this is nonsense, Lord Cooke notwithstanding.  The idea that Governor Hobson envisaged the British Crown – the representation of the most advanced country in the world at the time – forming a partnership with a disparate group of Maori chiefs who were, at that time, scarcely out of the Stone Age, is ludicrous.  Moreover, to speak of New Zealand in 2015 being “two peoples” is equally silly: the overwhelming majority of people who identify as Maori also have some non-Maori ancestors, frequently a non-Maori parent, while “non-Maori” are no longer exclusively European but embrace a very wide range of ethnicities.

So I disagree with Dr Morgan’s starting point, and as a result I disagree with many of his conclusions.

I think making the teaching of te reo compulsory in primary school, as he advocates, would be a complete waste of valuable teaching time for most New Zealand children, many of whom can’t even read and write well in English – which is not just the dominant language of New Zealand but is also the dominant language of the whole world.  Being able to read and write in English is of fundamental importance to all New Zealanders, whatever their ancestry.  And yes, there may be merits in terms of brain development in learning a second language at an early age, but if a second language is to be learnt it should be one which would be of benefit in the wider world, such as Mandarin or Spanish.  (Interestingly, I took part in a Maori TV programme a few years ago, on a panel of six people discussing whether te reo should be a compulsory subject in primary school.  Even though I was the only non-Maori on the panel, the panel voted by clear majority against making the teaching of te reo compulsory.)  Of course if resources were infinite – so that we could teach te reo without crowding out anything else in the school curriculum – then why not learn a whole bunch of languages?  But as an economist Dr Morgan should know better than most that resources are not infinite: teaching te reo would have an opportunity cost – something else would have to drop out of the curriculum.

The idea of having an Upper House with 50% of its members being Maori, which Dr Morgan also advocates, strikes me as utterly absurd, and totally at odds with any concept of democracy.

Many of our problems today stem from the way in which Te Tiriti O Waitangi – the real Treaty, which Maori chiefs signed – has been reinterpreted to suit the desires of modern-day revisionists.  But its meaning is totally unambiguous.

The first clause involved Maori chiefs ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, completely and forever.  And there can be not the slightest doubt about that.  That Maori chiefs understood that at the time is abundantly clear from the speeches made by the chiefs themselves, both those in favour of signing and those opposed to it.  This was further confirmed by a large number of chiefs at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860, and confirmed again by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1920.

The third article of the Treaty provided that all Maori – “tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani” – should receive full citizenship rights – and this included the many slaves of other Maori, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts.  Today, we tend to see this clause as no big deal but in 1840 it was an extraordinary thing for the Queen’s representatives to offer – nothing similar happened for the Australian aborigines, or the American Indians.   All Maori, no matter their status, were offered the “rights and privileges of British subjects”, putting them on a par with every other British subject – not, it may be noted, ahead of other British subjects but on a par with them.

The second clause is what has caused so much angst.  Actually, the clause is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property, and British subjects have this right anyway.   But note that the guarantee was made to all the people of New Zealand – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani” – in clear distinction to the third article which specifically applied only to Maori – and “all” means “all”.  In other words, rights of ownership were guaranteed to all New Zealanders, not just to those with one or more Maori ancestors.

There is ongoing debate about what “tino rangatiratanga” meant at the time but it is impossible to believe it meant what modern-day revisionists try to take it to mean.  Why on earth would Hobson have asked Maori chiefs to sign a Treaty involving the complete cession of sovereignty in the first clause if the second clause contradicted that first clause?

Let me say that I have always supported the payment of compensation by the Crown to any New Zealander, Maori or non-Maori, who can establish with a reasonable degree of certainty that their property has been illegally confiscated by the Crown.  There are clearly suspicions that some of the claims which have been settled in recent times have in fact been settled on several previous occasions, and that brings the settlement process into disrepute.  But in principle nobody can object to the Crown paying compensation to any New Zealander whose property has been illegally confiscated.

So in summary, I like the Treaty: it is a very simple document recording the cession of sovereignty by the Maori chiefs who signed it; extending to them in return the full rights of British subjects; and guaranteeing to all New Zealanders the right to own property.

But it does not require us all to learn te reo; it does not provide for separate Maori electorates or Maori wards; it does not give Maori a power to veto RMA resource consents; it does not give Maori any preferential rights over natural resources; and it certainly provides no basis for an Upper House with half its members being Maori.

1 2 3 7
%d bloggers like this: