image of a ballot box

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION – DISPROPORTIONAL INFLUENCE

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION – DISPROPORTIONAL INFLUENCE

 

By Dr Muriel Newman

The 446,287 special votes cast during last month’s election have now been counted. According to the Electoral Commission, the final election tally gives National 44.4 percent of the party vote and 56 seats, Labour 36.9 percent and 46 seats, New Zealand First 7.2 percent and 9 seats, the Greens 6.3 percent and 8 seats, and ACT 0.5 percent and one seat.

In other words, as a result of the special votes, National has lost two seats from the provisional total on election night, while Labour and the Greens have gained one seat each.

In terms of potential future coalition deals, in a Parliament where 61 seats are needed to govern, the National Party and New Zealand First would have 65 seats between them, while Labour, the Greens and New Zealand First would have 63 seats.

Under New Zealand’s previous First Past the Post voting system the party with the most electorates would have won the right to govern. Had the 2017 election been held under FPP, in all likelihood National, which won 41 electorates compared with Labour’s 29, would have gone on to form a government – albeit with only 44 percent of the popular vote.

Critics argued, however, that such minority governments were unfair to the majority who did not vote for the winning party. This, and other factors, gave rise to the review that resulted in a change to the Mixed Member Proportional voting system.

Fast forward 21 years, through seven previous MMP elections, to 2017 and we now have the bizarre situation where the most popular party – and by a clear margin – could be locked out of government entirely.

So, even though the National Party gained ten more seats at the election, than Labour, if New Zealand First decides to team up with Labour and the Greens in a ruling coalition, the 1,152,075 people who voted for National – out of the total of 2,630,173 votes cast – would have no representation at all in the new Government.

In other words, while MMP has delivered proportional representation, it has not delivered proportional power. In fact, we have seen this many times before, when small parties can, and do, hold the country to ransom, wielding influence that is far greater than their proportion of the vote. And while critics are currently expressing strong warnings about the power that New Zealand First now has, we should not forget that in the last three Parliaments, the Maori Party was able to impose its radical separatist agenda onto the country – even though in the 2014 election it gained only 1.3 percent of the total party vote.

As this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, freelance journalist Karl du Fresne explains, not only was MMP sold to New Zealanders on the understanding that it would keep extremism out of Parliament – which it has clearly failed to do – but it has also enabled coalition parties to dodge some of their more difficult election pledges:

“Adopted in 1996 and modelled on the electoral system created in post-war Germany to ensure that no extremist party could again win total power as the Nazis did, MMP was promoted to Kiwi voters as a means of reasserting control over rogue politicians. In fact it turned out to be every bit as flawed as the first-past-the-post system it replaced.

“Under MMP, voters are shut out of the game the moment the votes are in. Unless one party has an absolute majority, which hasn’t happened in any of the eight elections since MMP was introduced, the politicians then disappear behind closed doors to do whatever furtive horse-trading is necessary to cut a deal.

“At that point, all bets are off. Every policy dangled in front of voters during the election campaign is effectively up for negotiation. What were solemnly declared on the campaign trail to be bottom lines become wondrously elastic or evaporate altogether. Voters have no influence over this process and can only await the outcome.”

The election result has some claiming it’s time for another review of MMP.

In particular, the ‘wasted’ vote arising from the demise of the Maori Party and the failure of The Opportunities Party and other minor parties to gain Parliamentary representation, has led to calls for a reduction in the 5 percent party vote threshold to enter Parliament.

In the last three elections, parties bankrolled by wealthy individuals, who positioned themselves at number one on their party list, attempted to win seats in Parliament. Had the threshold been dropped to 4 percent, Colin Craig and the Conservative Party would have entered Parliament in 2014, and if the threshold was 2 percent, Gareth Morgan and TOP would have been successful at this election.

Calls to reduce election thresholds are common in countries with proportional voting systems.

In fact, following a decision in Germany by the Constitutional Court in 2011, that the 5 percent threshold for European Parliamentary elections disadvantaged small parties and was unconstitutional, the threshold was reduced to 3 percent. However, the Court then ruled the new three percent threshold also hurt the equal opportunities of parties and so the threshold was then removed altogether.

As a result, while Germany has still retained a 5 percent threshold in its Federal Parliament, where five parties are represented, in the European Parliament, the seven parties that represented Germany before the threshold was removed, have now grown to 15, with seven of them – including the neo-Nazi National Democratic Party – having only one member each.

In other words, concerns that removing or reducing the threshold under proportional electoral systems would undermine political stability through fragmentation and the rise of radical parties, has indeed been borne out.

If New Zealand’s five percent threshold was lowered, and it was easier for more extremist minor parties to hold the balance of power, then all of the concerns that are currently being raised by the critics of New Zealand First would be exacerbated.

Those critics have also been disapproving of New Zealand First’s insistence that the special votes had to be counted before coalition talks could begin. However, they need to remember that in the past, the special votes have had a profound impact on election results. In 1999, the 225,329 special votes pushed the Green Party over the threshold for Parliamentary representation, resulting in them gaining and other parties losing seven seats – one from New Zealand First, two from National, three from Labour and one from the Alliance.

There have also been criticisms about the timeframe of coalition negotiations, but the overseas experience with MMP shows that most coalitions take months to formalise, rather than weeks. The record is Belgium, which, in 2011, went 589 days without an elected government! That was even longer than in Iraq, which struggled in 2010 to form a government after the fall of Saddam Hussein, only managing to do so on day 249 of the stalemate.

In Germany, which held its election the day after ours, coalition negotiations aren’t expected to deliver results until at least three months after the election. And in Holland, which held its election back in March, a ruling coalition still hasn’t been finalised.

In New Zealand, the length of time between the election and the swearing in of a new government has varied from just over three weeks in 1999, to over eight weeks in 1996 – our first MMP Government. Over the last three elections, the formation of a National-led coalition has taken around four weeks.

One of the most notable aspects of our election was the demise of the Maori Party – at least from Parliament. Many commentators have argued that this was due to it becoming too close to the National Party through its coalition deals over the last nine years. While that may have had an impact, there are many other factors that have contributed to the Maori Party losing the support of voters on the Maori roll.

One that commentators don’t mention is the fact that much of what the Maori Party stands for is at odds with what most New Zealanders want – including most Maori. The Party’s ideology embraces the class system, tribalism, and racial privilege – “values” that are the antithesis of what it means to be a Kiwi: fairness, equality, humility.

The net result of the Maori Party’s agenda is a tribal elite that is doing very well for themselves, while disadvantaged Maori continue to struggle.

Quite simply, by becoming a vehicle for Maoridom’s elite, the Maori Party lost touch with the needs of its electorate base.

In fact it is also likely that the Maori Party had become too radical for most Maori. At the start of the election campaign, Maori Party President Tukoroirangi Morgan outlined that the ultimate objective of their Maori supremacy agenda was to become a permanent Treaty ‘partner’ in Government: “The Maori Party represents the dreams and aspirations of all Maori who believe that we have a right to share political power and resources as was envisaged under Te Tiriti o Waitangi. This year is … about sending a clear and undeniable message that the Maori Party is the only genuine and independent Maori voice in Parliament. We will not be subservient to the Pakeha and tokenistic Maori leadership in the mainstream political parties. Our wero and call to arms is Mana Motuhake – our right to shape our own destiny.”

As it turned out, however, most Maori voters did not support the Maori Party’s separatist approach, preferring instead to support the Labour Party candidates in the Maori seats and be part of the mainstream.

The Maori Party’s co-leader Marama Fox – who stands in both worlds with a Maori mother and European father – was scathing about voters on the Maori roll opting to vote for Labour: “What I think the whanau have done is they’ve gone back to the mothership, they’ve gone back like a beaten wife to the abuser who has abused our people over and over again… They want to go back to the age of colonisation, where the paternalistic parties of red and blue tell Maori how to live.”

Such was her anger on election night that she even refused to concede defeat: “I don’t concede because conceding means that we let red and blue government rule our people like they’ve done so for a hundred and fifty years. I don’t concede to that. Not ever. We’ll be back to fight another day.”

In fact, Marama Fox outlined the plan for shared sovereignty in a recent interview in the Listener: “In her vision, New Zealand would gradually move to its own unique form of governance, one that would abandon the Westminster model in favour of Maori customs, principles and values.”

She had ‘plotted it out’: “It would take 36 years – 12 election cycles – for a Maori sovereignty party to share government… it’s a radical vision… but if we believe in it, then we need to march towards it. The critical step in shifting New Zealand thinking is to make the Maori language a core subject in the country’s schools.”

Marama Fox argued that “people look at things differently once they’ve acquired te reo. It’s a world view. The Maori world view is different and that’s expressed in the language. The language unlocks our history and our thinking.”

In other words, the compulsory teaching of the Maori language is the key to imposing a Maori world view – and Maori supremacy – onto New Zealand. It’s no wonder sovereignty advocates are so strongly pushing for the compulsory teaching of the Maori language in schools. It’s a pre-requisite for their march to ultimate power.

While the Maori Party have lost their Parliamentary representation, it would be naive to think they will disappear.  No doubt they will return to activism while they rebuild their party in the hope of coming back as a more powerful force in three years time. That activism will include targeting the most impressionable members of our community, with a campaign to make Maori language compulsory in our schools – and continue to portray Maori as the chief victims of our history.

[From a newsletter by Muriel Newman]

Rabid Racists Demise

Rabid Racists Demise

With any luck, the rabidly racist Maori Party has been consigned to the dustbin of history.

Good riddance to bad rubbish.

The vitriol spewed by ex news reader Marama Fox was sobering reading. It was all the voters fault, she exclaimed.

Never, not once, not for a moment, did the racist duo of Flavell and Fox show any signs of asking themselves the most obvious question.

Perhaps the voters don’t like our Maori supremacist policies? Our words? Our actions? Us?

That the Maori language has no word for “democracy” takes on a whole new perception, eh?

The halving of the Greens MPs. Was that because the benefit fraud confession of Miss Meretricious? Or that people have had a gutsful of the Greens’ social engineering?

That’s why they’re called the watermelon party. A thin green veneer over a rapacious red core of extreme socialism.

That aside, the next few weeks will provide some interesting observations. Another but more wily and experienced fox will be courting the chickens in various political party hen houses.

Where to from here?

 

 

 

Anthony Willy

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

The State of Democracy in New Zealand

 

Posted on
By

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

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.
 

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

We Did It!!

WE MADE IT BANNER

Despite the nay-saying tales which you might’ve heard about it never happening, 1Law4All is now a registered political party! See the registration information listed on the Electoral Commission web site, here.

Did you hear that the Maori Party objected to the 1Law4All logo on the grounds that the graphical depiction of the concept of one law for all was offensive? The Electoral Commission, it seems, did not agree.

Here’s the text of the Maori Party objection:

“Our objection to this logo is that it is offensive to both Maori and non-Maori New Zealanders who respect the Treaty of Waitangi, because it is based on a political ideology which falsely proposes the abrogation of the law that relates to indigenous rights and property.”

“A further objection is that the logo is misleading. It is misleading to give the electorate the impression that the Treaty and indigenous law can be nullified, by a majority vote, and to assume that Maori enjoy some special privilege at law to the detriment of other New Zealand citizens.”

Below is a copy of the media release sent out by the Electoral Commission. I wonder if the media, who have pretty much ignored us so far, will actually print it:

http://1law4all.com/EC_media_release.jpg

The Maori Party intends using their power base to exploit a loophole

By Dr Muriel Newman NZCPR

The Maori Party intends using their power base to exploit a loophole in the long standing law that provides that Maori representation at local government level is subject to approval by the community.

Section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001 gives local authorities the right to establish Maori seats. Section 19ZB provides a democratic safeguard by enabling electors at large to challenge that decision through a binding poll. No such provisions apply when unelected Maori representatives are appointed onto councils with voting rights, despite the effects being almost the same.

The Auckland Council’s Independent Maori Statutory Board, the brainchild of the Maori Party, was established against the will of the community to give unelected iwi voting rights on council committees. Even though such boards are grossly undemocratic – forcing the council to share their power with unelected race-based representatives who are not accountable to the wider community and cannot be removed from office – MP Pita Sharples wants to establish them throughout the country: “The Maori Party will continue to push for more mechanisms like this to ensure that Maori are participating and having a say at all levels of governance.”

Maori Party leader, Te Ururoa Flavell, agrees: “We’re looking at trying to have more effective Maori representation at the highest level, pretty much along the lines of the Auckland statutory board whereby there is a need that Maori have a space at that council table and all the resources that go with that.”

Mr Flavell has also weighed into the debate in Rotorua, where a faction within the council are working with iwi to appoint representatives with voting rights onto council committees – without even consulting with the wider community, let alone allowing them the right to have a poll. He says that Te Arawa needs a greater say in the running of the Rotorua District Council, including having the power to authorise the flying of the tino rangatiratanga flag on Waitangi Day.

Imposing Maori boards on local councils throughout the country, by denying locals the right to a poll, is likely to be one of the coalition demands of the Maori Party should they hold the balance of power following the 20 September election. Yet, manipulating local government, to the exclusive advantage of iwi – at the cost of equal treatment of all citizens – compromises representative democracy and the principle of one-person one-vote, to such an extent that the legitimacy of government is fundamentally undermined.

The power base created by the Maori seats is also being used to fuel the notion of race-based superiority. Te Ururoa Flavell states that the needs of Maori must be put ahead of the needs of others: “Maori have a unique position in New Zealand and advancing their cultural and social needs must be put ahead of the needs of immigrants”. When asked whether Maori are more important than anyone else, he said, “Possibly. I think that the most important thing is that the people of the country recognise our unique part in the fabric of this nation. As the indigenous people of New Zealand, the government should put the needs of Maori ahead of new migrants.”

According to their submission to the government’s constitutional review, the Maori Party believes their superior status springs from the Maori seats: “the Maori seats embody and enable the principle of partnership between the Treaty partners”.

Using the Maori seats to justify a “partnership”, to promote Maori privilege and undermine democracy, is a significant departure from their original purpose of enabling Maori participation in the democratic process.

Their submission also makes it clear that they want local government to become a “Treaty partner” – no doubt to gain access to the considerable resources held by local authorities, as well as to legitimise their demand for race-based representation on councils: “The Maori Party considers that the constitutional arrangements for local government should recognise that local government is a Treaty partner”, and “Maori representation should be guaranteed on local government bodies”.

These Maori supremacist views were echoed in many other submissions to the constitutional review. In the interest of open democracy (and thanks to the sterling effort of Denis McCarthy of the NZCPR Working Group Project) a summary of the 5,259 submissions published on the Constitutional Advisory Panel’s website is now available. The report on the Analysis of Submissions to the Constitutional Advisory Panel is this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentary – see HERE. It should be read in conjunction with the Official Information Act submission breakdown provided by the Ministry of Justice, which NZCPR Research Associate Mike Butler summarised HERE.

This Working Group Project report outlines the arguments promoted in both group and individual submissions. Many group submissions were the result of hui organised by the Constitutional Advisory Panel – including the Rotorua Regional hui, which recommended: “Local councils have designated Maori seats and councillors should consult with iwi on a regular basis on the marae; compulsory enrolment of Maori on the Maori Electoral Roll; Treaty principles and articles to be protected and entrenched; a written constitution to be based on Treaty principles; education on the Treaty of Waitangi to be compulsory in schools; Bill of Rights Act to include the Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.”

Many groups wanted the Maori seats entrenched, the Maori language to be compulsory in schools, and the courts to have power over Parliament. Some of the more radical ideas included the right to bear arms against the government, Maori to have equal representation in Parliament and local government, and the Governor General to be replaced by a College of Hapu.

The majority of individual submissions sought the removal of race-based rights, rejected proposals to give the Treaty of Waitangi legislative authority, and called for the abolition of the Maori seats (our earlier research showed 79 percent of submitters opposed Maori seats in Parliament, and 71 percent opposed Maori representation in local government).

In reality, the Maori seats should have been abolished years ago. Set up as a temporary measure in 1867, they gave Maori men, who didn’t qualify to vote under the private property requirements of the day, voting rights – 12 years ahead of non-Maori men, who didn’t gain voting rights until the adoption of male suffrage in 1879. The Maori seats should have been abolished at that time – or in 1893, when universal suffrage was introduced.

The 1986 Royal Commission on the Electoral System recommended the Maori seats should be abolished if MMP was introduced – to avoid a disproportionate representation of Maori in Parliament. When the MMP legislation was tabled, there were no provisions for Maori seats, but as a result of strong advocacy and weak politicians, the Maori seats were reintroduced – this time, tied to the Maori electoral option, which resulted in the number of seats increasing from four to 7, leading to the predicted over-representation of Maori in Parliament.

With every public opinion poll showing voters want an end to race-based representation, there is an expectation that when the Treaty settlements are completed, the Maori seats will go. Since South Island settlements have now been completed, with the balance expected to be finalised over the next three years, Election 2017 should be the first election in almost 150 years where all New Zealanders are on the same electoral roll.

With the Maori seats now being used to blatantly manipulate democracy, pressure needs to be brought to bear on politicians and parties in the run up to the election to support their abolition.

And before you think that contacting politicians is a pointless exercise, you should reflect on a recent comment by MP Jamie Lee Ross, who described how the National Party had put in a submission on Auckland’s Proposed Unitary Plan opposing iwi consultation because “more than two dozen Botany residents have approached him concerned about the issue and ‘any more than about 10 people who contact me on a particular issue is quite a number’.”

In other words, the advocacy of concerned citizens had an effect. Elected representatives do listen – and more attentively in election year.

 

Comments are now closed

It’s time to take back the racist quota from the tribal elite

5052291

Fish

By Jonathon Stirling

The Treaty of Waitangi (Fisheries Claims) Settlement Act 1992, pushed through parliament by that paragon of truth and honesty, Douglas Graham, introduced racism into the fishing industry where it does not and should not belong.

Pre 1840 Maoris were not deep sea fishermen. Unlike the inhabitants of some of the small but heavily populated islands of Polynesia, the Maoris never needed to go out beyond the local bay to catch fish since New Zealand has a long coast and the Maori population was small relative to the large land mass of our two main islands.

Nevertheless, under the 1992 Act the then National government gave 50% of Sealord, New Zealand’s largest fishing company, as well as 20% of all new species brought under the quota system in the future. Plus $18 million in cash. Total gift from the taxpayer: $170 million.

The Government claimed that this transfer of assets from the public to the tribal elite was for “a breach of the Treaty”. This was a lie since the real Treaty of Waitangi, Te Tiriti  – the one signed by the chiefs – makes no mention of fisheries.

Another lie that National spun to the public was that this race-based gift of commercial fishing assets would “get young Maoris off the dole and into the fishing industry”. This was a deliberately mischievous statement to obscure the racism, naked opportunism and political weakness surrounding the deal. And have young Maoris gone into the fishing industry to take advantage of this undeserved gift from the taxpayer? Hardly.

As soon as the tribal leaders scored their El Dorado of fishing quota they found it more profitable to sub-lease their quotas to Asian crews on overcrowded vessels which are not much more than floating sweatshops. In the words of former Napier City Councillor, John Harrison, “Two hundred years ago Maori enslaved other Maori….Now they’re actively partaking in modern day slavery of Indonesians and others while their jobless numbers climb still higher….Maori should man the boats themselves to tackle their self-imposed position at the top of our unemployment statistics”. (Dominion, 25 February, 2012) But this is not about Maori helping their fellow Maori but about the tribal elite getting more money by employing the semi-slave labour of foreign vessels.

In 2012 there were 27 foreign charter vessels which were catching about $650 million of fish a year, the majority of it for iwi quota, in an export industry valued at an annual $1.5 billion.

One of the strongest supporters of this modern day slavery racket is the Maori Party whose overwhelming concern is the enrichment of corporate iwi and they don’t care how many people are exploited or impoverished in the process. Whenever the government makes moves to end this national embarrassment of Maori chartered “slave vessels”, the Maori party screams “Hands off our little racket”.

f-v-oyang-75-l

Tariana Turia had “huge concerns that unwarranted government interference in arrangements with foreign chartered vessels will render many iwi businesses marginal or uneconomic....The significant increase of up to $2 extra an hour over and above the minimum wage [payable to the Asian fishermen] will hurt Maori." (National Business review, 20 December, 2012) Her support of these appalling conditions is a throwback to the Maori slave owning days before the Treaty released all the slaves.

Her Maori Party  co-leader, Peter Sharples, spoke in April, 2011, of this tribal exploitation of others, declaring that it "would not be appropriate for the government to interfere in their decision making". (Ibid)

After being shamed into requiring these foreign chartered vessels to bring themselves under the New Zealand flag (and better conditions) by 2016, the government is now faced with a demand by the Maori Party that those vessels chartered by iwi have a further four years to comply (till 2020), thereby continuing their disgraceful exploitation of these underpaid Asian crewmen. And - surprise, surprise - the Key government has caved in to this demand by including in the Bill an exemption for iwi quota holders until 2020. The whole purpose of the Fisheries (Foreign Charter Vessels and Other Matters) Amendment Bill 2013 was to end the scandal of the slave like conditions on these vessels, which are largely fishing for iwi quota.

Yet, after pressure from the Maori Party, Key agreed to this exemption so as to continue for another four years this repulsive trade which brings much shame to our country, thus defeating the whole purpose of the Bill. Whenever the Maori Party says "Jump", Key and Finlayson will always jump. And they don't care who they shaft in the process - be it New Zealand's commercial fishermen or even the beach loving public, from whom they stole the beaches by their thieving and racist Marine and Coastal Area Act, which seems to have been designed for no other purpose than to enrich Mr. Finlayson's ex-clients and other favoured tribes.

But it gets worse. When faced with the prospect of the ending of their little "slave racket", the corporate iwi that controls the quota system started putting their hand out yet again - this time for "compensation" for ending the exploitation of these foreign crews - something that they should never have embarked on in the first place.

The government has asked Treasury to "cost" this compensation and the amount is around $300 million of taxpayer dollars. The Finlayson-Key government is now poised to reward the tribal elite for their disgraceful behaviour in misusing the quota that was given to them. And why not? After all, this same government has used taxpayers' money to "compensate" Te Kooti's tribe for the loss of his "good name" after he massacred seventy peaceful civilians (both Europeans and Maoris) in a single night at Matawhero, Gisborne, in 1868, and is currently in the process of handing the Ngati Toa tribe an unnecessary $10 million as a reward for Te Rauparaha's cannibalism and genocide of South Island Maoris. For Key and Finlayson ethics simply do not exist when the Maori Party makes a demand.

In the words of columnist, Michael Coote, writing in the National Business Review, "New Zealand has descended into the hell of becoming a Treaty of Waitangi-driven madhouse of incontinent cargo cult compensation....Until the reflagging is done New Zealanders should take care to boycott any seafood products, related businesses, and Maori tribes associated with fishing slavery....Maori tribalists should not be paid one cent in compensation for abolition of the fishing slavery they profited from". (20 December, 2012)

There are only negatives in this race racket in the fishing industry:

1. So much of the quota is given out racially instead of commercially. To get any part of a quota non-Maori commercial fishermen must have a catch history, boats, etc. but Maoris get their quota - as they get so many other things - free. Paid for by the long suffering taxpayer. They don't need boats and other expenses to achieve it; they simply lease out their quota for a big profit. Unlike commercial quota holders, they don't need to do any work to develop it.

2. The race quota system has provided hardly any jobs for young Maoris. How could it when they lease out their quota to foreigners?

3. The government gets no tax from these iwi controlled foreign chartered vessels. So we don't have tax paying New Zealand crews for a large part of our national fishing quota and nor do we have an onshore work force to process the catch since foreign crews on foreign vessels take it back to their own countries to process.

4. Worse still, with this transfer of so much fish, jobs and boats to cheap labour Asian countries has been the collapse of several small time fishing operations owned by European New Zealanders.

So, the actions of the tribal elite in grabbing an undeserved quota in the first place and then hiving the work offshore while pocketing the profits themselves is not only greedy and racist but also unpatriotic, leading to the loss of jobs and tax revenue for New Zealand.
In the words of Mr,. Peter Talley, who has had a lifelong career in the fishing industry, "It is a national scandal that Maori, given settlement quota for the purpose of bringing young Maoris into the business of fishing, are now given a preferential right to use Third World foreign labour to harvest those very resources."

Since the tribal elite have not performed their part of the deal by providing jobs for Maoris, the quota should be taken back from them and be made available to all commercial fishermen on an equal and non-racist basis. On grounds of both principle and patriotism it is time to end racism in the fishing industry.


To comment on this article on the forum please click the button

Discussion Forum

A Timeline Of Faulty Racial Policy

A Timeline Of Faulty Racial Policy

By Mike Butler

9-7-2013

Mana Party leader Hone Harawira’s demand for no-deposit home loans for Maori is the latest strident demand that usually results in some concession from an appeasing government. The call for Maori self-determination may be traced to 1935, when the Communist Party of New Zealand ran in the general election of that year on a platform that included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the point of complete separation.”

Here are the key events, from 1967, that have led to treaty payouts so far totalling around $2-billion and a constitutional review that may entrench a two-tier race-based system of government:

1967 The Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1967 introduced compulsory conversion of Maori freehold land with four or fewer owners into general land, and increased the powers of the Maori Trustee to acquire by compulsion and sell so-called uneconomic interests in Maori land. A member of the New Zealand Maori Council slammed the move as “the last land-grab”.

1970 A specifically Maori-issues activist group known as Nga Tamatoa (The Young Warriors) emerged in 1970 out of a conference at Auckland University organised by Ranginui Walker.

1971 Nga Tamatoa disrupted the 1971 Waitangi Day ceremony, and in the following year it staged a walkout.

1974 Kirk Labour Government Maori Affairs Minister Matiu Rata pushed through the Maori Affairs Amendment Act of 1974, which gave Maori greater control over administration of their land, gave official recognition to the Maori language, relaxed the definition of who was Maori by dropping the requirement for a fixed degree of Maori blood, and created training programmes for Maori.

1975 Nga Tamatoa organised a march to Parliament from Te Hapua in the Far North, starting on September 14, 1975, demanding that no more Maori land would be sold. An 80-year-old activist named Whina Cooper led the protest.

The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 provided a legal process through which Maori Treaty claims could be investigated. That Act established the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry, and rather foolishly gave a handful of un-elected tribunal members the exclusive authority to interpret the treaty in a way that maintains Maori did not cede sovereignty.

1983 The Fisheries Act 1983 introduced a system to manage New Zealand’s fisheries by issuing quota. Seven fishing management zones were created, and within each zone, the Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries issued individual transferable quota for species under pressure, which were snapper and crayfish.

1984 The Fourth Labour Government under Prime Minister David Lange voted in. Deputy Prime Minister Geoffrey Palmer, who did extensive treaty and Maori issues work, set up processes to implement race-based affirmative action without putting it to the vote, because addressing Maori grievances was deemed politically unpopular, and legislation to address grievances ran the risk of being outvoted.

1985 Palmer enabled the Waitangi Tribunal to investigate claims back to 1840 through the Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act.

Far North tribes Rarawa, Aupouri, Ngati Kuri, Ngai Takoto, and Ngati Kahu were upset that the Fisheries Act 1983 did not give quota to those who supplemented their income with part-time fishing. Under the collective title Muriwhenua, these tribes filed a claim with the Waitangi Tribunal, in 1985.

1986 The State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 was passed to change most of the government’s trading departments into corporations run for profit. Section 27 of the Act said that land subject to a treaty claim could not be transferred to another enterprise and could be recovered after a Waitangi Tribunal recommendation.

But Section 27 did not provide for land subject to claims after the act came into force. To ease concerns, the Labour government inserted what was to become the notorious Section 9, which said: “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that was inconsistent with the principles of the treaty.” At that stage the “principles” were undefined.

1987 Before land and assets were transferred, the Maori Council sought a declaration to stop the transfer until arrangements were made to deal with Maori claims related to those assets. In New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General in 1987 the Court of Appeal held that the “principles” overrode everything else in the Act. The president of the Court of Appeal, Justice Robin Cooke, was the first to enumerate a summary of what he said were the six principles of the Treaty of Waitangi in the 1987 New Zealand Maori Council v Attorney-General decision (* see below).

In September 1987, Muriwhenua claimants and the Maori Council sought a ruling from the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal to back a High Court injunction to stop the issue of fishing quota.

The State-owned enterprises injunction and the fisheries claim and settlement set the pattern for subsequent claims — Waitangi Tribunal support, High Court injunction, appeasing settlement.

1989 Palmer set up a unit within the Justice Department to deal with the Crown’s response to treaty negotiations and claims. That unit wrote a 15-page booklet titled “The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” that was adopted by Cabinet and published on July 4, 1989. These principles of Crown action appear to have been the blueprint for government policy on treaty issues since 1989.

1992 The Muriwhenua fishing claim resulted in a $170-million “Sealord deal”, signed in 1992 by the Jim Bolger led National Party government. This deal was based on an ultra-generous interpretation that pre-existing and un-extinguished collective tribal fishing rights protected by section 88(2) of the Fisheries Act 1983, extended out to the 200km exclusive economic zone. Note, Maori coastal fishing in 1840 was limited to canoes that were not ocean-going.

1995 Waikato-Tainui achieved a $170-million financial redress package in 1995, where “the money is the acknowledgement by the Crown of their crime”. There was no Waitangi Tribunal report covering the bulk of the claim. The settlement deed created an agreed, re-written history of the Waikato war.

1998 Ngai Tahu’s $170-million settlement in 1998 was the fifth settlement of complaints that stemmed from a single dispute about boundaries and allegedly insufficient reserves in the 1848 sale and purchase of the 20-million acre Kemp block in the South Island. Because Ngai Tahu selected 34 forests as part of its settlement, it was eligible for Crown Forests Rental Trust rent from 1989, which led to a further $35-million payout in 2000.

While the Ngai Tahu’s 1998 deal was being negotiated, the Bolger National government proposed a $1-billion limit for the settlement of all historical claims known as “the fiscal envelope”. Tribal spokesmen of the day vehemently rejected such a limitation in advance of the extent of claims being fully known and the fiscal envelope was dropped before the 1996 election.

Both Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu negotiated relativity clauses into their settlements. The government agreed to make payments to maintain the real value of Ngai Tahu’s and Waikato-Tainui’s settlements as a proportion of all treaty settlements. The $1-billion is in 1994 dollars and that equates to around $1.5-billion in 2012 dollars. The 1995 Waikato-Tainui $170-million settlement was described as “17 percent” of the theoretical $1-billion, and the Ngai Tahu deal 16.1 percent. Top-ups for both tribes were expected to start in 2012.

2003 A Court of Appeal judgement in 2003, known as Attorney-General v Ngati Apa, said that some Maori could seek formal ownership of a specific portion of seabed in the Marlborough Sounds.

2004  The Labour-led government legislated in favour of state ownership of the foreshore and seabed, in 2004, alienating two Labour MPs representing Maori electorates, Tariana Turia and Nanaia Mahuta. Turia resigned from the Labour Party, left parliament, formed the Maori Party, and won a by-election in her Te Tai Hauauru seat as a Maori Party candidate with 93 percent of the vote.

2008 The Clark Labour-led government set a deadline for filing historical claims at September 1, 2008. While only nine grievances had been documented in 1882. A total of 2034 claims were registered by June 2009.

The John Key led National party was voted into power on November 8, 2008. One election promise was to settle all treaty claims by 2014. The government has since said it would not meet that deadline. With 34 settlements completed, 8 awaiting legislation, four awaiting tribal ratification, 16 agreed but at the detailed negotiations stage, a further 15 under negotiation, and a number of others yet to be negotiated, as at August 16, 2012, there is a long way to go.

The Maori Party has been able to dominate the vote on a number of the Maori seats and wields disproportionate power courtesy of the MMP political system, and because of a confidence and supply agreement with the governing National Party. Its highest share of the party vote was 2.39 percent in 2008, which was not even half way towards the five percent threshold. This party has never competed in a general electorate. The presence of the Maori Party in the National-led coalition government has greatly advanced the Maori separatist cause.

2010  The agreement with the National Party resulted in the red, black and white “tino rangatiratanga” separatist flag appearing on the Auckland harbour bridge and other official buildings on Waitangi Day, 2010, sending a message to New Zealand that Prime Minister John Key had agreed to a goal of the Maori Party and the Maori sovereignty movement.

Turia launched Whanau Ora, an interagency approach to provide health and social services focussing on Maori families on April 8 that year. The scheme quickly attracted negative publicity because some funding went for family reunions and to a gang for a drug business.

Sharples quietly slipped out of the country and signed New Zealand up to the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on April 20. The declaration is problematic because Article 26 requires recognition of rights to lands now lawfully owned by other citizens, both indigenous and non-indigenous, which would be impossible to implement.

Sharples and Turia set in motion a process that led to the Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 replacing the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004, enabling tribal groups to claim customary title to the coastal area.

Sharples also set in motion a review of New Zealand’s constitution. The panel, launched on December 8, 2010, was a part of the agreement between National and the special-interest Maori Party. Critics say the most likely outcome of the largely secret constitutional review by National and Maori parties could be a proposal to place the principles of the treaty of Waitangi in a written constitution based on biculturalism. This would mean that all Acts of Parliament would be tested against these principles and the rights outlined in the treaty will be able to be enforced by Maori in a way that’s not possible at present. In effect such power will legally enforce Waitangi Tribunal decisions as well. The governance of New Zealand could be radically changed. This would challenge New Zealand’s social cohesion.

* Justice Cooke’s treaty principles

(a) ‘[T]he Queen was to govern and the Maoris were to be her subjects; in return their   chieftainship and possessions were to be protected, but . . . sales of land to the Crown could be negotiated.’

(b) Because there was some inevitable potential conflict between those principles, both parties had a duty ‘to act reasonably and with the utmost good faith’ towards one another.

(c) The principles of the treaty do not authorise unreasonable restrictions on the right of a duly elected government to follow its chosen policy.’

(d) The Crown assumed a duty of protection towards Maori: ‘the duty is not passive but extends to active protection of Maori people in the use of their lands and waters to the fullest extent practicable.’

(e) The Crown has a duty to remedy past breaches: ‘the Crown should grant at least some form of redress, unless there are good grounds justifying a reasonable Treaty partner in withholding it – which would only be in very special circumstances, if ever.’

(f) The Crown had an obligation to consult with Maori in the exercise of kawanatanga. Justice Cooke was guarded, however, as to the practical extent of that obligation.


To discuss this article, please go to the Independent DODNZ Forum.

Treaty Clause ‘to improve State Services’

Another grab at more wealth and power by the Maori Party, and another attempt to drive more wedges between Maori and other New Zealanders.

This article from:

Treaty clause ‘to improve State services’

Maori Party, Fuseworks June 25, 2013, 5:31 pm

The Maori Party wants the State Sector Act, the Crown Entities Act and the Public Finance Act to have clauses reflecting the fact that the Treaty of Waitangi is the basis of New Zealand’s constitution.

“The State Sector and Public Finance Reform Bill will amend all three Acts, and the Māori Party will be proposing a Supplementary Order Paper to introduce a Treaty clause before the new Bill is passed,” said Māori Party MP for Waiariki Te Ururoa Flavell.

“The aim of the Treaty clause is to empower the Government to make sure that public services meet the needs of all citizens equally, as was envisaged when the Treaty was signed,” said Mr Flavell.

“Despite many attempts over generations to ‘close the gaps’, there are still serious disparities in the outcomes for Māori from their dealings with the government, compared with other citizens,” he said.

“Our SOP will require chief executives of government agencies to make specific Statements of Intent, and to report back on how their operations have been planned and implemented to ensure equitable access by all New Zealanders.

“It will also empower (but not oblige) the government to direct all government entities to support better outcomes for Māori and across all ethnic groups.

“We have written to the Minister of State Services to say that we see a real opportunity to embrace the Treaty at the forefront of state services, but that we cannot support the Bill in its current form,” said Mr Flavell.

“We hope that our SOP will support the strong submissions from the Public Service Association along the same lines, and we hope to work with the union as we advance this proposal.”

%d bloggers like this: