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]

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.
 

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

Maori Party makes use of valuable position “and how!”

From the NZ Herald
Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME
Marama Fox has taken over from the legendary Tariana Turia. Photo / NZME

Bill English gave an important speech at Parliament this week about Maori and the state and self-determination.

The Deputy Prime Minister was speaking at the launch of a book – Crossing the Floor – about Maori Party founder Dame Tariana Turia.

It’s about her life, including her split from the Labour Party over its response to the foreshore and seabed court case, the formation of the Maori Party and its achievements.

Turia’s political journey is the stuff of legends.

The mutual admiration and respect between English and Turia was evident while she was in Parliament.

She had ideas, he had power. The admiration has not waned.

English talked about the 1957 Pulitzer-prize winning book by then Senator John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage, about acts of political bravery in the United States Senate.

English puts Turia in the same league, she being a woman, he said, with the courage to pursue a vision unchanged “through the dangerous jungle of partisan politics”.

“We have stronger iwi, stronger whanau and a concrete understanding of rangatiratanga, a practical understanding, much more than just a protest slogan.”

Turia, with a unique set of political and personal skills, had brought ideas to the heart of Government week after week. She had, he said, started to fundamentally change the relationship between Maori and the state. Quite some call.

But he should know because while Prime Minister John Key is the figurehead, English manages it through its various strands, be it social service delivery through whanau ora, constitutional aspirations, parameters of Treaty of Waitangi settlements or Maori participation in freshwater management.

One of the reasons English has been willing to embrace managed extensions of rangatiratanga is because he sees the alternative as being worse – a sense of victimhood and reliance on the state.

The trouble with having such a legendary figure as Turia as a party founder is for those who follow.

Turia’s successor as co-leader is new MP Marama Fox, from the Wairarapa. She has huge amounts of energy and more so with the loss of 75kg in weight over two years. She is a sassy mother of nine and despite being a backbencher, has taken Turia’s place on the ministerial committee on poverty.

Te Ururoa Flavell, who succeeded Sir Pita Sharples as co-leader, has had 10 years in Parliament. Unlike Sharples, he is a details person and has been putting his own stamp on the Maori Development portfolio, undoing some of Sharples’ plans for Maori language and broadening reforms to allow Maori land to be harnessed economically.

But Fox and Flavell have struggled for profile this year of the kind that came naturally to Turia.

That is about to change.

They received more profile this week than the rest of the year put together for their support role in the next phase of National’s Resource Management Act reforms.

Despite a few knee-jerk claims that the Maori Party has sold out, it has not simply rolled over to have its tummy tickled.

The Maori Party, which sees itself as the representative of the Treaty partner in Parliament, has been working closely with the Iwi Leaders Group on the bill and made a joint submission to National on what it wanted.

It has succeeded in blocking National’s bid to give equal weighting to economic development as environmental protection.

It also blocked Nick Smith’s bid to end the local government monopoly as consenting authorities ” a plan based on Australian experience where some engineering firms are authorised to give consents.

However, fast-tracking or eliminating the need altogether for some consents will not be what the Maori Party is remembered for.

It is the concept of Iwi Participation Arrangements which have already raised the interest of treaty watchers in the rump of ACT and cries of separatism from New Zealand First leader Winston Peters.

Under the bill, every council within a month of being elected will be required to invite the relevant iwi authority to take part in devising an agreement about how they will take part in plans or policy statements of the council, including the vexed issue of water management policies.

It is intended to be a framework in which arrangements will vary depending on the interest and capacity of the different iwi and of existing arrangements.

The Government has firmly established policy that while iwi have (undefined) rights and interests in water, they are not ownership rights, that there is no generic share of water for Maori, that there will be no national settlement of freshwater claims ” as happened with the pan-tribal fisheries settlement ” and that iwi should be engaged in freshwater management processes catchment by catchment, iwi by iwi, not by means of a one-size-fits-all process.

The proposal will be a lightening rod for those who see any consultation with Maori as special treatment.

Without the proposal, however, the Government would be opening the door to the 1987-2003 era in which the courts effectively determined what New Zealand’s Treaty relationship should be ” a partnership ” and what the Crown’s obligations were as a result of that partnership.

If Maori have rights and interests in water but there is no vehicle by which they can be exercised, an iwi will test its rights in court, and the courts will give an answer which will almost certainly be less palatable to Peters and co than the current proposition.

The irony of Peters’ objections to the Maori Party’s plans for iwi participation is that were it not for him, the Maori Party would not have had the bargaining power to get it in the RMA bill.

Before Peters won the Northland by-election, National had the numbers with ACT to pass any RMA reform.

The Government wants to take back from the courts the task of fashioning Treaty obligations – with the consent of the Maori Party and the co-operation of the Iwi Leaders Group.

English effectively has the overview of extensions of rangatiratanga ” what Maori aspirations are and how far the Government can go in meeting them without compromising democracy or alienating non-Maori.

With the bill going through Parliament the proper way, with no shortcuts, there should be plenty of time to find out where the undercurrents lie.

end.

Despite all the weasley words politicians, our PM and Maori alike say about water not belonging to anyone, having absolute control over our fresh water for, forever, might as well be ownership. It’s exactly the same thing, just without title. And this is what the Iwi Freshwater Group is after by 2020. So the special rights offered to them in the new RMA legislation is just a beginning.

The document below is a Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group presentation. If you look on slide 10, you will see that one Iwi is negotiating a full transfer of Council powers, (over fresh water management), by 2020. We expect this to be the case in all negotiations held between Iwi and Councils on this issue.

Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group Presentation

ELECTION: NEITHER NATIONAL NOR LABOUR DESERVE A VOTE says Wellington historian and political analyst, John McLean

First published in Investigate Magazine.

Democracy becomes twisted, in fact meaningless, when the two main parties conspire together against the citizens. This is exactly what National and Labour have done by them both buying into the twin fictions that the Treaty of Waitangi had “principles”(it didn’t) and that it created a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori (it didn’t).

The Treaty was a simple document of only three Articles and does not mention “principles” or “partnership”. These were dreamt up 150 years later by the sinister combination of radical Maori, appeasing governments and senior judges indulging their own political prejudices instead of obeying their oath to apply the law.

Under the Treaty (the real treaty signed at Waitangi and not the reinvented one of the 1990s) the Maoris, through their chiefs, ceded New Zealand to Queen Victoria and in return gained the same rights as British subjects – no more and no less.

Under the real treaty there can be no superior racial rights or special funding (Whanau Ora) or race based ownership/control of public resources (e.g. the foreshore and seabed) for Maoris, part-Maoris or anyone else.The tidal wave of ever growing privileges for part-Maori (code for the very pale-faced tribal elite) could not have proceeded on the basis of the Treaty itself – only by inventing “principles” and “partnership”. Remove these two fictions and New Zealand would return to a democracy of equals. But that won’t happen so long as National and Labour see their primary role as appeasing the tribal elite rather than governing in the interests of all New Zealanders.

National’s notorious Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, which stole the beaches off the public so that they can be handed out to Christopher Finlayson’s ex-client, Ngai Tahu, and his other tribal mates in return for Maori Party support in Parliament, has been described in the top selling book, Twisting the Treaty, as “the greatest swindle in New Zealand history”(page 8).

Once a tribe is granted part of the coast it can declare whole areas of its new domain (usually the best fishing grounds and surf breaks) “wahi tapu”, forbidding the public to step on to these formerly publicly owned beaches with a $5,000 fine on anyone who does so.

The passing of this Act by National – stealing off the many (the whole public of New Zealand) in order to enrich the few (the tribal elite) – was a violation of the principle on which the National Party was founded in the 1930s, viz. to represent the rights of all New Zealanders in contrast to the then class based Labour Party, which then represented only the working class. And a party that is in betrayal of its founding principle is undeserving of a vote by its traditional supporters.

The U-turn that John Key made in getting into bed with the racist Maori Party, itself in permanent violation of Article 1 of the U.N.’s International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination, is a betrayal of National’s founding principle and the words “twenty pieces of silver” spring readily to mind.

Writing in the Dominion on 14th December, 2004, Gerry Brownlee, the then deputy leader of National, stated, “National will ensure the beaches and lakes remain in Crown ownership for all New Zealanders, require all Treaty claims to be settled by 2010, treat people on the basis of need rather than race, end the rorts associated with ïwi consultation, and wind up separate Maori electorates in line with the recommendations from the 1987 Royal Commission on MMP.”

If you’ve managed to stop laughing please note that in 2011 Brownlee voted to take the beaches out of Crown ownership (the Marine and Coastal Area Act), National treats people on the basis of race rather than need (e.g. Whanau Ora), the rorts associated with iwi consultation have sky-rocketed under National, the abolition of the Maori seats in Parliament has given way to Key’s perceived need to appease the Maori Party, while Treaty claims have continued way beyond 2010 with Finlayson cheating the taxpayer by ever more imaginative means, including throwing in an extra $10 million to Ngati Toa “for the loss of their maritime empire over Cook Strait” (code for Te Rauparaha’s right to take his war canoes across the strait to kill, cook and eat the tribes of Marlborough. In other words a taxpayer funded reward for cannibalism and one that even the usually biased Waitangi Tribunal refused to recommend. It was a deal reached by Finlayson in secret with Ngati Toa’s tribal leaders without any input from the public who have to fund it.

So, why vote for a party that makes promises to the public and then breaks them, betraying in the process both the ordinary people of New Zealand as well as National’s founding principle?

Labour also promotes separatist policies that reward people on the basis of race rather than need, e.g. the Clark government’s throwing millions of taxpayer dollars at part-Maoris by its racist “Closing the Gaps” policy. Yes, it is good to close gaps but not to people of only one race while ignoring the poor of other races.

Furthermore, it was Labour that introduced the fictitious “principles” of the Treaty, under which we have lost so many of our rights to the tribal elite.

Labour pioneered the undemocratic cancer of special race based positions on local councils when it rammed through the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001, creating three Maori wards on the council against the wishes of the local community. And by its Public Health and Disability Act 2000, with clauses giving preference to part-Maoris, Labour introduced racism to the health sector.

So, with this level of collusion between National and Labour, why would anyone with decent, democratic and non-racist instincts vote for either of these two parties which are undermining not only our democracy but also our sovereignty (the ever increasing “co-governance agreements” with the tribal elite), our economy (the debilitating effects of endless and expensive Treaty settlements), and our children’s future? In this land that was built by the sweat and labour of the pioneers anyone who is not part-Maori is increasingly becoming a second class citizen.

If you want all this racism and loss of rights to continue, then give your vote to National or Labour (or the Greens or United Future which also support race based privileges).

If you wish to see an end to this never ending avalanche of public resources and rights being handed over to the tribal elite and the continuing Maorification of New Zealand at the expense of all other cultures, then there are other parties to vote for – parties like NZ First, ACT, the Conservatives and 1 Law 4 All, that do not buy into the lies of “principles” and “partnership”.

For the sake of ours and future generations it is time for the notoriously apathetic voters of New Zealand to start thinking more seriously and more broadly about this, the most serious issue affecting our future. It’s time to think beyond the slogans and false promises of the mainstream parties. The slogans are dreamt up by highly paid advertising gurus while – as we saw with Gerry Brownlee’s deceit – the promises are not kept.

Apathy and a “she’ll be right” attitude are no longer options. In the words of G. K. Chesterton, ”A tired democracy becomes a dictatorship”.

An election is the only chance to change things but, if the voters let the TV talking heads and other media manipulators tell them how to vote by means of carefully contrived polls, selective presentation of news and an obsession with such trivialities as John Key’s smile, then there is little reason to go to all the trouble and expense of having an election.

Democracy – and the concomitant protection of our hard won freedoms and sovereignty that it should entail – can only work if people approach an election, the parties and the issues with an open and honest mind untrammelled by past party loyalties. People who are more loyal to a political party than to the long term good of their country are not much more than traitors.

This election is probably the last chance to stem the flow of racist legislation, of the Maorification of New Zealand, of undermining the sovereignty of our country by Finlayson’s “co-governance agreements” with chosen tribes like the backward and not very patriotic Tuhoe crowd.

If we allow ourselves to be so easily swayed by an irresponsible and shallow thinking media, then we should not complain when some thuggish Maori warden orders us off the beach or our Maori neighbour’s child gets preference in university placement and fees or unelected iwi councillors increase the rates.

Only by an open minded and genuine exercise of democracy can we fix this country up. This is the one election when neither National nor Labour deserve the votes of people who believe in democracy, the preservation of our ancient freedoms, racial equality, national unity and one sovereignty uncontaminated by “co-governance agreements” with the unelected tribal elite. Up to you.

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

Who Will You Vote For?

While many issues will influence your decision on Election Day (20th September 2014), we believe the entrenchment of racial bias, privilege and corruption in our government and legal system will be the most damaging to New Zealand and our way of life in the long term.

Never in the world’s history has legal racial separatism & preference led to anything other than exploitation, resentment & violence.

So how can our politicians be so stupid as to continue pushing us down this path? Short-term power? Salaries? Status? Ego? Fawning over the rich & powerful? Future money-making opportunities?

They cannot understand history or common human psychology. Perhaps they simply don’t give a damn about what our children will suffer. Public service? Yeah right.

Your Party Vote is Crucial.

Party votes determine the percentage of parliamentary seats any party can claim. So choose the candidate who works best for your electorate, but please consider carefully your choice of Party Vote.

To guide you, we have prepared a summary of where the parties stand. It’s objective, as 1Law4All’s Board comes from all political persuasions!

LEGALISED RACISM (i.e. APARTHEID)

 

Political Parties

What They Say
on Racial Matters

What They Actually Do/Did Our Voting
Advice
National While in opposition, National spoke out for one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders (“One law for all”) & on removing the Maori-only parliamentary seats. BUT since being in government, they have promoted separatism and privilege based on racial ancestry for the benefit of the tribal elite. In 2008, Key unnecessarily invited the Maori Party into coalition & radically extended legal racial separatism and privilege in NZ – more than any other government e.g. support for the UN’s Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples which promotes separatism; transfer of NZ’s coastline (foreshore & seabed) from public to iwi control; Maori Statutory Board’s extensive & undemocratic control of “Super Auckland”; significant transfers of government assets to iwi on spurious grounds; co-governance of public resources, etc. NO
Labour All people should have equal access to all social, economic, cultural, political and legal spheres, regardless of wealth or social position….. BUT they have promoted separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry….. although under Helen Clark, Labour resisted the extremes demanded by radical Maori. But who knows what Cunliffe is willing to do? NO
Greens Numerous race-based policies; no mention of equality. They promote extensive separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry. NO
Maori It’s all in the name! They have radically promoted separatism and privilege based on selective racial ancestry for the benefit of the tribal elite; want to take democratic power from the people by entrenching racial privilege in a new Constitution; have achieved extensive “settlements”, “co-governance” and control for the benefit of iwi corporate elite and are extending the ways & means by which other New Zealanders will be forced to keep paying out forever.  NO
NZ First Policy-making to be based on need, not race, creed or colour; the future of the Maori seats is a decision for the people.  Winston has always promoted equality when in opposition – he tends to say what we want to hear; BUT when in power, he has taken the baubles and delivered nothing (other than the “gold card”).Note: In 2006, ex-NZF MP Doug Woolerton did introduce a Private Members Bill seeking to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal. It failed to get sufficient support from other parties to pass. A prospect if in a Coalition. But would he ever make racial equality a bottom line before giving support? On past performance, this is unlikely.
ACT Equality before the law; remove all race-based appointments & ensure that the Waitangi Tribunal process ends. BUT has supported the National Coalition’s radically racist agenda. Also delivered the Super Auckland Council structure, which has resulted in unelected & unaccountable iwi elite control at Councillor level & throughout the bureaucracy (i.e. the imposition of unlimited/undefined iwi processes and taxes on private property owners in the Unitary Plan; co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf). NO
United Says very little. Has gone along with whatever is necessary to keep the coalition perks in place. NO
Conservative Wants the one electoral roll; an end to Treaty claims; removal of differential treatment based on race; a repeal of the foreshore and seabed legislation; the closing down of the Constitutional Review. Actions speak louder than words. They were the only political party (other than 1Law4All) to make a submission against the blatant racial bias of Auckland Council’s Unitary Plan. 

Otherwise yet to be proven.

Maybe, but the proof will be in the performance.
Internet Mana Extensive race-based policies include 100% of New Zealanders speaking Te Reo Māori by 2040; a new way in which political and legal power is structured in Aotearoa; “meaningful constitutional transformation”, etc. The Mana leader, Hone Harawira, is openly racist.
The Internet arm has demonstrated no principles other than self-interest.
NO

What About 1Law4All?

Our registration as a political party has been delayed further by a Maori Party objection to the 1Law4All logo. It’s hard to fathom what grounds they might have, other than it represents a party calling for legal equality – something that is an anathema to the racist Maori Party.

But nevertheless, 1Law4All has had great difficulty in gathering resources – both financial and in terms of personnel. Too few people understand the threat as we do, or perhaps they see advantages in the wealth and power that comes with the tribal elite. Either way, they do not want to rock the boat.

So we are left with insufficient resources to credibly contest this year’s election. However, we are committed to the cause and will keep up our resistance – with your help.

URGENTLY WANTED – appropriately able people for volunteer operational roles:

• Secretary (or Treasurer)
• Database Manager
• Webmaster
• Marketing/Communications Manager
• Media Spokesperson

Participate in a campaign for change!
True democracy & racial equality is worth fighting for.

TYRANNY’S SOFT STEPPING STONE

By Fiona Mackenzie

Can we change the course of history? Many say we can’t; we should just accept what’s happening and go with the flow. Others feel they simply must do something, make an effort so our descendants won’t pay the price of our apathy. Hence the formation of 1Law4All and our grassroots attempts to inform fellow New Zealanders of just what the trends will mean.

Professor James Allan is another who has spoken out in his book, “Democracy in Decline”. A Canadian who has also lived Down Under, he writes about the forces currently undermining the democracies of the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand.

True democracy, where every adult has one equal vote and the most votes wins, is not a perfect system. We don’t always get what we want but hey, we do win occasionally. And majorities are usually reasonably fair to all. Proof of democracy’s value lies in the indisputable fact that the 5 countries described have been among the most stable, prosperous and evolving nations on earth. So many emigrants or refugees from all of the poorer, ruthless or soul-destroying regimes around the world have dreamed of winning a safe haven in one of them.

So while we’ve observed disturbing happenings here at home, Prof Allan has finally articulated the methodology by which the power-hungry and misguided are undermining one of the fairest, most inclusive and enjoyable little countries in the world:

  1. 1.         Judges (i.e. ex-lawyers)
  2. 2.         International law
  3. 3.         Multinational organisations or agreements
  4. 4.         Undemocratic elites

A take out of what he wrote follows.

The Judiciary

Now, why oh why, do we believe these ex-lawyers have a higher moral calling than the plumber or nurse living next door? Yet we do. And they have extraordinary power, despite lawyers being ranked well down the list of the most trusted professions in 2013 (at 37th, they are admittedly above politicians at 46th).

No longer do these ex-lawyers simply apply what Parliament has decreed to the cases before them. Increasingly, activist judges have taken it into their own hands to decide what legislation should mean, often intervening in ways not at all intended by the elected lawmakers.

Our most classic example is Sir Robin Cooke’s radical interpretation of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi. The tribal chiefs ceding of sovereignty to Queen Victoria (in return for the rights of British citizens and protection) was suddenly reinterpreted as “a partnership” between the Crown and iwi, with the Crown obligated by the undefined “whatever iwi want them to mean” principles.

The motives behind the appallingly written Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 have become clear. Such loose, vague and undefined legislation provides little restraint on politicians and judges deciding to transfer public coastline to private iwi interests, or to manage it for their personal benefit.

And as suspected, the Maori Party-instigated Constitutional Review aimed to take power from the people and their elected representatives, to put it in the hands of unchallengeable, activist ex-lawyers, again for the benefit of private iwi interests. No doubt, this threat hasn’t gone away.

International Law & Multi-country Trade Agreements

The democracies of the world have been losing their sovereignty. Judges and bureaucrats have been increasingly looking beyond their borders to international arrangements and decrees when making decisions, thereby taking power away from the people and their elected representatives. Our sovereignties are progressively being challenged by the bureaucratic will of the likes of the United Nations, the European Union and trade agreements.

So despite New Zealand leading the world in universal suffrage (of men and women of all races), we seem to accept with no questions asked that the despots in the United Nations have a right to tell us how to run our country and that we should hand over governing power to unelected, self-serving, feudalistic/tribal leaders.

Even Australia has been struggling to enforce plain cigarette packaging within its borders.

Undemocratic Elites

Thanks to the judges, the bureaucrats, the UN and less than principled politicians, self-appointed tribal leaders have gained unchallengeable power in New Zealand.

We see the results in the propaganda and revisionist history being taught in schools and tertiary institutes; what has been a public coastline is now subject to numerous tribal claims and closed door negotiations; there’s the underhand “fire sale” or gift of public assets to tribal leaders; the transfer of control over cities and environmental resources (national parks, lakes, rivers and the Hauraki Gulf) from elected politicians and councillors to unelected, racially-biased private interests.

In Auckland, the Council has facilitated the imposition of undefined tribal processes and unlimited tribal fees on private land owners seeking resource consents (to build a shed or a deck or to chop a tree); even scattering the ashes of recently departed loved ones is to be subject to iwi approval and fees; and more recently there’s the cancellation of council permits to hold running events in Auckland’s public parks in order to appease tribal demands.

Allan describes how such elites are successfully imposing their preference or sentiment on countries without bothering to convince a majority of us that it is the best course in the circumstances. These groups are no different from any corrupt corporate bully, gang or mafia. We Kiwis even pay them handsomely from hard-earned taxes, yet we have no say on who they are or the limits of their power.

Why Don’t the People Notice?

No doubt you’ve noticed some of the tactics being used:

  • •People ignore the message while denigrating the messenger. This has been very successful, especially when the people being attacked and undermined are straightforward, honest folk who don’t have the means or street smarts to outwit devious political games. The fact that our tabloid media love a stoush, and have no wish to investigate or report actual facts doesn’t help.
  •  •They highlight democracy’s failings, while ignoring its strengths. A common mantra by tribal politicians these days is “Democracy doesn’t work for Maori; it’s tyranny of the majority.”

Well none of us win all the time, but the best long-term lifestyles and outcomes for the people tend to come from democracies, not feudalistic societies.

Maori certainly weren’t doing too well under tribalism in pre-settlement New Zealand. Now living in the South Pacific’s most prosperous nation, Maori have privileged status with more than equal access to health, education and welfare than the citizens of our undemocratic neighbours.

World history has demonstrated time and again that ruthless minorities do tyranny far better than majorities ever do. The quest of many modern tribal leaders is all about securing unchallengeable power and control over New Zealanders and their cash. And currently, they are doing a fine job of achieving it.

  • •They redefine democracy so we don’t realise our vote no longer counts. MMP and its coalitions have certainly muddied the waters with some small parties making gains totally out of proportion to votes won. Now our elected Councillors are falling over themselves to create “partnerships” with self-appointed, unchallengeable and taxpayer-funded tribal leaders. This includes the ability to create racially-biased legislation such as Auckland’s Unitary Plan.

If such deals weren’t with Maori, there’d be a considerable uproar. But so many of us have been indoctrinated to believe Maori are entitled to more, including authority over and above our democratically elected representatives.

Take Action Now

Reading Prof Allan’s book confirms that we have been accurately reading the signs. What’s happening in New Zealand is part of a trend in all complacent, tolerant and prosperous democracies. It can only result in unrest, resentment and strife.

The big question is – will we let the selfish, the appeasers or ignorantly oblivious facilitate the destruction of our democracy? And will we be strong enough to turn the tide?

 

Comments are now closed

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

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.

“If you have any questions about Tuhoe, go and read your history.”

“If you have any questions about Tuhoe, go and read your history.”

By Peter Cresswell of Not PC

As a former lawyer for Ngai Tahu, Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson is obviously able to play both sides of the fence when it comes to both pulling down and distributing taxpayer dollars by the million.

imageHailed as “momentous” by a Prime Minister more reliant than ever on the votes delivered by the Maori Party, the multi-million dollar Deed of Settlement to be  signed today—the Tuhoe deal—will cost today’s taxpayers $170 million and a National Park for things they never did. Finlayson says “If you have any questions about  Tuhoe, go and read your history.” On which we agree.

Part Two of the Waitangi Tribunal’s report into the history of government actions against Tuhoe described

sweeping confiscations, … and how … land was removed by fraudulent methods. And it describes unjust war too, highlighting a series of engagements from the end of 1865 to May 1866.

So much so apparently unjust.

But as one prominent commentator pointed out at the time, what the Waitangi Tribunal’s sanitisers historians “neglect to do is set those dreadful deeds in the context of the equally dreadful deeds that preceded them.”  That commentator is Chris Trotter.

Those reading the full context of Tuhoe’s history, and New Zealand’s, will realise that in the mid-1860s the country was poised delicately between two possible futures—one offering civilisation, and the other a return to the tribal savagery the Treaty had promised to end.  As Trotter says, “Tuhoe picked the wrong side in the war to decide what sort of country New Zealand would become.”

And how!

To tell that history, let’s start with a story.

Imagine, if you will, that a savage murderer has been moving up the country, and he’s heading your way.  He seeks refuge in your large, rambling property (which you share with extended family).  Instead of either handing him over or doing him in (in both of which you would be justified), you and your whanau choose instead to join him in his savagery and plunder, heading out on expeditions of rapine and looting before coming home to hunker down in the least accessible parts of your refuge to fend off John Law, who naturally wants to put a stop to your lawlessness and brutality.

The law decides the safest way to stop you and your partner in crime is to starve you out, a strategy that meets with success—but whose perfectly justifiable results a century-and-a-half later are used to justify further pillage, this time of taxpayers apparently ignorant of the reasons for the original dispossession.

_TeKootiThis is the short history of what happened when Tuhoe gave refuge to stone killer Te Kooti before joining in enthusiastically in his genocidal killing sprees—for which you and I are being punished now for the punishment that was meted out to the killers then.

It is akin to you and I having our pockets picked to pay compensation to the grandchildren of Ted Bundy or Fred West for police having damaging the  Bundy/West properties while removing all the bodies stored under the floor.

Quite apart from the issue of the national parks, does this seem in any way either fair or justified?

Did Tuhoe’s behaviour not constitute some sort of reason for punishment?

While you consider those questions, just read in some more detail about what actually happened.

The year was 1869, and the Kooti One had gone on the run after murdering around sixty people (both Maori and non-Maori) in Poverty Bay, eventually finding support for his campaign of continuing  murder under the shelter of a supportive Tuhoe. For three years from their base in the Ureweras, with the full support, backing and connivance of Tuhoe leaders, he and his Tuhoe allies distributed rapine, murder and pillage to all around them—regularly crossing the Kaingaroa plains, the Ureweras and surrounding districts to pillage, burn and kill.  Just one example of his blood lust was the slaughter of 64 defenceless women and children in the Ngati Kahungunu pa at Mohaka, murdered in cold blood as a “lesson” to their fathers and husbands.

Any decent government is going to put a stop to this, which is precisely what the colonial government did.

To drive him out of his lair, says the Oxford History of New Zealand, “Government forces applied a scorched earth policy so that the Tuhoe tribe could not shelter Te Kooti and the dwindling remnants of his band,” following which he was driven out and 448,000 acres of Tuhoe land was confiscated as punishment, 230,600 acres of which was later returned.  (Ironically, as reward for his murders, Te Kooti himself was eventually given several acres of land in Ohiwa, BoP, in 1891! So much for justice.)

_TameItiSo the supposed  historic ‘injustice’ for which today’s settlement is being signed, the confiscations of Tuhoe’s land for their decision to plump for savagery over civilisation, was the product of a tribe unwilling to live under the rule of law who knowingly harboured a mass-murderer, and who then joined him on a campaign of murder.

“Violent dispossession”?  It looks to me like the initiation of violence went largely one way.

In some circles, mere partial confiscation would be seen as being let off easily.

If violent dispossession is to be despised, and it is, then surely the violent dispossession of people’s lives by Tuhoe and Te Kooti must be worth at least addressing, no?

Because to talk about Tuhoe’s dispossession without any reference at all to the reasons for that dispossession is just inexcusable,  particularly when such context-dropping is used to justify scores of millions  of taxpayers dollars heading towards the wallets of the descendants of those who helped harbour the thug Te Kooti all those years ago.

In today’s age of hand-wringing  and revisionist history however, nothing (least of all the facts of history) is  a barrier to today’s tribal ‘leaders’ receiving  large amounts of taxpayer largesse as a reward for living in the past — a past which is largely a fiction of their own making.

So (to come back to where we first started), it seems the history the Minister wishes us to read is not the history he thinks it is.  Or at least not all the history. But then, lawyers-for-pay don’t really do history so much as they do special pleading– but then, when it comes to “doing history,” neither do the more mainstream media, the Government, or the Waitangi Tribunal.

Not to mention here the farce of signing a Waitangi settlement with a tribe who never signed the Waitangi Yreaty, for an injustice that was anything but.

The only injustice perpetrated here is that being dealt to the taxpayers of New Zealand — who once again will be forced to pay large amounts of money to tribalists for things we didn’t do — and to the tamariki of Tuhoe, who are being taught once again that tribalism and a focus on the imaginary grievances of the past will have a bigger payoff for them today than will addressing and meeting the real challenges of the future, and taking up the genuine opportunities of the present.

Which would really be a start.
—————————————————————————–
* Figures and quotes are taken from the Oxford History of New Zealand, (pgs. 186, 187);  Penguin History of New Zealand, (pg. 219); ‘Te Kooti,’ NZ.History.Net; ‘Te Kooti,’ An Encyclopaedia of New Zealand, 1966.

%d bloggers like this: