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.
 

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 1)

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 1)

14 February 2017

It never will be racist to call for equality, former National Party leader Don Brash told Orewa Rotary tonight.

Don Brash returned to Orewa Rotary, with Casey Costello, representing the Hobson’s Pledge Trust, almost exactly 13 years since his historic speech that caused one of the biggest poll jumps that any New Zealand political party had ever seen.

In 2004, Dr Brash as National Party leader presented a speech that mirrored a speech by his predecessor Bill English in 2002.

Mr English said in 2002 that “the solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship for all.”

Hobson’s Pledge is based on the words of New Zealand’s first Governor, William Hobson, who said to each chief after they signed the Treaty of Waitangi “He iwi tahi tatou” which translates to “we are now one people.”

Casey Costello’s speech is reproduced below.


He iwi tahi tatou . . . . . we are now one people.

In the early 1980s the talented William James Te Wehi TAITOKO captured the hearts and smiles of New Zealanders.

Billy T James made us laugh, at ourselves, at him, at our differences and our similarities.

He delivered the most repeated seven seconds of television in New Zealand history when he joked:

“Where did I get my bag? I pinched it!”

And we laughed.

This wasn’t considered racism, casual racism, institutional racism, hate speech – it was just funny.

So, what has happened to the New Zealand of the 1980s — when Billy T did comedy and we were allowed to laugh?

Since then we have had treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori pre-schools and schools, and a separate Maori Party.

In 1990, the first treaty settlement was made.

•    A total of $2.47-billion in financial redress had been paid in 61 treaty settlements, as at March, 31, 2016.

•    The Maori Broadcast Funding Agency, Te Mangai Paho, was established in 1989 to fund Maori language programming.

•    By 1993, a total of 819 Kohanga Reo had been set up for pre-school children to protect the Maori language and culture.

•    By 1999, Kura Kaupapa Maori delivering total emersion education were designated as State schools.

•    In 2004, Maori TV was founded through Maori Broadcast Funding and a national network of 21 iwi run radio stations were also funded.

We got separate funding, separate broadcasting, separate pre-schools, separate primary and secondary schools. We soon got a separate political party.

•    The Foreshore and Seabed Act in 2004 sparked the formation of the Maori Party winning four seats in Parliament in the 2005 election, going on to five seats in 2008.

This huge investment in things Maori has coincided with the growth of tribal businesses and the emergence of a Maori middle class.

There are currently 25 Maori MPs in Parliament representing just over 20% of the total number of seats.

Standing on the outside it would seem the consideration and recognition of Maori issues ensured every opportunity for Maori to succeed.

However, we are told that Maori are suffering from “post-colonial traumatic stress disorder”.

Tariana Turia, who became co-leader of the Maori Party, used these words to liken the impact of British settlement to the experience of Jewish survivors of the holocaust.

What message does this send?

It appears that the message is that Maori today are crippled by events that began to unfold 177 years ago.

Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, and separating Maori have been the official response to “the Maori problem”.

Anyone critical of this official response is immediately branded a racist.

This name-calling has the effect of shutting down debate because no one likes to be called a racist.

Our Race Relations Commissioner last year created an entire, government funded website, to post our “experiences of racism”.

Last month she advocated for the Police to gather data on hate crimes.

The nation that laughed with Billy T James in the 1980s is now too scared to have a casual conversation without being called a racist.

You are not exempt if you have Maori ancestry.

Two weeks ago, another New Zealander who the media promotes and who shall remain nameless, claims that Winston Peters is being racist against his own race.

Accusations of casual racism, institutional racism, or hate speech, make us scared to speak freely and runs the risk that we can never laugh at ourselves again.

I am a New Zealander, a Ngapuhi decendent, and a descendant of Anglo/Irish settlers who came here in the 1860s.

But firstly, I am a New Zealander.

We all have our journey that brought us to this country and our unifying factor is our New Zealand citizenship.

Regardless of when we or our ancestors came here we have always known that our citizenship assures us equal recognition and representation before the law.

But this is changing, and we need to stop being complacent about the change.

This issue has never been more real and more critical to New Zealand than right now.

I served as Police officer for 14 years, mostly in South Auckland, and I can see the change taking place.

I am speaking here with Don Brash representing Hobson’s Pledge.

Hobson’s Pledge seeks to make it okay to speak out and tell our government to roll back some foolish policies* before foolishly creating an apartheid state.

As a New Zealander I represent our melting pot culture.

I take pride in my Ngapuhi ancestry and in the ancestry of the brave settlers who came here in the 1860s to create a new life.

I am part-Maori yet other part-Maori people say I have no authority to speak on issues that affect Maori people.

To be clear, I do not speak for Maori, I speak for all New Zealanders.

I speak for New Zealanders in the hope that those who feel the frustration and disappointment with the direction of our current Government’s policies will know it is okay to speak out.

My efforts to defend our citizenship, the citizenship of all of us, are not being racist.

We are all citizens of the same country and that country is New Zealand.

New Zealand has more ethnicities than the world has countries.

A total of 189 languages are spoken here.

We do have a problem.

A treaty elite has promoted the ideology of bi-culturalism, of Treaty partnership, of Maori and non-Maori. All bi-culturalism has done is legitimise the Treaty elite.

These people get rich from treaty settlements, through political appointments, consultancy services.

They are demanding more and more.

At the same time, those most at need at the bottom of the heap remain vulnerable and receive virtually none of the benefit of these settlements.

Hobson’s Pledge is totally committed to equality for all – for inclusion and unity for all New Zealanders.

I chose to speak out for Hobson’s Pledge in the hope that it will become okay to have the conversation about what is really holding Maori back, what really needs to done to make sure those in need get what is needed and to stop giving in to “want.”

I am immensely proud to stand with Don Brash for Hobson’s Pledge.

Don Brash has never stopped promoting equality for all of us, the founding principle of the Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

I, along with many New Zealanders of Maori ancestry, have become fed up with the excuses for Maori are represented so badly in all the wrong statistics.

These issues exist not because of something that has been done “to” Maori, but because of what is not being done “BY” Maori.

The challenges that face those in need are not going to be addressed by more settlements, more pay outs, separate sovereignty.

They will only be overcome when there is personal accountability and responsibility for the here and now.

The solutions for those in need are based upon their need and do not depend on when their ancestors arrived in New Zealand.

When you tell anyone that their economic prosperity will be handed to them through a settlement what better way is there to demotivate any individual from standing up and being accountable for themselves, their family and their community.

Some Maori leaders blame current problems on events that happened over 150 years ago.

But if you say Maori people are crippled by events that happened long ago how will you ever inspire the next generation to move forward with a belief in our own ability.

At some point the word “Maori” became an excuse for failing instead of a reason to succeed.

And for those of Maori ancestry who do succeed, who dare to speak out and point out that what is happening is wrong………. well we told are told that we are just racist against our own people.

If we continue to throw a protective blanket of “don’t be racist” over all issues that need to be scrutinized, the problems will never be understood and we will, before long, become an apartheid nation, split along a Maori-non-Maori line.

Now is the time to focus on our future, on the path that New Zealand is taking in the years ahead.

There are many challenges that face us in terms of housing, protecting our environment, managing our nation’s resources and supporting those in need.

These are issues for all New Zealanders and are not peculiar to any ethnicity.

And yet we are constantly being asked to identify by ethnicity and not citizenship.

I was raised at a time when I did not know that my Maori ancestry deprived me of an opportunity to succeed.

When I stood beside my grandfather while he worked his land in Whakapara, no one told me he was poor, that we were disadvantaged.

My grandfather, Honi Pani Tamati Waka Nene Davis, never considered that he was not equal and that he had been prevented from achieving economic prosperity.

What he did know was that he was responsible for his family and he got up every morning and proudly took care of those who depended on him.

That is what I know to be Maori, that is what it IS to be Maori. No excuses, no handouts, no asking for more and more. Pride, dignity and family.

Excuses are much easier than looking within to find the strength to be better, to work harder, to look forward, and focus on solutions that create opportunity.

There is nothing in New Zealand that prevents any one of us from stepping forward and making a great life.

We see migrants arriving here every day with nothing and yet still able to build a good life.

It is okay to speak up and point out that what is happening is wrong and speaking out doesn’t make any one of us racist.

Maori are not being held back, we are being told to sit back and wait, because another hand out is on the way.

Some Maori achievers, in academia, performing arts, or business, are told that they aren’t a real Maori.

I’m told that I’m not a real Maori.

Celebrate success, invest in unity, acknowledge diversity, protect individual culture and those aspects that make New Zealand special. But – first and foremost – STOP our slide into separatism.

A respected and accomplished Maori leader, Sir Peter Buck, said “Beware of separatism. The Maori can do anything the Pakeha can do but in order to achieve this we must all be New Zealanders first.”

Please speak up, contact your MPs, challenge those seeking to be elected, and make sure that they know we are not the silent majority.

Join Hobson’s Pledge and let us send a clear message that we demand more from our Government.

As Governor Hobson said to each chief upon signing the treaty:

He iwi tahi tatou . . . . . we are now one people.

*Foolish policies:
•    Extra rights for those who arrived here first.
•    Co-governance models based on claimed treaty “partnership”.
•    Favourable treatment based on imagined treaty principles.
•    Separate Maori representation in government, either central or local.
•    An allocation to tribes of fresh water in each district.
•    Special tax exemptions for tribal businesses.


To read Don Brash’s speech, click here.

Huff and Puff From Whinlayson and all

Huff & Puff From Whinlayson et al

The political party of part-Maoris has, lashed out at NZ First over the way it has wrecked plans to pass five treaty settlement bills at a special sitting of parliament on Friday.

In the media, Whinlayson, Brownlee and Fox were all vocally venting their spleens with Peters responding that they were an unsightly trio of drama queens. Two linked media reports below.

Maori fury over NZ First treaty opposition

Winston Peters in war of words with ‘unsightly trio of drama queens’ over Treaty settlement stoush

What’s really worrying is the hints of corruption in some reported comments from Whinlayson. Viz.

Finlayson had already written to the three iwi who had made travel plans for Wellington, promising to cover their costs for exceptional circumstances. These people are not going to suffer costs as a result, I’ll ensure they’re looked after.

Will you indeed, Whinlayson? How? The idea that he would be personally paying is ludicrous. Whinlayson needs to be open and publicly forthcoming about where he plans to get the money from. If he’s rifling the public purse, then we’ll know . . .

Perhaps some 1Law4All member could invite the media to inquire of Whinlayson where he’s getting the money from and how he’s going to decide just who does and doesn’t get “exceptional circumstances” travel and accommodation booking expenses reimbursed? One thing’s for sure, those decisions will be 100% racist based!

Amongst the weirdest aspects of Whinlayson’s behaviour in all these matters is – despite being a lawyer – he accepts hearsay* from part-Maori as absolute truth.

Earlier this year, the travel plans of a 1Law4All member were disrupted when Parliament went into urgency and the cost of the flights to attend an aborted Select Committee Hearing were wasted.

Could that 1Law4All member be “looked after” by the Treaty Settlements Minister for suffering that travel expense wasted money, perhaps?

Stop laughing!


Media Release from NZ First

Race-based Appointments Inserted In Taranaki Bill

NZ First does not want race-based appointments taking hold in this country, NZ First Leader and Northland MP Rt Hon Winston Peters said today. “New Zealanders should be very concerned about the Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill – it hands power to iwi by giving them six decision-making roles on a local authority without being elected.

“This law will force the Taranaki Regional Council to appoint six iwi members, three on the Policy and Planning committee, and three on the Regulatory Functions Committee.
“They will not be elected, but nominated by iwi, need not be subject to an iwi vote, and they will be paid for by the ratepayers.

“This is electoral apartheid. “All this is in Clause 31 of the Bill. “The clause in part comes from the Local Government Act 2002, but this government has changed a critical word which allows for racial preference without an election.

“Instead of stating a local authority “may” appoint people from the outside, it states that the council “must” appoint members nominated by the iwi. This has been done by stealth. “The government and the Maori Party are in cahoots on this.

“The perpetrators have the nerve to slide this under the noses of the people of Taranaki.  “It was New Plymouth that gave a resounding “no” vote to creating a Maori ward on the local council.  “It was a landslide with 83 per cent saying “no”.

“This government told New Zealand it did not want race-based policies either when it campaigned on “Kiwi not iwi”, but it has gone back on its word.  “The country is being steered by National toward race-based appointments. “The extraordinary reaction from the National Party relates to their pique at being found out. “That’s why we voted against this bill in Parliament today, which passed its second reading 108 votes to 12.”


The Manawatu Bill creates an “Advisory Board” to the Manawatu–Wanganui Regional Council to provide advice in relation to freshwater management issues concerning the Manawatu River catchment.

All that’s being revealed bears out the takeover by stealth of NZ’s fresh water by part-Maori interests and their government sycophants. A little here, a little there, until it all theirs and not yours.


∗ Hearsay: when a person asserts what somebody else said, when that somebody else is not available to confirm that assertion to be true.

 

 

 

Taniwha Tax – Notice of Appeal

Taniwha Tax – Notice of Appeal

It was to be expected . . .

After all, those diabolical, purple-dot-exorcising, Cultural Impact Assessments were a delightful money-spinner for the cuzzie bros and cuzzie sis’ were they not?

NOTICE OF APPEAL
9 September 2016

TAKE NOTICE that the Independent Maori Statutory Board, will appeal to the High Court against the decision of the Auckland Council on the Proposed Auckland Unitary Plan delivered on 19 August 2016

UPON THE GROUNDS that the decision is erroneous in law.

APPEAL

1. Those parts of the decision (“Decision”) appealed against relate to Sites and Places of Value to Mana Whenua (“Sites of Value”) and references to cultural landscapes which were part of Hearing Topic 009 (Mana Whenua) and Hearing Topic 036/037 (Maori land and treaty and Mana Whenua sites).

For insomniacs, even the brave and intrepid, click here to read the full Notice of Appeal.

NP Mayor Judd Mounts UN Challenge to Democracy

A 2016 Update

Good Riddance to Racist Rubbish

On Friday 6 May 2016, New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd announced he will not seek re-election after being harassed and abused following his championing of race-based Council representation, then adding his Mayoral vote to the creation of a Maori Ward for the New Plymouth Council.

Parts of the community were outraged. Grey Power petitioned and forced a binding referendum, while 83 per cent of New Plymouth voters didn’t want un-elected part-Maori representation.

“I was removed as a patron of a club, uninvited to community events. Getting abuse walking down the street at the Santa parade,” Mr Judd told Seven Sharp. Mr Judd said he has been spat on by a woman in a supermarket while with his children. “From that point on I’ve somewhat hidden my family, stopped taking them to events and things.”

“Friends [I’ve] known for years [were] avoiding me, ringing me up saying what a mistake, we voted for you, you’re a Maori lover,” Mr Judd said. “I had a man dressed in a Nazi uniform come to see me, saying hatred stuff, I had Christians quoting chapters of the bible.” Other mayors from throughout New Zealand have also avoided him at local government meetings.

The TV1 story is here.


The Original Story

New Plymouth Mayor Judd Opposes & Mounts UN Challenge to Democracy

New Plymouth voters have overwhelmingly rejected the introduction of a Maori ward in the district. In a citizens-initiated referendum on the issue, 83 percent of those who voted were against the proposal. A total of 56,250 people were eligible to vote with 45 percent doing so. Mr Judd said he was going to take a complaint against the Government’s Maori wards legislation to the United Nations. He said the fact that a council’s decision to have a Maori ward could be overturned by a citizens-initiated referendum was unfair. Mr Judd said he had been speaking with a representative of the United Nations over the last few weeks about a challenge to the Crown.

Hugh Johnson, who sponsored the petition forcing a referendum, said he was satisfied with the result which was more clear-cut than he expected. I think it’s very good. We beat Northland the vote there was only 66 percent. So the voters are feeling like I do [in thinking] that people should only be elected to council on their own merit.
– Radio NZ

Picture

New Plymouth Mayor Andrew Judd (left) accepting a petition from Hugh Johnson in 2014, which called for a poll on the Maori ward initiative.


Andrew Judd just does not get it!

The New Plymouth Mayor had to go for a drive and a bush walk to internalise the results of a local referendum that had 83% vote against the creation of a separate Maori Ward in the District.

What Mr Judd does not get is that as an elected representative he was elected to represent people – to be a voice of the people. He was not elected to impose his own views on the community. The problem Mr Judd has in particular is that there is a canyon like divide between his views are those of the community.

What makes matters worse for the Mayor is he did not express his views about Maori representation to the electorate before being elected. He therefore cannot claim any mandate whatsoever to advocate the separatist democracy he is now so doggedly promoting.

Mr Judd is in the wrong job. He should simply accept that his view is so different from the community that he is not able to represent it in a manner that the community could reasonably expect.  For the sake of the New Plymouth district he should not stand again for election. Better still, he should accept that fact and resign now.
– Frank Newman


NP Ratepayers Say NO to Racist Representatives

A Maori ward seat has been given a resounding no from the people of the New Plymouth district. The council’s controversial decision to have a Maori ward was overturned in a landslide vote on Friday after a district-wide, binding referendum. 83% of voters in the binding referendum voted against the creation of the ward, with only 17 per cent of people in favour of the idea.

From the 45 per cent voter turnout and the 25,338 returned votes, 21,053 people were against the creation of the ward, with only 4285 in favour of it. New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd, who championed the proposal, said he was disappointed with the result. But I accept it with peace and humbleness, he said.
– Taranaki News


Links to related stories

Resounding no to a Maori ward for New Plymouth district

New Plymouth voters reject Maori ward

Frank Newman: New Plymouth Mayor should resign

Related story from 24/09/2014
Horse bolts over Maori ward

The Tail Wagging the Dog

Reblogged from NZCPR
Tony Sayers

By

Sub title: An article from one of the little people

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hullo! Is this a race-based curriculum?

Is this apartheid in the NZ education system?

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

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

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

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

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

Pita Sharples utterances became even more ridiculous.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looking to the future, consider the following scenario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It would be a relief to be proven wrong.


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

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

 

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day

 

kiwis_today

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

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

NO mention of any “principles”

NO mention of a “partnership”

NO mention of “forests”

NO mention of “fisheries”

cartoon

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

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

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

Reality Check Essential

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

Critical Thinking Needed

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What a load of codswallop!

Wake up New Zealand and smell the dozers:

cartoon

 

It May Already Be Too Late

It May Already Be Too Late.

Cartoon Beaches Iwi Kiwi

As has been suggested already, most claims will be back door ones: secret deals with Whinlayson, announced more-or-less after the fact. Click here to go to the Justice Dept web site with all-but-settled claims details. As the spectre of the Mahia grab looms, other chunks of the Hawke’s Bay coastline are being given away. Was / is the Mahia grab a diversion, to keep attention from being directed elsewhere?
Claim map   Claim map

Mahia Peninsula Grab

PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE

Mahia Meeting Advert

This is the extent of the Mahia Peninsula claim under the Marine & Coastal Area Act.

Mahia Peninsula Grab
Click on the picture to see a larger map.


MARINE & COASTAL AREA ACT DECEPTION

Supporters of the Marine and Coastal Area Act [MCA] will assert there are certain public protections under the Act. Don’t be fooled. That’s a seductive sophistry, exposed in the next few paragraphs.

Before dealing with those devilish details, the paramount thing to appreciate is that the MCA ended public ownership – through the Crown – of the beaches and inner sea waters of NZ. In so doing, the Act allows race-based groups of part-Maori to forbid and / or restrict general NZ public access to parts of the nation’s coastline.

What will be trumpeted by Chris Finlayson and his sycophants is MCA section 26. Rights of access:  “Every individual has, without charge, the right to enter, stay in or on, and leave the common marine and coastal area: to pass and repass in, on, over, and across the common marine and coastal area: to engage in recreational activities in or on the common marine and coastal area.”

signs_montage

What people will not be told is latter parts of that same section which cover Restrictions on Rights of access: “Those rights are subject to any authorised prohibitions or restrictions that are imposed under section 79, being a prohibition or restriction on any or all of the rights in section 26, including: one or more ways of exercising those rights; one or more defined periods, or an indefinite period, or recurring periods of a stated kind; one or more specified areas.”

So what’s section 79 about? Forbidding or restricting public access based on wahi tapu, meaning any place alleged to be sacred to Maori in a traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual, or mythological sense.

That’s right: a law based on myths! Any intentional breaches of a Customary Marine Title carry penalties of up to $600,000! And 90% of any fines like that must be paid to the Customary Marine Title holder – a great tribal policing incentive, if ever there was one! Imagine if 90% of speeding fines went to the police officer.

MCA supporters will offer further soothing platitudes about the burden of proof needed to establish a Customary Marine Title Recognition Order in the NZ High Court. Viz. The applicant part-Maori group needs to prove that it has exclusively used and occupied a foreshore area from 1840 to the present day without substantial interruption. That may prove quite difficult, prompting the question: why bother? Because a back door option leads to Chris Finlayson’s office.

If a Court turns down a Customary Marine Title Order application, the applicant group can seek a Recognition Agreement (for a Customary Marine Title) with the Crown. That would be done through Chris Whinlayson and the MCA does not require him to consult with any other potentially interested parties.

So if it didn’t fly in Court, there’s a sympathetic, if not quisling Minister for an easy get-around-it appeal process. And we know where his sympathies lie. Bad? Right. But it gets even worse . . .

If you thought getting a Resource Consent was bad enough, besides forbidding or restricting public use and access, a Customary Marine Title also creates a secondary bureaucratic layer called a “permission right.” Among other things, it means that a Resource Consent from a Council to build a beach bach is subject to a “permission right,” from a part-Maori tribal group that has any Customary Marine Title for the area.

Beach baches

And, wouldn’t you know it, there is no right of appeal. Viz. “To avoid doubt, a decision of a customary marine title group to give or to decline permission for an activity is not subject to any right of appeal or a right of objection under the Resource Management Act 1991.’

So there you have a snapshot of this disaster. The foregoing enigmatic, tortuous and twisted convolutions of the MCA reflect well the mendacious mind of its prime architect.


 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

(Added 5 February 2015)

Battle Line Drawn Over Mahia Iwi Coast Claim

by Kristine Walsh of the Gisborne Herald • Monday, January 5, 2015

More than 80 bach owners and other parties have signed up to stake their own claim to use of the foreshore and seabed around Mahia Peninsula. The sign-on was carried out at a meeting at Mahia’s Mokotahi Hall on Saturday, where around 120 interested parties gathered to hear about the Rongomaiwahine claim for recognition of a protected customary right and customary marine title.

The area involved covers 100 kilometres around the Mahia Peninsula from near Whareongaonga in the north to the Nuhaka River mouth in the west, running from the high tide mark out 22 kilometres to New Zealand’s territorial limit. To claim customary marine title under the Marine and Coastal Act 2011 — for which iwi trust representative Pauline Tangiora made an application to the High Court in 2013 — Rongomaiwahine will have to prove a longstanding and exclusive history of use and occupation.

However, the stakeholders who signed up on Saturday say they will offer statements to prove that Rongomaiwahine has not had exclusive use and occupation, “thereby showing where and when they, too, had swum, fished, boated and walked the beach without restriction”. In Mahia to address the meeting on Saturday, Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand secretary Dr Hugh Barr said that, if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area, “with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission”.

Dr Barr told the sometimes-rowdy meeting that from 1840 to 2011, New Zealand’s foreshore and seabed was owned by the Crown on behalf of all New Zealanders as a public common, available to everyone. This changed with the 2011 Marine and Coastal Act, which allows coastal tribes to gain customary marine title if they can show that they have exclusively occupied and used the foreshore and seabed since 1840.

The title gives the right of veto, the ability to charge fees for use of current and new slipways, wharves, aquaculture areas, marinas and exclusive mining rights to iron-sand and minerals in the area, he said. Dr Barr told the gathering there was a lot of secrecy surrounding the claim lodged with the High Court. However, Rongomaiwahine legal representative Leo Watson informed Gisbome District Council of the intent to file in August 2013, saying the iwi “looks forward to working constructively with the relevant territorial authorities in relation to this application”.

At a meeting the following month, the council’s environment and policy committee moved to have its lawyer oppose the application, largely on the grounds that customary marine title would allow the iwi to independently veto or permit resource consent applications.

The council was also concerned that there were potential cross-boundary issues with neighbouring iwi Ngai Tamanuhiri, which “may pose issues for the council in relation to its statutory obligations”. Even if the committee did not oppose the application, however, council staff were not confident it would be successful. After discussion with Crown Law Office solicitor Andrew Irwin, the view was that “the information provided in the application and affidavit about the customary activities to be undertaken within the claim area is insufficient”.

Four other claims under the Marine and Coastal Act 2011 are in progress, the largest being Ngati Porou’s claim over about 200 kilometres of the coast north of Gisbome. Ngati Pahauwera is seeking title over 30 kilometres either side of the mouth of the Mohaka River, and there are two separate claims over the Coromandel coast.


Letter to the Editor

Friday, December 13, 2013

Access to New Zealand coasts and waterways belongs to all

As an ordinary member of the public living on the East Coast of the North Island, I am dismayed at the latest claims by Maori tribes for large sections of our coastline.

This present Government has already passed legislation giving Maori ownership to the foreshore and seabed so why these latest claims?

The biggest claim is that of the Ngati Porou for about 200km north of Gisborne and stretches to just west of Lottin Point. The Ngati Pahuwera are claiming rights to around 30km of coastline either side of the Mohaka River. The Rongomaiwahine tribe are also claiming the whole of the Mahia peninsular from the Nuhaka River to just south of Young Nick’s Head. There are also two other claims, one by Ngati Porou Hauraki, which covers a large area of the Coromandel coast including sea and islands. The claim extends from Waikawau Bay, down to and including Kennedy Bay, Cuvier Island and the Mercury Islands. The other piece of the Coromandel on the claims list stretches from Otonga Point down the coast through Mataora Bay to Horokawa, and from there 3.5km out to sea.Why? They already have these rights under government legislation passed in 2011.

This Government promised that the public would have free and unconstricted use of our foreshore and seabed yet these claims strike me as the first leg of privatisation of our former public beaches.

I myself have been subject to abuse and been thrown off former public beaches. Already I have received one complaint of a gate erected across a public road, padlocked and preventing access to a former popular beach, yet local councils are reluctant to enforce the law. Why? Are they scared of these minority groups that hold the country to ransom over that which is legally ours?

These claims are just the tip of the iceberg of what is to come as coastal tribes realise the monetary wealth in our foreshore.

To me this is just pure thieving at the expense of the general public. We all have the right to go swimming, rafting, walking the dog or just fishing on our rivers, lakes, streams and coastlines.

This country is supposed to be made up of peoples of all races and with equal rights to enjoy the freedom of our countryside and coastline. It is called democracy. This country belongs to all of us, not just any select group.

Norrie Day


Letter to the Editor

Wednesday, January 7, 2015

Already causing unrest

Re: Battle line drawn over Mahia iwi coast claim, Jan 5

Rongomaiwahine iwi have not had exclusive use of the Mahia Peninsula. They are causing much unrest among landowners who have got on together for generations.

They should not be allowed to have the control to decide what would affect a whole community. They would not be able to stop conflict, which has already started at the boat ramp, with a Maori lady who said she could do what she liked. “We own the water,” she said. The reply to her was, “Well, we own the hose?”

3rd Generation Landowner


Letter to the Editor

The Gisborne Herald • Tuesday, January 20, 2015

No Battle Lines Drawn For Over A Century

Re: Battle line drawn over Mania iwi Coast claim, January 5 story.

I was sad to read this one-sided article. there is not and has not been battle lines drawn — for over a century or more. The claim of a “sometimes rowdy meeting” only occurred when the gentleman chairing it tried to stop our solicitor Leo Watson from speaking. The audience was very vocal about letting him speak.

Hugh Barr’s credibility must be suspect when he uses inflammatory statements such as: “. . . if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area ‘with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission’.” Further statements are dishonest and if your reporter had spoken to both sides, the article would have been more balanced.

The Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Act 2011 guarantees free public access, rights of navigation and rights of fishing. Where there is a “customary marine title area” declared, the only restriction on access is in specific wahi tapu sites such as burial grounds or sites of significance — these sites will be identified as part of the evidence to be filed with the court in early 2015. Rongomaiwahine would also have additional rights of consultation in resource consent applications, and to continue their traditional activities.

The application for recognition of customary rights to the foreshore and seabed was filed on behalf of the whanau and hapu of Rongomaiwahine in 2004. It has been moved into the High Court under the Takutai Moana Act and was advertised publicly again in late 2013. The local councils and the Crown are parties to the application. We could do without people such as Mr Barr trying to cause trouble on our peninsula.

Some years ago when amateur fishing people were complaining about commercial fishermen from around the world destroying the m-shore fishing, our people successfully had the Ministry of Fisheries enforce regulations that, except for crayfish, no commercial take would be allowed within a 2km zone around the peninsula. This is still in place today.

Also, if the person who wrote to your paper on January 7 (Already causing unrest) had signed his/her name, maybe we could have a more honest dialogue.

In peace

Pauline Tangiora


Admin comment

the only restriction on access is in specific wahi tapu sites such as burial grounds

Any claim under the Marine & Coastal Area Act relates only to any area from the mean high water mark, out to sea, according to this definition from the Act..

marine and coastal area— (a) means the area that is bounded,— (i) on the landward side, by the line of mean high-water springs

Does anyone know if there are burial grounds at sea, around the Mahia Peninsula? Or is the assertion by Pauline Tangiora about the only restriction being specific to burial grounds, a bare-faced lie, or smelly red herring, at best?


Letter to the Editor

The Gisborne Herald • Thursday, January 29, 2015

Quoting Law Inflammatory?

The outrageous and deceptive letter from Pauline Tangiora cannot go unanswered (20 January, No battle lines drawn for over a century).

She wrote that, “Hugh Barr’s credibility must be suspect when he uses inflammatory statements such as: ‘. . . if successful, the claim could exclude non-iwi from accessing the area with fines of up to $5000 for those who go there without permission’.”

In making this statement at the well-attended meeting of bach owners at Mahia on January 2, at which I was present, Dr Barr was merely quoting section 81 (2) of the Marine and Coastal Area Act. How can it be inflammatory to read out the section of an Act passed by Parliament?

Mrs Tangiora maintains that the Act guarantees free public access to the area of the customary marine title. It does not. Under section 79 (1) (b) the lucky tribe that scores customary marine title can forbid access to any areas that it declares to be wahi tapu. Since the grounds for declaring wahi tapu can be based on a conveniently concocted myth, we can expect to see the best fishing grounds and surf breaks closed off to the public on the grounds of wahi tapu.

In criticising the writer of a letter for using a nom de plume, Mrs Tangiora is being hypocritical — as in her own letter she concealed the fact that she herself is the claimant in this greedy and racist grab for the foreshore and seabed of the whole of the Mahia peninsula.

John McLean

1 2
%d bloggers like this: