The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

The New Plymouth Racist Mayoral Zombie Reincarnates

Below is the alleged content of a facebook post by Murray Chong (a New Plymouth councillor) regarding the part-Maori committee on the New Plymouth council.

Iwi representation debate . . .

We had a referendum last term based having Maori Wards, and 83% of the voters didn’t want it due to it not being democratic as it was a race based rule.

On Monday we debate the set up of this new committee, and I hope our councillors remember and consider how the majority of its ratepayers voted in the above referendum.

This new Iwi representation committee will not only offer recommendations to our council (which is fine) but they will also have the power to make final decisions on the items shown below without it having to go through to full council for all elected councillors to have the final vote on.

We have elections to vote for councillors to make final decisions on our behalf and many people have suggested to me that unelected committee members should only have the authority to give recommendations to our council and definitely not have the authority to make final decisions.

This ruling that they are wanting to allow in this committee is unlike any other council committee and is not the standard democratic process.

This will be a very interesting debate on how we will all vote on this, on Monday.

Read the drivel on Stuff about how exhuming racist representation for New Plymouth is somehow a fresh start!

Iwi and council launch a new governance partnership and a fresh start


From the Racist New Plymouth Council . . .

New Governance Partnership Between NPDC and Senior Iwi Leaders Created

22 June 2017

New Plymouth District Council (NPDC) and iwi leadership have created Te Huinga Taumatua Committee to bring the expertise of iwi leaders to the Council’s decision-making process.

“This is a pleasing step forward and is about iwi leaders having a seat at the governance table,” says Mayor Neil Holdom.

Te Huinga Taumatua Committee will consist of five iwi leaders and five elected Councillors to identify and discuss issues of cultural, economic, environmental and social importance to Maori in the district. Unlike the former Iwi Relationship Subcommittee, Te Huinga Taumatua will generate items for the Council to consider as well as make recommendations on Council issues.

“The committee consists of iwi leaders with strong mana and governance experience. It will focus on issues of importance to Maori and provide strategic guidance to NPDC,” says Cr Gordon Brown.

“It’s a pleasing step forward in our partnership and we’re looking forward to the future of this governance committee,” says Cr Marie Pearce.

The committee consists of:

Mayor Neil Holdom.
Councillor Gordon Brown.
Councillor Richard Handley.
Councillor Stacey Hitchcock.
Councillor Marie Pearce.
Larry Crow (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Tama Trust).
Leanne Horo (Te Kāhui o Taranaki Trust).
Glenn Peri (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Maru Trust).
Liana Poutu (Te Kotahitanga o Te Atiawa Trust).
Colleen Tuuta (Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Mutunga).

The committee’s name has two parts: Te Huinga, which has a dual meaning for a gathering of people and a gathering of leaders, and Taumatua, a place where birds gather high in the trees.*

The committee will meet every five weeks starting 17 August, pending Councillors’ confirmation of its terms of reference at their next meeting on 26 June.

It will also help NPDC meet its statutory obligations relating to the Treaty of Waitangi/Te Tiriti o Waitangi under the Local Government Act 2002.

The committee’s full terms and references are online in the 26 June Council Meeting agenda.


* From whence they can undemocratically defecate on Ratepayers, below.

Chris Whinlayson

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

Vertically Tilted Playing Field

News from one of NZ’s foremost racists



Each iwi-hapu-whanau claimant is being offered thousands of taxpayer dollars to prepare and file their claim.

Any non-part-Maori citizen who objects must pay a court filing fee of $110.

That’s fair and even-handed, right?

 

An Ignorant Councillor

An Ignorant Councillor

On 26th April, 2017, at a relatively unimportant meeting of the district planning committee of the Hutt City Council, the chair of this committee, Lisa Bridson, took it upon herself to impose karakia (Maori prayers) on the other councillors at both the beginning and the end of the meeting.

She claimed that she had done so because “the council had an obligation to adhere to Treaty of Waitangi principles and work in partnership with Maori.” Thus did she expose her lack of knowledge of these things since the Treaty of Waitangi does not have any principles and nor does it create an obligation for councils in the 21st century to work in “partnership” with Maori.

Should she ever actually read the words of the Treaty (a short and simple document) she will find no mention of either “principles” or “partnership” for the very good reason that there aren’t any.

Lisa Bridson is not the only New Zealander to be ignorant of these things, but for her to use her position on council to impose her ignorance on others is alarming and constitutes a very good reason not to vote for her at the next council elections. Surely the Hutt can come up with better and more knowledgeable councillors than her.

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

The Hobson’s Pledge Road Show

Don Brash and Casey Costello delivered the Hobson’s Pledge message to 200 people at the Havelock North Function Centre on Tuesday night, 28 Feb 2017.

Casey spoke about the wrong of Maori blaming their ancestry for being deprived of opportunities when they have had Treaty settlements, separate Maori broadcasting, separate Maori preschools and schools, and a separate Maori Party.

Standing on the outside it would seem the consideration and recognition of Maori issues ensured every opportunity for Maori to succeed, the Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper reported Casey as saying.

To read more and related media items, click here.

To hear Casey and Don speak – in person – the next place to be is:

Waikanae Community Centre
30 Utauta Street
Waikanae
Wellington
Monday, April 03, 2017 at 7.00 pm.

No admission fee and no collection! But there will be a book sales table.

Parliament’s Ohariu Harlot Blows His Trumpet

Parliament’s Ohariu Harlot Blows His Trumpet

Peter Dunne appalled by ‘racist’ propaganda delivered to Wellington homes

9 March 2017

Racism is a Dunne deal as yet another pro-racist privilege supporter states his position loud and clear. To hell with equality and democracy, I hear. As has oft been repeated: why don’t the media ask such poufs the obvious question: can you please explain how seeking equality for all NZ citizens is racist?

Rumours that United Future is be re-badged as Apartheid Future are unfounded, it seems.

From the dompost. (Or should that be compost?)

Leaflets distributed around Wellington’s northern suburbs are full of disgraceful, despicable racist bigotry, and should be thrown in the bin, MP Peter Dunne says. On the pamphlet the group states contributions can be made to an Orewa bank account, and claim further information can be found in books such as One Treaty, One Nation – a recent publication from Tross Publishing, and written by Hugh Barr, Don Brash, and others.

Don Brash said on Thursday night that he had not heard of the Rolling Thunder campaign, and it had nothing to do with the Hobson’s Pledge Trust. I do, of course, strongly favour New Zealand’s being a colour-blind society, where all citizens have the same constitutional status, he said.


To see what all the fuss is about, copies of those brochures can be seen, here.


10 March 2017

And here he goes again. Newshub (TV3) ran the Media Release likely put out by anti-United [Apartheid] Future. If in doubt, fudge it out! The picture caption goes:

The Ohariu MP says two anti-Treaty pamphlets have been dropped into letterboxes in his electorate.

Two lies in one. Neither the authors of One Treaty One Nation, nor 1Law4All are anti-Treaty. The Maori-language Treaty signed at Waitangi in 1840, that is. Of course, the latter-day tainted, wishful-thinking concoctions are a different matter, altogether.

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

Maori Statutory Board given arse card by High Court

 

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

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

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

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

Complete mumbo-jumbo in other words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reblogged from: Whale Oil

Save

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 2)

Orewa Rotary Re-visited 2017 (Part 2)

14 February 2017

Governor Hobson’s Pledge – A Challenge To The Prime Minister

It’s almost exactly 14 years since I first addressed the Orewa Rotary Club, and almost exactly 13 years since I came here as Leader of the National Party to give a speech which, for a time, turned “Orewa” from a place to a date, so that people spoke of “before Orewa” or “after Orewa”, rather than north of Orewa or south of Orewa!

An odd thing happened after I spoke here 13 years ago.  As soon as I’d finished, the pundits pounced.  As pundits do. They know more than us, don’t they?  And they certainly knew what my speech would mean. They said I’d lost the plot. They said National’s ratings would plunge. They said it would be a disaster for the party.  And of course they were absolutely… wrong.

National’s poll ratings shot up: one of the biggest jumps ever.  Eighteen months later, in the 2005 election, we almost became the government. As it was, we won 21 more seats than we had had in 2002.  Our party vote was the highest in any election since 1990 and 18% higher than it had been in 2002.

I believe my speech here triggered that amazing jump in support.  I believe the people – not the pundits – knew what I was saying. They knew that it was not – and never will be – racist to call for equality. They knew what they wanted New Zealand to stand for: A fair go, a fair deal.  For everyone. Not favouritism for some.  And definitely not favouritism based on race. They wanted New Zealand to be a country where everyone shared the same air – which is the meaning of the hongi – the same rights, and the same opportunities. The people knew then – and they know now – that all racism is racist, no matter which race benefits. And they didn’t want a bar of it!  Not then. Not now.

But, 13 years on, racism still rules the roost. The push for privilege persists and our politicians still pander to it.  Inch by inch, step by step they have created islands of influence, and positions of power…for one race only. Make no mistake, our Parliament has done this, our politicians. They’ve been busy passing racist laws while dishonestly branding other people ‘racist’, using a lie to replace logic. They call the people who disagree with them a fringe. Well, we’re not a fringe.  We’re a throng. They label me a lone voice attacking the Treaty. But I’m not.

The Treaty is a wonderful stick for activists to beat the rest of us with…It’s been the basis of a self-perpetuating industry in academic and legal circles.

That’s from the Bruce Jesson Memorial lecture delivered in 2000 by…David Lange. He criticised “the preoccupation of successive governments with the Treaty of Waitangi” because, and these are his words, “the Treaty cannot be any kind of founding document, as it is sometimes said to be. It does not resolve the question of sovereignty, if only because one version of it claims one form of sovereignty and the other version claims the opposite. The Court of Appeal once, absurdly, described it as a partnership between races, but it obviously is not.”

As our increasingly dismal national day continues to show, the Treaty is no basis for nationhood. It doesn’t express the fundamental rights and responsibilities of citizenship, and it doesn’t have any unifying concept.

The Treaty itself contains no principles which can usefully guide government or courts. It is a bald agreement, anchored in its time and place, and the public interest in it is the same as the public interest in enforcing any properly-made agreement. To go further than that is to acknowledge the existence of undemocratic forms of rights, entitlements, or sovereignty.

So, in 2000, David Lange was concerned about the “dangers posed by the increasing entrenchment of the Treaty” especially since “its implications are profoundly undemocratic.”

Then, in 2002, Bill English, as Leader of the National Party, discussed the Treaty in a speech at the New Zealand Centre for Public Law and noted that Hobson and the missionaries took great pains to explain to Maori the decision they had to make, and the kind of sovereignty and order the British would create. Maori were prepared to cede their sovereignty because of the anticipated benefits of a common, non-segregated polity in New Zealand. The solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship for all.

What’s happened since those speeches were made?

In May 2003, Bill English committed a future National Government to the abolition of separate Maori electorates, as the 1980s Royal Commission on the Electoral System had recommended if MMP was adopted.

In 2005, believing that historical grievances would damage race relations in New Zealand if they dragged on endlessly and weren’t resolved, I committed a future National Government to resolving these grievances within six years, and also pledged to scrap Maori electorates.

John Key made similar commitments in 2008.

Tragically, we’ve been moving in exactly the wrong direction ever since.

•    The National Government has certainly sped up the resolution of historical grievances but the process still drags on, and too often involves granting not just financial redress but also so-called “co-governance”, giving unelected tribal appointees the right to have a decision-making role in local government.
•     Maori electorates – created for just five years in 1867 to give all Maori men the vote, whether they owned property or not – are still with us 150 years later.  The Government has quietly abandoned any suggestion they will be scrapped, and a Labour MP has a Bill in the Members’ ballot which would, if drawn and passed, “entrench” Maori electorates.  And this despite the fact that the need for Maori electorates to ensure Maori voices are heard in Parliament has long gone, with more than 20 MPs now identifying as Maori.
•     A Bill to amend the RMA now wending its way through Parliament would, if passed in its present form, require all local authorities, within 30 days of an election, to invite their local tribes into “iwi participation agreements”, which would entrench co-governance on a grand scale.
•     The legislation setting up the Auckland super-city said there had to be an Independent Maori Statutory Board, made up of unelected appointees, and Auckland Council chose to give the members of this unelected Board voting rights on most Council committees.
•    For several years now, the Government has been talking behind closed doors with tribal leaders about how to give them a special right, based only on tribal affiliation, to influence how fresh water is allocated, despite the Government’s long-held contention that “nobody owns water” and despite decisions about the allocation of water being traditionally the exclusive right of elected local councils.
•     In recent months, discussions have been going on, almost entirely below the radar, which are likely to lead to half of the members of the Hauraki Gulf Forum being tribal appointees.  This body has potentially far-reaching powers covering the sea area of the Hauraki Gulf and all of the extensive land catchments around it.
•     Last year, we saw the Maori king expressing the hope that by 2025 Maori would be able to “share sovereignty” in New Zealand, and nobody pointed out to him that all Maori already “share sovereignty” because all Maori adults have a vote.  But I suspect that wasn’t what he had in mind.  I suspect he was continuing the myth that Maori chiefs did not cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty, despite overwhelming evidence that they did do so, and understood that was what they were doing, as Sir Apirana Ngata insisted in 1922 when he wrote “The Treaty of Waitangi, An Explanation”.
•     Very recently, we’ve seen Labour and the Greens saying they would make it compulsory to learn te Reo in all schools, even though I believe that learning to read and write good English would have much greater practical value for all children, including Maori children. And that’s not just because English is spoken by the vast majority of New Zealanders, but also because it is the only genuinely international language – the language in which most scientific articles are written, the language in which most international commerce is conducted and the language of international aviation.
•     Increasingly, we see unfounded claims that the Treaty involved some kind of partnership between the Maori people and the Queen, and we see this idea of partnership particularly being promoted in the education and health sectors.  Indeed, endorsing this partnership idea seems to be essential for any kind of leadership appointment in the government sector.

But as Winston Peters said in a speech in Paihia earlier this month: If no-one in the British Empire was in partnership with Queen Victoria on the 5th February 1840, how come the New Zealand Maori was one day later?

The expression partnership is either creative and legally and constitutionally wrong or had to include every New Zealander regardless of ethnic background being in partnership with the Crown.[1]

•    Last, and by all means least, the newly formed Opportunity Party is so confused by this imagined partnership that it wants to create an Upper House of Parliament, with half its members being Maori.

As I said earlier, those of us who say these developments are  totally inconsistent with any reasonable interpretation of the Treaty or the meaning of democracy are routinely abused as racists, even though what we are advocating is not only not racist it is in fact the exact opposite! We’re saying that all racism is racist.  We’re saying that no one race should have any kind of constitutional preference.  We want New Zealand to be a country where every citizen, of every colour and creed, has the same political rights, no matter when they or their ancestors came to the land we share and the country we are building together.

To call that racist is the epitome of Orwellian double-speak.

It is important to stress that we are not arguing that Maori are “privileged” in any economic sense. While a few Maori are among the wealthiest in the land, average Maori incomes are well below the average for other New Zealanders.  And of course because of that, Maori New Zealanders rightly receive a larger share of government social welfare and education budgets.  Most government spending is rightly geared to need, and not to ethnicity.

But we say that giving constitutional preferences to those with a Maori ancestor – along with ancestors of many other ethnicities too – is leading us down the road to racial conflict.

And who benefits from these unprincipled constitutional preferences?  Assuredly not most Maori. They gain absolutely nothing from such preferences, which overwhelming benefit only the Maori and Pakeha elite.  It is that elite who get the big directors’ fees, and the fees paid when consulting with Maori is a legal requirement.  It is the same elite who get to play with the millions handed out in Treaty settlements, not Maori truck drivers or freezing workers or builders or the thousands of others in the work force.

Many Maori, in professions, business and trades, resent being patronized by current policies which seem to imply that, without special privileges, they’re not good enough to make it on their own. They know they are.

They want what Governor Hobson said, as each chief signed the Treaty, to stay true today. “He iwi tahi tatoa. We are now one people.”

In 1922, Sir Apirana Ngata wrote that the second part of Article III of the Treaty, which “imparts to [all the Maori people of New Zealand] all the rights and privileges of British subjects,” was the most important part of the Treaty.  “This article,” he said, “represents the greatest benefit bestowed upon the Maori people by Her Majesty the Queen… It states that the Maori and Pakeha are equal before the law, that is they are to share the rights and privileges of British subjects.”

Those of us behind the Hobson’s Pledge Trust share the view of great leaders like Sir Apirana and Governor Hobson that New Zealanders became one people when the Treaty was signed.

We reject absolutely the notion that the Treaty created different rules and different rights for those with a Maori ancestor and those without.  We stand proudly with Martin Luther King and share his great vision:

I have a dream that my children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

“…Judged not by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.” That’s our goal.  And I believe it is at the heart of who we are and what we want New Zealand to be. Those who built this country were determined to put rank and status and privilege behind them. They wanted this to be a land of equals, an egalitarian land where your choices and your chances didn’t depend on class or colour but on character. Yes, we’ve failed sometimes, I acknowledge that. But let’s not fail again.

We cannot abolish privilege by creating privilege.  By agreeing to do so, our politicians are creating a new injustice and poisoning our future.  I say the racism of our elite has done its dash and had its day.  We have a duty to our history and to the best dreams of our ancestors to stand for equality and demand a fair say, a shared say, with no privilege granted on the basis of race.

If you share that vision, join Hobson’s Pledge and help us spread the word.

Especially this year, when you can tell your Member of Parliament, and anybody standing for election to Parliament, that you want New Zealand to be, as Martin Luther King said, a place where every citizen, irrespective of the colour of their skin, is treated as an equal.

Ask anybody seeking your vote: Which do you support? A single standard of citizenship or race-based rights for some? If they won’t answer you or say they support race-based rights, then tell them they will not get your vote.

And challenge our Prime Minister to explain how current policy is even remotely consistent with the National Party’s longstanding commitment to equal citizenship, and to his own unambiguous statement in 2002, that “The solution to the challenges that the Treaty presents to all New Zealanders lies in a single standard of citizenship.”
________________________________________

Click here to go to Part 1.

[1] Speech by the Rt. Hon. Winston Peters “The Treaty of Waitangi as it was and should be,” Paihia, 3 February 2017.

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

A Racist Attack On Public Rights In Auckland

– John McLean

In 2014 the National government “returned” fourteen “ancestral cones” (summits of public hills in Auckland) to a newly set up authority of pale-faced tribal elitists who call themselves the Tupuna Maunga Authority.

This is bizarre as the peaks had been sold by tribes in the 19th century for valuable consideration and to “return” them 150 years later is the same as giving to the 5th and 6th generations some house or other property that one set of their ancestors might have sold in the 1850s. It’s called getting two bites of the same cherry.

However, using words like “returning” instead of “handing over” and “ancestral cones” instead of “public land atop the volcanic cones” is typical of the mischievous deceit that has become the hallmark of the Office of Treaty Settlements since the unelected and widely distrusted List M.P., Christopher Finlayson, took it over and started his war against the general public so as to favour tribes that appeal to him, including his ex-client, Ngai Tahu.

The terms of the handover stated that the new Maunga Authority, made up of largely of one-eighth and one-sixteenth non-biological “Maoris” who get well paid to attend its meetings, should hold the cones “in trust for the benefit of all Aucklanders”. It hasn’t taken them long to thumb their noses at this condition as first it was cars, then daffodils and now grazing livestock that they have banished from their new “estate” (formerly public land) and no doubt more restrictions will follow. There are also representatives of Auckland Council on the Authority but in effect it is the tribal elite that calls the shots.

One should not be too surprised at this as the whole thrust of the tribal elite’s grab for public resources seems to be motivated by not only greed but also a sneering contempt for the rest of us, and they rarely lose an opportunity to put the boot in so as to let us know who are our new masters. Practicality, restraint and the public good never seem to enter their calculations in making decisions that bit by bit deprive us of a few more of our rights and public resources.

In 2015 this new race-based Authority banned cars from driving to the top of Mount Eden and in November, 2016, it was announced that in 2017 this ban will be extended to the summits (and thereabouts) of One Tree Hill, Mount Wellington, Mount Albert, Mount Victoria and Mount Roskill. No doubt it will only be a matter of time before they start charging pedestrians for walking up to the tops of these formerly publicly owned assets.

The ones who will suffer the most from this unnecessary and self-indulgent ban will be elderly people who will no longer be able to drive to the top to get a view of their city – as Aucklanders have been free to do ever since the invention of the motor car. At the time the Authority’s chairman, Paul Majurey (a European both biologically and in looks), tried to claim that banning cars from the peaks “would make them safer for pedestrians and respect their cultural significance to local Maori”.

What cultural significance? As Peter Cresswell pointed out in his chapter in “Twisting the Treaty”, it wasn’t until the British arrived in 1840 and established some form of law and order that any Maori tribe could realistically claim that they “owned” Auckland or any part of it. “Before Europeans arrived Maori at best owned only what they used and inhabited,” wrote Mr. Cresswell. “However, in reality Maori actually owned nothing at all before Europeans arrived….When Europeans began arriving on New Zealand’s shores….Auckland was largely deserted , and Maoris living elsewhere were part of a culture that enthusiastically embraced tribalism and its concomitant warfare, slavery and cannibalism. And it was a dying culture – dying because it was unsustainable. When Europeans arrived the Maori population had flattened out at approximately 115,000 and Maori were living a subsistence lifestyle, with short life spans, a limited diet, limited food resources and constant battling over the few resources still remaining.” Many creatures that they formerly ate had been driven to extinction, e.g. frogs and all eleven species of moa.

In his book, Maori Auckland, David Simmons wrote, “When Europeans came to Auckland, they saw only a wilderness of scrub.” The reason why this vital isthmus between two oceans was empty was because it was too dangerous for any tribe to live there as it would soon be replaced by another, stronger tribe with better weapons.

In Mr. Cresswell’s words, “Kiwi Tamaki’s Waiohua tribe had spent the 17th and 18th centuries living and ‘slash and burn’ gardening around Mount Eden and One Tree Hill. These hills had everything a 17th century estate agent could dream of – they offered great defensive positions, fantastic northern slopes for kumara pits, and a delightful location between two sparkling harbours. But in a culture where ownership is held by conquest rather than by right, having everything means that you very soon have nothing – because someone else wants it….In Auckland’s war of all against all, Waiohua, Kawerau, Ngati Maru, Ngati Huarere and Ngati Whatua fought, re-fought and fought again across this narrow strip of land hung between two magnificent harbours. Ngati Paoa from Thames eventually took Mount Eden and many of Auckland’s other volcanic cones from Kiwi Tamaki, only to be ejected themselves about 1780 by Ngati Whatua….In 1818 Ngapuhi swept down from Northland with their guns, and over the next few years slaughtered or enslaved all who remained. Mount Eden and One Tree Hill remained empty. In 1835 Ngati Whatua crept timidly back to Okahu Bay and Greenhithe.”

In the words of David Simmons, “During the Ngapuhi wars Tamaki-makau-rau was almost deserted, and remained so until 1835 when Ngati Whatua returned….In March, 1840, three Ngati Whatua chiefs met Governor Hobson and signed the Treaty of Waitangi….These men saw the pakeha as a possible insurance against further raids.”

“Maori culture in 1840 did not recognise the concept of ‘right’ , and had no concept of ownership beyond the playground notion of grabbing what you can when you can,” wrote Peter Cresswell in “Twisting the Treaty”.

One of the main reasons why the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi was to secure permanent property rights to the lands that they were currently holding rather than running the risk of being forcefully evicted (and probably killed and eaten) by a stronger tribe.

Therefore, since any ownership other than by right in law is no ownership at all, it is deceitful for the Government to have stated that they were “returning ancestral cones” to this new tribal authority, made up of these various tribes. Even though they were not properly owned by pre-1840 Maori, the government of the day nevertheless paid local tribes for them with good money in the 19th century, thus making it doubly wrong that they should be “returned” six generations later to a small and greedy group with far more European blood in them than Maori.

Not content with asserting their arrogance or, if you like, “mana”, by banning cars, these new cultural warriors then announced that they will also ban grazing livestock from the three summits where cattle have grazed for decades (Mt. Wellington, Mt. Richmond and Mangere Mountain) and sheep from One Tree Hill and Mount St. John.

In seeking to justify this bossy but unnecessary decision, the Maunga Authority said that it was “to protect and restore biodiversity”. This is laughable as the ancestors of these people were the most environmentally destructive people ever to inhabit (temporarily) the slopes of these hills – slashing and burning vegetation and leaving the hills bare – as they were when the first Europeans saw them in the 1830s.

In the words of a Remuera mother, Michelle Noma, “Our kids love to go there; it’s an annual event in spring to see the lambs in an iconic Auckland space.” Yes, but no more.

According to Cornwall Park Trust farm manager, Peter Maxwell, “The livestock keep the long grass tidy and help in controlling the litter by making it easier to spot rubbish that you would not be able to see in long grass. Stock grazing also reduces fire risk.” He is in a better position to know about these things than the new tribal “owners” whose forebears slashed and burned all vegetation around these mountains during their temporary occupations for the very good reason that, since they did not own them in any meaningful sense, there was no reason to hoe, grow or plan for the future.

Other instances of the Authority acting narrowly and racistly rather than for the benefit of all Aucklanders is their locking of the gates to Mount Eden, thus preventing people from going up there to watch the sunrise and sunset, and their banning of daffodils on Mount Hobson.

In the words of Andrew Paul of Orakei in a letter to the New Zealand Herald in March, 2016, “Mount Hobson is one of the jewels of Auckland’s parks. For some 40 to 50 years in the spring, the daffodils on the northern slopes formed a beautiful field of remembrance for the casualties of World War II. On the mountain yesterday morning I was told that local iwi had forbidden the daffodils to be replenished by a team of volunteers, many of them schoolchildren. The bulbs were to be provided by the city. The iwi does not want the daffodils on the mountain and has had the commemorative plaque removed”.

After all, daffodils are flowers from England and, as such, are anathema to these new cultural imperialists. This insult to the war dead is a repeat of what Ngai Tahu did when they were given a park in Greymouth as part of their over-generous and undeserved Treaty settlement that was negotiated for them by their lawyer, the crafty Christopher Finlayson. There were some commemorative gates that had been in the park for seventy years in honour of the dead of the First World War and the first thing Ngai Tahu did was to remove them. This contempt for the nation’s war dead seems to be a feature of the new tribal elite which shows such a deep-seated hatred of the hand that is forever feeding it with taxpayer dollars.

The new and assertive Maunga Authority made these decisions without any public consultation. After all, under tribalism (both old and new) those who don’t have power don’t count. “The unelected Maunga Authority haven’t consulted with the people who actually use the mountain, which makes a mockery of their claims of public support. If they really do have public support, then they shouldn’t be afraid of consultation,” said the ACT leader, David Seymour. Mr. Seymour has called for the Government to review the legislation that allows the Authority to make decisions re accessibility.

Since they have breached the condition on which they received this undeserved gift of so many iconic public places “to be held in trust for the benefit of all Aucklanders”, the Maunga Authority has shown that they are unworthy to govern these formerly public places. By banning cars which discriminates against the elderly, they are NOT holding their new estate “for the benefit of all Aucklanders”. These fourteen hilltops should be returned to the public forthwith.

A further odious aspect of this act of theft from the public is that it is just another step by this National government, under the malign influence of Treaty Minister Finlayson, to create an apartheid like New Zealand where one group of people – the tribal elite – have superior rights to other New Zealanders.

Tribalism, which is putting the tribe ahead of the public good, is what this new Tupuna Maunga Authority is all about. In 1840 the chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi to bring an end to tribalism, that was destroying Maori society and which during the recent Musket Wars had been responsible for killing approximately one third of the Maori population. Finlayson, for what appear to be devious, if not perverted, reasons, is trying to re-create tribalism by his sovereignty-smashing “co-governance” agreements, of which the creation of this Maunga Authority is an example.

Both Finlayson and Paul Majurey, chair of this new Authority, are rich lawyers who have made a lot of money for themselves out of the Treaty industry, which is all about shafting the general public so as to secure special race-based rights, resources and funding for those New Zealanders of a particular bloodline – part-Maoris. Shades of apartheid South Africa. That’s what the Treaty industry is all about – enriching the fat cats of the tribal elite while doing next to nothing for those part-Maoris who are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap. (The term “part-Maoris” is used in the interests of accuracy since there are no longer any full blooded Maoris and apparently not even any half-bloods either.)

First it was the loss of the foreshore and seabed, then the Urewera National Park and now Auckland’s iconic hill tops – all long held public commons that have been swiped from the rest of us for no other reason than National’s need to buy the Parliamentary votes of the race-based and separatist Maori Party.

In the words of NZ First M.P., Richard Prosser, “National appears hellbent on splitting this country down the middle, creating apartheid where once there was harmony, and entrenching for generations to come a mentality of antagonism and division which carves New Zealand up along racial lines, with privilege based on ethnicity and massive handouts of public wealth to an elite few possessed of an ever dwindling percentage of Maori blood.” This is not what our servicemen gave their lives for in two world wars.

Key Leaves Lingering Racist Legacy

Key Leaves Lingering Racist Legacy

by Michael Coote

Few other politicians have done more to create conditions ripe for the destruction of racial equality

Gone-by-Monday Prime Minister John Key shrewdly picked a retirement date amenable for collecting one of those New Year’s honour knighthoods he personally reinstated.

Mr Key’s timing is opportune for him, not least because of the gathering catastrophe for New Zealand democracy he has engineered but can now slough parliamentary accountability for.

In 2017 the bitter fruits of the Key government’s wrong-headed Maori policies will become much more apparent.

Few other politicians in modern history can have done more than Mr Key to create conditions ripe for the destruction of racial equality in this country.

Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson comes close, but ultimately Mr Key bears the greater responsibility.

The problem goes back to Mr Key’s decision to enlist the racialist Maori Party to help prop up National-led minority governments.

With the Maori Party came its puppet-master the iwi Chairs Forum, a corporate Maori organisation.

Direct engagement

Dr Muriel Newman records how this has played out in practice.

“In 2008, when John Key was elected prime minister, he brought the Maori Party into his government and established preferential access for iwi leaders to cabinet,” she says.

“A ‘Communication and Information Exchange Protocol’ was drawn up and signed by the prime minister and iwi leaders to ensure their views are represented in cabinet and in the policy development process.”

“In particular, [iwi Chairs Forum subsidiary]the Freshwater iwi Leaders Group engages directly with senior government ministers at least three times a year, and government ministers regularly attend the quarterly iwi Chairs Forum meetings – the latest in August in the Waikato, where five government ministers were in attendance.”

Mr Key’s favoured successor, Finance Minister Bill English, has publicly endorsed this arrangement.

The iwi Chairs Forum has also signed a memorandum of understanding on working with Local Government New Zealand (LGNZ), as reported previously in this column.

The organisation is working to establish “Treaty partnership” power sharing under the guise of Maori tribal co-governance arrangements with both central and local government across New Zealand.

This year its Independent iwi Constitutional Working Group published a document on “constitutional transformation” entitled He Whakaaro Here Whakaumu Mo Aotearoa which sets out a five-year plan for promoting law changes that would permanently privilege Maori descendants over all other New Zealanders.

Such is the calibre of the fundamentally racist programme Mr Key has nurtured, facilitated, legitimated and normalized through his devil’s bargain with the Maori Party, not even a loyal coalition partner.

Meretricious deal

Big Maori policy issues Mr Key is doing a frantic runner from encompass local government, resource management, freshwater policy and conservation.

Through Treaty settlements negotiated by Mr Finlayson, Maori tribes have been granted numerous statutory co-governance roles shared with democratically elected local governments.

New Zealanders have not been warned or consulted by the Key government about this recipe for corruption, nepotism and conflict of interest.

But they will suffer the impact from next year on as ever more Treaty settlements come into legal force.

The Resource Management Act’s rewrite has seen environment minister Nick Smith cutting a meretricious support deal with the Maori Party in return for including the statutory obligation for all democratically elected local authorities to consult with Maori tribes on “iwi participation agreements.”

The Maori Party is ecstatic as this requires that “Mana Whakahono a Rohe” will be written into the legislation, meaning in the words of a related Ngai Tahu submission that tribes could then undertake “the handling of resource consent applications, notification decisions, monitoring and enforcement”.

Local communities have not yet woken up to this attempted hijacking of their private property rights, but Auckland alone has 19 recognised iwi authorities to deal with.

Freshwater rights are huge issue coming up next year.

Mr Key has tried to maintain that no one owns water – a reprise of Mr Finlayson’s stunt over foreshore and seabed legislation – but the Freshwater iwi Leaders Group thinks otherwise.

Dr Newman reports the government is well advanced in closed-door collaboration with the iwi Chairs Forum on a three-year freshwater policy development process, but has decided that, “No further media announcements are intended,” obviously to stifle informed public debate.

Plus there is the proposed Kermadec Ocean Sanctuary, a pet Key initiative that has collided with litigious Maori tribal fishing interests.

Arise, Sir John, for services to racial inequality.

Hobson’s Pledge Launch – Media Aftermath

Hobson’s Pledge Launch – The Media Aftermath

DISCLAIMER: Just in case some readers might get confused, the Hobson’s Pledge Trust was not set up by, or is any way part of, the 1Law4All political party.  That said, the two entities do share a common ideal: one law for all equality and an end to racist privilege in New Zealand.


As expected, the knives came out today (29/9/16). A few Internet sources are linked below. Click here to read the original 1Law4All blog post.

Especially note the drivel from that almost late but not lamented racist New Plymouth Mayor, Andrew Judd.

Also check to see if comments are open on any of these media items! The media? Biased? What are you saying?!

Most – if not all – responses showed that the racist rabble preferred to assassinate the messenger, instead of respond to the message. Among them being the khaki  mother-fullah-of-all-racists, John (Hone) Harawira.  And, of course, one or two succumbed to the lies, damned lies and statistics method of avoiding answering the questions and philosophy posed by the Hobson’s Pledge Trust.

And – as always – one has to wonder at those people who assert that championing democratic equality is racism. Do they ever listen to the hollow and empty sounding brass of their words?


Anti-separatist’ campaign launched against ‘Maori favouritism’ ahead of 2017 election

Trust seeks to abolish all race-based privilege

Hobson’s choice ‘anti-separatist’ campaign

Separatism by Nats looms as election issue (The media release featured in England)

Don Brash and Willie Jackson clash over Dr Brash’s new campaign against what he says are laws that favour Maori and promote separatism.

Lobby group formed to oppose ‘Maori favouritism’

Don Brash backs Winston Peters to end Maori ‘separatism’

Brash a ‘broken record’ with new lobby group – Key

Brash a ‘redneck and racist’ – Harawira (Quintessential irony from the original and genuine mother-fullah-racist.)

‘Anti-separatist’ group is modern day colonisation – New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd says

Bay Maori label Don Brash group ‘racist’

Brash’s new campaign dismissed by political leaders

Trevor Maxwell reacts to newly formed Hobson’s Pledge Trust (video)

Is Don Brash’s new Hobson’s Pledge the support group that white people need? (Comments were open [shock! horror!], but have since closed)

Editorial: Brash is wrong to claim Maori are “privileged” (Some shockingly deceptive and misleading statements in that piece)

A semi-related issue is here: NZ insulated so far against anti-immigration sentiment elsewhere

Karl du Fresne: Internationally, the anti-immigration Right is on the rise – a backlash against the liberal multicultural consensus that has dominated Western politics for decades – and the only surprise is that anyone should be surprised. It’s happened with a speed that has left the political establishment reeling and blindsided the predominantly liberal opinion-shapers in the media.

On The Nation: Lisa Owen interviews Don Brash and Louisa Wall (1 Oct 2016)

1 2 3 4
%d bloggers like this: