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
Monday, April 03, 2017 at 7.00 pm.

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

Chris Whinlayson

The Idiot[cy] Goes On

The Idiot[cy] Goes On

16 Mar 2017

Once the Te Awa Tupua (Wanganui River Claims Settlement) Bill becomes law, the Wanganui River is to gain its own legal identity with all the corresponding rights, duties and liabilities of a legal person. But what does this actually mean? Will it have all the same rights and responsibilities as anyone else?


A legal person has all the rights, duties and liabilities of a person but is not a natural person – a human being. When it comes to understanding the river’s new rights and responsibilities, it’s easiest to think of it like you’d think of a company.


In New Zealand, legal persons, like companies, have guaranteed rights just like actual people (natural people). The same way that a natural person has a right to freedom of expression, so does a company that owns a newspaper. This principle will now apply to the river. Not all of the rights will apply but any right that it makes sense for a legal person to have, the river will have as well. This will include things like the right to natural justice.


Basically the same tax rules apply to it as apply to other legal persons. It probably depends on what it does, but if it starts supplying goods or services, it will have the same GST responsibilities as a company would.


The settlement’s total cost to the NZ taxpayer is $81 million. $30m for the establishment of Te Korotete (a fund to support the health and wellbeing of the river); $200,000 per year for 20 years for Te Pou Tupua (the “face” of the river, or the two natural persons appointed to act for the river); $430,000 for the establishment of Te Heke Ngahuru (a strategy established to ensure the future environmental, social, cultural and economic health and well being of Te Awa Tupua).

Sources: Stuff, Lawyer Graeme Edgeler and New Zealand Government settlement summary.

Racism (almost) Reigns Here

Racism [almost] Reigns Here

Thursday, September 15, 2016

Waitemata and Hauraki Gulf Forum Councillor Mike Lee says a “disturbing” Hauraki Gulf Forum meeting was held last week to discuss proposed changes to its membership and functions. “The forum has been captured by interests that are not necessarily conservation minded or from Auckland.

“There’s a domination of the Hauraki Gulf Forum essentially by Waikato farming interests and iwi interests from Coromandel that has not worked out that well,” he says. At present six of the 21 forum members represent mana whenua, but a review has recommended that eight of the 16 members should represent Maori tribal rights over the gulf.

The review report recommends that “particular attention is paid to treaty settlement processes and the Sea Change Tai Timu Tai Pari process” and that the forum has “co-governance” with equal numbers of mana whenua and “other” members.

A critic said that the group developing the marine spatial plan has a focus of economic, social and cultural gains and considers the environment only when it complements the other three.

Water, Water Everywhere – Until You Want A Drink

Water, Water Everywhere
Until You Want A Drink

In a previous 1Law4All newsletter, the racist grab for the nation’s fresh water was detailed—a crime against the commons. More details of how it’s to be done are now known.

What can you do? What can be done? Presently – perhaps only a little. Until a National Party politician feels the threat of impending unemployment, no MP is going to buck Emperor Shonkey. But if enough people knock on their local MP’s electorate office doors, expressing their dissent with the racist policies of the present government, the chill winds of perhaps having to work in the real world will blow around their ankles and that might change things in Wellington.

Do not be deceived by any platitudes about balance, or redressing past wrongs, or Treaty rights, or any such huff and fluff designed to cover the real agenda. The objective is simple: if ownership is not an option, then it’s control of NZ’s fresh water by racist separatists, for the financial benefit of micro-Maori. Nothing less. There are options on ways to achieve this. One is unaccountable-to-ratepayers, race-based appointees to Regional Councils. All done in a very sly way. Take the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, likely something of a blue print for the rest of NZ . . .

The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee [HBRPC] is a permanent Committee established by Government legislation as part of Treaty of Waitangi settlement negotiations. It comprises nine elected representatives and ten race-based appointees. Several elected representatives are known pro-micro-Maori separatist collaborators, a story about one of whom will be covered in a blog post – here – in a few days’ time. For now, here’s the make up of the HBRPC:

Elected Regional Councillors (nine) representing these areas:
* Wairoa (one)
* Napier (three)
* Central Hawke’s Bay (one)
* Ngaruroro (one)
* Hastings (three)

Racially-selected Tāngata Whenua appointees (ten) representing these micro-Maori, tribal groups
* Ngāti Pāhauwera Development and Tiaki Trusts
* Ngāti Hineuru Iwi Inc
* Te Toi Kura o Waikaremoana
* Ngāti Tuwharetoa Hapu Forum
* He Toa Takitini
* Mana Ahuriri Incorporated
* Maungaharuru-Tangitū Trust
* Te Tira Whakaemi o Te Wairoa
* Tūhoe
* He Toa Takitini

Notice that—to start with—the committee has a majority of race-based appointees. The HBRPC tells the Regional Council what it can and can’t do. Once that’s done, if the elected members of the Regional Council don’t like that, they cannot change it without an 80% agreement from the HBRPC. That means the racially-dominated HBRPC has almost total control over decisions made by the Council on all Resource Management Act matters. Including the control and management of fresh water! Do you begin to see what’s going on, here? Then read on . . .

One particularly poisonous platitude is Shonkey’s repeated assertion that “no one owns the water. Don’t be fooled. Given that stance, the Maori Party, Shonkey, Whinlayson and the other racist sycophants have come up with “a workaround.”

Most will be familiar with the term “airspace.” The air above a country – which nobody owns – through which planes fly. But only with the permission – air traffic control – of the nation on the land, below. The new deal struck with the traitors to NZ’s commons is similar to that airspace concept.

Although they wont own the fresh water, micro-Maori will get to control all NZ’s “waterspace.” That’s what’s above the bed of every public lake, river, stream and creek over which our fresh water is stored or flows. Permission to swim in that “waterspace” or to use the water in any other way will only be available from the micro-Maori owners of the land [bed] beneath that “waterspace,” which we’ll call water traffic control. Doubtless involving a fee. Sorry – “koha.” Likely on the basis of no koha – no goha.

There you have it. That’s how control – ownership in all-but-name – of NZ’s fresh water is to be handed over to racially-selected, micro-Maori interests.

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

The Waitangi Tribunal – A Vote of No Confidence

By Reuben Chapple

Reblogged from NZCPR

a photo of the Waitangi Tribunal sitting in a meeting house

It is widely believed that Waitangi Tribunal Reports issue only after rigorous historical investigation of Treaty claims.

These findings then make their way into media reports, onto Government websites, and percolate throughout our education system as apparently authoritative, objective information.

But what if Tribunal Reports were one-eyed rewrites of New Zealand history and not worth the paper they are printed on?

According to the Waitangi Tribunal’s website:

“The Tribunal consists of a chairperson and up to 20 members that may be appointed at any one time. The chairperson may also appoint a Maori Land Court judge to the position of deputy chairperson. The total membership reflects the partnership [sic] of the Treaty of Waitangi through an approximately equal representation of Maori and Pakeha.

“Tribunal members are appointed … by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs in consultation with the Minister of Justice.

“Members constitute a pool from which tribunals of between three and seven members are drawn to hear claims. The term ‘Waitangi Tribunal’ is used to refer both to the total membership and to the individual Tribunals. Members are appointed to a Tribunal by direction of the chairperson and remain members until the inquiry is completed or they resign.

“Each Tribunal has to have at least one Maori member, although generally around half the members are Maori. Usually, a Tribunal has a kaumatua member and, where it is inquiring into historical matters, at least one historian [sic].”

From this information we can deduce that:

  1. The Tribunal’s underlying premise before it even hears a single claim is that the Treaty of Waitangi created an ongoing racial partnership.
  1. Tribunal members are appointed on the recommendation of the Minister of Maori Affairs, so we can safely assume that both Maori and non-Maori members will be Treatyists, and likely to come to the table with strong priors rather than being impartial defenders of the public interest.
  1. It is theoretically possible for all Tribunal members hearing a particular claim to be Maori [by which I mean New Zealanders of mixed European-Maori descent who have chosen to identify monoculturally as “Maori”]. More commonly, Maori may be a majority of those hearing a particular claim.
  1. Many Maori have multiple hapu and iwi affiliations, making it quite possible for a Tribunal member hearing a particular claim to have direct links to the claimant group.

Indeed, three years into the hearing of the East Coast claim, presiding Judge Stephanie Milroy was obliged to disqualify herself, but only after lawyers for competing claimant groups pointed out that through her Ngati Porou connections, she had interests in five landblocks that were subject to the claim.

We can only speculate as to how many other instances of this kind never came to light.

This directly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

  1. Given that 50 percent of Tribunal members are Treatyist Maori and the claims process is in a broader sense between the Crown and Maori, this marginally more indirectly contravenes the legal principle that “no man shall be the judge of his own case.”

Let’s now examine how the Tribunal works:

  1. Claims are typically heard on the marae of the claimant tribe, hardly a neutral venue. Deliberations are conducted according to Maori protocol. This is likely to prove highly intimidating to non-Maori interested parties seeking to make a representation.
  1. Since the claims process is seen as being between the Crown and Maori, third parties have no automatic right to be heard. They can only be heard with permission, which the Tribunal rarely grants, particularly if opposed by the claimant group.
  1. Evidence is often given in Maori, with no requirement to provide a translation. As well as being a deliberate act of cultural arrogance, this makes it difficult for non-Maori speakers to have input into the hearing process.
  1. Oral evidence is given the same weight as written evidence and is not subject to cross-examination, since according to Maori protocol this is highly disrespectful to a kaumatua. The Tribunal justifies this by asserting that since it is a Tribunal rather than a Court, rigorous evidential standards need not apply.
  1. Claimants are legally aided to the tune of millions of dollars from taxpayers, with no requirement to pay this back if successful in achieving multi-million dollar settlements. This encourages what economists call rent-seeking behaviour, also known as “trying it on because there’s a huge upside if successful and no price paid for being wrong,” not that I can recall a single Tribunal Report finding against the claimants.
  1. Claimant groups have forced historians they have employed to go away under threat of non-payment and sanitise reports of facts that undermine their case.
  1. Those charged with presenting the Crown’s case are supine to say the least. For example, claimants who didn’t sign the Treaty, such as Tainui, Tuhoe, and Tuwharetoa, should have been immediately shown the door. Groups such as Ngai Tahu, Tainui, and Te Atiawa, who’d already received full and final settlements (some, like Ngai Tahu, several times over) legislated for in Acts of Parliament the preambles of which include the words “full and final settlement” should also have been told to talk to the hand.

The Tribunal’s recent assertion that contrary to primary source accounts of what the chiefs said on the lawn at Waitangi, Ngapuhi never ceded sovereignty to the Crown, is the latest in a long line of egregious tommyrot to exit this body via the fundament.

Who can forget the Tribunal’s “Holocaust of Taranaki” press release likening the closing down of the Parihaka Commune (in which not a single person lost their life) with the state-sponsored Nazi slaughter of millions of Jews during WWII?

Legendary media critic Brian Priestley MBE, who acted as media adviser for Ngai Tahu when that the tribe’s claim was before the Waitangi Tribunal, had this to say about the Tribunal process:

“Years ago I attended several sessions while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

“It would be hard to imagine any public body less well-organised to get at the truth.

“There was no cross-examination.

“Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

“The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

“In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question.

“I should have been.”

A number of reputable historians, including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver have voiced concerns that the Waitangi Tribunal has become a self-referencing echo chamber for re-writing New Zealand history.

In “The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History,” published in 2004, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the Tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment.”

According to Dr Byrnes, the Tribunal is not writing “objective history.” Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present, in that the Tribunal invariably judges the past by today’s standards rather than those prevailing at the time under scrutiny.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

Other academics share this unease, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes points out.

“I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the Tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

Dr Byrnes also reveals significant concerns about the mass consumption of Tribunal reports by the media and general public. She believes the Tribunal should clearly state its pro-claimant bias, lest lay people reading Tribunal reports be misled.

Ngapuhi kaumatua, David Rankin, a direct descendant of Hone Heke, more recently had this to say about the Tribunal as a nursery for the re-writing of New Zealand history:

“The Tribunal makes up history as it goes along.  A growing number of New Zealand historians are pointing this out, although most of them are labelled as racist for doing so.  Facts are omitted in Tribunal reports, and evidence is shaped in some cases to fit predetermined outcomes.   The bias is so obvious, but most historians are too scared for their careers to question the tribunal’s findings.

“[T]he Tribunal … has turned out to be a body that is bringing in apartheid to New Zealand.  This sounds dramatic, until you see how it advocates for race-based access to certain areas, and race-based management policies for Crown land, and now, twin sovereignty, which constitutionally is worse than anything that happened in South Africa during the apartheid era.

“The Tribunal is a bully.  Go against it, and you will be labelled a racist or worse.”

Clearly, any thinking New Zealander should have absolutely no confidence in anything that comes out of this body.

Another Wearying and Woeful Waitangi Day

Another Wearying & Woeful Waitangi Day



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”


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:



$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

$370m Treaty ‘Pool’ for Hawke’s Bay

Hawke’s Bay Today

22 December, 2014

Treaty settlements totalling about $370 million will bring “a formidable addition to the capital pool” available for investment in Hawke’s Bay, says the head of one of the largest settlement groups. David Tipene-Leach, the chairman of He Toa Takitini, says his group’s vision is to become a “major investor in our regional economy” using the $100 million-plus Crown settlement it is due to begin receiving from next year.

“Crown settlement” means you – the NZ taxpayer – pays and – from bitter experience – we know that no “Crown settlement” is ever full and final, no matter that it is called as such!

Mike Butler: Jamie Whyte and treaty settlements

reblogged from NZCPR – Breaking Views


Act Party leader Jamie Whyte is only partly correct to say that the reparations made to iwi by the Waitangi Tribunal are recognition of property rights. After his excellent analysis of the place of race in law delivered in a speech at Waikato this week, he could subject treaty settlements to his incisive accurate thought.

To what extent are treaty settlements to do with property rights? Working for the Waitangi Tribunal, historian Professor Alan Ward analysed the 650 or so historical claims lodged between 1985 and 1997, and, sorted them to match the tribunal’s interpretation of the treaty and the 1986 treaty principles.

Ward’s seven categories were:

1. The “loss of rangatiratanga”, which includes the loss of resources, and the exclusion of Maori from the decision-making institutions.

2. Purchases under the native land acts, which extended well into the 20th century, particularly the “individualisation of title”, which the colonial government promoted partly to prompt Maori to develop their land.

3. Crown purchases from 1840 to 1865, which were manipulative and denied or discouraged Maori leasehold and joint venture arrangements and the coexistence of aboriginal title rights.

4. Confiscation or forced cession after military occupation, in particular districts, although the area of land and the number of people affected were much less than were subject to land purchasing.

5. The colonial government’s failure to ensure that adequate reserves of land remained in Maori ownership, or in trust, to fund Maori welfare.

6. The loss of ownership or control of rights in foreshores and inland waterways.

7. Public works takings disproportionately imposed upon Maori land, the rating of Maori land, and the good and bad consequences of development schemes.

Land sales and purchases is the most obvious property rights category of claims under the treaty. Land changed hands between individual chiefs and settlers before the treaty was signed, mostly between government land purchase officers and chiefs from 1840 to 1865, and via the Native Land Court from 1865.

A purchase means acquisition of something, in this case land, by paying for it, and a sale is the exchange of a commodity, in this case land, for things or money.

The New Zealand Company paid for the Port Nicholson block in 1839 with 120 muskets and 21 kegs of powder, as well as a collection of iron pots, soap, axes, fish hooks, shirts and other clothing (including red night caps), slates and pencils, looking glasses, beads, umbrellas, sealing wax, and 144 jews harps.

A handful of Ngai Tahu chiefs sold most of the 15,121,483ha South Island in 10 deals over 20 years from 1844 for a total of ₤14,750 which is $1.6-million today. Government agents had purchased from chiefs by the end of 1842 land in Auckland totalling 92,000ha the price being £4196 that is more than $472,000 in 2014. Bear in mind the land was undeveloped – wild, marshy. Roads were required. Settler money and labour transformed the landscape into farms and towns and land values increased as the economy grew.

Claimants would like everyone to believe that the land was stolen but it was sold.

New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. A total of 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars (much of which was returned at the time). Approximately 1.47 million hectares remains as Maori land (including customary land). Therefore, successive governments bought 24.13-million hectares.

If chiefs were clear about the land they owned 174 years ago and were happy to exchange it for money and things back then, it becomes clear that complaints about land sales are more demands for more money rather than any actual breach of property rights.

Moreover, any restrictions by the colonial government on chiefs regarding land sales, as current treaty claimants appear to prefer, would have been an infringement of the property rights of the land-owning chiefs.

Confiscations involved property but were arguably not a breach of a property right but were a consequence of tribes breaching the law, or the treaty, by taking up arms against the government. A confiscation would be a breach if those who had had their land taken had breached neither the law nor the treaty. Waitangi Tribunal reports put much effort into arguing that tribes had not rebelled when clearly some had.

In English law, confiscation embraces forfeiture of goods and escheat of lands for crime or in default of heirs. In the United States among the “war measures” during the American Civil War, acts were passed in 1861 and 1862 confiscating property used for “insurrectionary purposes” and the property of those engaged in rebellion. The law allowing for confiscations in New Zealand, the New Zealand Settlements Act, was passed in 1863.

Armed conflict with dissident tribes had been going on for nine years before the confiscations became legal and continued a further nine years until February 14, 1872. The certainty of land confiscation was a decisive factor in the government defeating rebellious tribes in the 1860s.

A commission chaired by Supreme Court Judge William Sim was set up in 1926 to consider whether confiscations in Taranaki, Waikato, Tauranga, Whakatane, Opotiki, Urewera, Gisborne, and Hawke’s Bay exceeded in quantity what was fair and just. At that stage the inquiry was not linked to Treaty of Waitangi obligations because the government held that Maori who fought against the government had repudiated the treaty.

That commission recommended a ₤5000 annual payment to Taranaki tribes for land unjustly confiscated. Sim found that confiscations in Waikato were excessive and recommended an annual payment of £3000. Waikato initially wanted the land returned, but received annual payments from that year, although they became intermittent during the 1930s.

The 1944 Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act was intended as a final settlement of claims in that area. The Taranaki Maori Trust Board had received a ₤5000 annuity since the Sim commission recommendation, plus a £300 lump sum payment for loss of property at Parihaka in 1881. The 1944 Act described it as a “full settlement and discharge of the aforesaid claims”.

The Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946 was a final settlement of grievances over the confiscation of Maori lands in the Waikato and provided for the establishment of the Tainui Maori Trust Board to receive ₤5000 a year in perpetuity plus a further ₤5000 and £1000 a year for 45 years, to cover arrears since 1936, when negotiations with the Labour government began.

The 1985 amendment to the Treaty of Waitangi Act that allowed further claims all the way back to 1840 enabled tribes to re-open all old claims to get more money. In the latest round of settlements since 1989, Waikato tribes have so far received or agreed to receive $322-million which is a far cry from the $170-million amount of the Waikato-Tainui 1995 settlement. Taranaki tribes have received or agreed to a total of $255.5-million.

Therefore it is clear that in the categories of land sales and land confiscations, there is much more to treaty settlements than simply property rights, which the current Act Party enthusiastically supports.

The so-called “loss of rangatiratanga” is a conjured-up grievance that owes its existence to the redefined terms of the revised Treaty of Waitangi.

As a philosopher, Jamie Whyte would be familiar with the importance of definition of terms. In philosophy there is a concept known as redefinition, either high or low. It is the manoeuvre of redefining a term more or less tightly, so that an apparently false statement is made true if interpreted in the new way. This is pretty much what has been done with the Treaty of Waitangi and it is all to do with two words – “kawanatanga” and “rangatiratanga”.

As you know, the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori. Therefore, the meaning of the treaty is clear in both the source English text and in the Maori text. The word “sovereignty” in English was translated as “kawanatanga” and “ownership” as “rangatiratanga”.

Up to the late 1980s there was simply no question that the treaty was a simple three-article agreement with a preamble and a postscript that says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property.

Then a Waitangi Tribunal member who was also an Auckland claimant retranslated the treaty and changed the meaning of those two words so that “kawanatanga” meant “governance” and “rangatiratanga” meant “unqualified exercise of the chieftainship”.

That illustrious tribunal member, the late Sir Hugh Kawharu, argued that “there could be no possibility of the Maori signatories having any understanding of government in the sense of sovereignty”, and “‘unqualified exercise of the chieftainship’ would emphasise to a chief the Queen’s intention to give them complete control according to their customs”.

In this way was born the “yeah but . . .” interpretation of the treaty and New Zealand history in which 20th century claimants could say that what the 19th century chiefs really meant when they were signing the treaty was that the British governor could govern British settlers while the chiefs could carry on being chiefs.

That created the concept that the wicked white coloniser denied chiefs the right to practise their “rangatiratanga”. If chiefs were denied their rights to be chiefs then compensation is in order. Therefore every Waitangi Tribunal land report includes lengthy sections on “loss of rangatiratanga”.

The argument may be easily disproved by looking at accounts written at the time to see what the chiefs actually said during the debate on the treaty on February 5, 1840. Missionary William Colenso left a written record of that debate.

Colenso described how chief Tareha understood that, by consenting to a governor, he would be giving up his sovereignty to a higher law. He said: “No Governor for me – for us native men. We, we only are the chiefs, ruler. We will not be ruled over. What! Thou a foreigner, up, and I down? Thou high, and I, Tareha, the great chief of the Ngapuhi tribes, low? No, no; never.”

Adequacy of reserves, control of foreshores and inland waterways, and public works takings are further areas that should be exposed to the bright light of reason. There is much more to treaty settlements than recognition of property rights.

The treaty settlement process long ago departed from seeking truth and reconciliation. The Waitangi Tribunal has given up any semblance of balanced inquiries and simply advocates for claimants. Evidence is not tested.

In the absence of quantified actual loss, the Office of Treaty Settlements has decided to give dollars to every tribe asking, calculating the amount paid by current tribal membership and the difference between land claimed in 1840 and the area of land owned by the tribe today.

Few want to discuss the issues involved and anyone who does is called a racist. It is heartening to see Act’s Jamie Whyte putting his head above the parapet on treaty politics.

Mike Butler: Is Ngati Ranginui deal justified?

Mike Butler: Is Ngati Ranginui deal justified?

About 200 people turned up at a forum in Tauranga on Monday night, to have misconceptions about local tribe Ngati Ranginui’s $38-million settlement dispelled. That such a public meeting was deemed necessary implies a level of opposition to the deal that is yet to be ratified by the tribe. Usually, treaty settlements are agreed upon in private and the signed agreement is legally binding requiring legislation to release the money. How can this settlement be justified?

In a press release, Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson said the settlement, that was signed on June 23 at Te Ranga, near Tauranga, provides redress recognising that “Ngati Ranginui and other Tauranga iwi have suffered some of the worst grievances in New Zealand’s history including the loss of life and the raupatu of land”. The Office of Treaty Settlements summary skirts the issues and the Waitangi Tribunal’s Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims offers a split decision.

If this was among the worst grievances in New Zealand’s history, Ngati Ranginui was not mentioned in an 1882 list of complaints taken by chiefs to England for Queen Victoria to ponder. (1) The 1926 Sim commission found that confiscations in the Bay of Plenty were largely fair. The only Bay of Plenty grievance in the 1940s round of settlements was that of Whakatohea that had sustained land confiscation, for a lump sum payment of £20,000, in the Finance No. 2 Act on October 12, 1946.

It appears that the Ngati Ranginui grievance was re-discovered after 1985, when the Fourth Labour Government opened the way for further historical compensation by permitting the investigation of issues back to 1840.

Nga Hapu o Ngati Ranginui’s historical claims, according to the settlement summary, concern the war and confiscation at Tauranga; the purchase of the Te Puna-Katikati blocks soon after the war; the consequences of Ngati Ranginui resisting confiscation and Te Puna-Katikati purchase during the Crown’s “bush campaign”; the effects of the Crown’s native land laws and later Maori land legislation; and public works takings during the second half of the twentieth century. (2)

Ngati Ranginui’s claims are among 55 separate claims also involving Ngai Te Rangi, Waitaha, and the Marutuahu people, according to the Waitangi Tribunal’s Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims. The claims stem from the battles at Gate Pa (Pukehinahina) on April 29, 1864, and Te Ranga on July 21, 1864, following on from the Waikato war (3) in which “the Maori aim was to sweep the pakeha to the sea, and the pakeha government’s object was to teach the Maori his subjection to British authority”. (4)

At the Battle of Gate Pa, about 230 Maori fighters under chief Rawiri Puhirake defeated 1700 British troops after withstanding a day of British artillery bombardment, the heaviest of the New Zealand Wars.(5) One hundred and eleven government fighters were killed while Gate Pa Maori lost 25. At the ensuing Battle of Te Ranga, Puhirake was killed and his fighters defeated.

Ngai Te Rangi peace negotiators were able to make a symbolic submission and retain most of their lands, mainly out of the government’s respect for the slaim chief Puhirake. Nevertheless, the entire Tauranga district, estimated at 290,000 acres (117,359 hectares), was included in a confiscation proclamation issued in1865. The Crown returned 240,000 acres (97,125ha) but kept a 50,000-acre (20,234ha) area. The land returned was in individual rather than customary title meaning it could be sold without having to go through the Native Land Court. Maori land owners opted to sell to become part of the new economy. (6)

The Bay of Plenty area prospered over the years with little sign of discontent until the possibility of further historical compensation came into being once issues back to 1840 could be investigated. Along with $38,027,555 financial redress, the Ngati Ranginui commercial redress includes the right to buy 48 land bank properties, three Land Information New Zealand sites, and Puwhenua Forest Lands jointly with Ngati Rangiwewehi and Tapuika, and a right of first refusal for fish species introduced into the Quota Management System, according to the report summary.

Cultural redress includes vesting 13 sites totalling 846.3ha. Oraeroa will be vested as a sacred area (wahi tapu) with no public access. Omokoroa School land will be transferred to the tribe subject to sale and leaseback to the Ministry of Education. The tribe will control the Margaret Jackson Wildlife Management Reserve. Six geographic names will change, two unnamed sites will be named, and the names of two Crown protected areas will be altered.

Ngati Ranginui is one of eight Bay of Plenty tribal groups. If $38-million becomes the average financial redress amount, the total for the area may reach $304-million. How could the government consider paying over that amount of money for a grievance that did not exist in 1882, and was dismissed in the 1920s? How could a 1920s inquiry say that Bay of Plenty Maori were fairly treated, and the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty Negotiations Minister conclude that “Tauranga iwi have suffered some of the worst grievances in New Zealand’s history”?

Another big unanswered question is whether taking military action against the government is a treaty breach. If the tribes who fought against the government breached the treaty, how can they call on the terms of the treaty to justify compensation without recognising that their breach of the treaty warranted the punishment that was already quite leniently inflicted upon them? Sir Apirana Ngata, whose face is on every $50 banknote, was clear that the land confiscations could not be objected to in light of the treaty. He wrote in 1922:

Some have said that these confiscations were wrong and that they contravened the articles of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England, the sovereignty and the authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom – revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty. (7)

The Tauranga report is unique in that tribunal member Michael Bassett wrote a dissenting opinion taking issue with three of the general findings of the majority members. He argued that the Crown was justified in taking military action against Tauranga Maori in the 1860s. He argued that individualising the tenure of Maori land there was not a treaty breach, and he argued that there was no failure on the part of the Crown in supervising the alienation of returned Maori land.(8)

Therefore, if Ngati Ranginui fought against the government and thereby breached the terms of the Treaty of Waitangi, and if the Crown was justified in taking military action, and was correct in allowing Tauranga Maori to sell their land and directly benefit in the new economy, what justification is there for the current $38-million settlement and associated cultural redress?

The Gate Pa flag is fixed with the Union Jack flag on either side of the memorial to the New Zealand Wars in the Auckland War Memorial Museum. The inscription on the memorial reads “Kia mate toa. In memory of all those who gave their lives during the New Zealand Wars 1845-1872. Through war they won the peace we know.”

The government’s apparent rush to hand over cash, assets, co-management, landmarks, and sacred areas to newly created tribal entities implies some sort of unease that could come from believing the anti-colonist allegations made by the Waitangi Tribunal. The bravery, military skill, and chivalry of the 1860s campaigns, when people died for their causes, contrast with the expedience and opportunism that is a part of politics today. It would appear that our current political leaders either have forgotten or are ignorant of our brief history.

Ngati Ranginui, with Ngati Te Rangi and Ngati Pukenga iwi had ownership of Mount Maunganui transferred to them from the Crown on May 14, 2008, by an act of Parliament.

1. Ranginui Walker, Struggle Without End, p. 162. Lord Kimberley received the petition on behalf of the Queen and referred the deputation back to the New Zealand government, and Prime Minister Frederick Whittaker dismissed the petition.
2. Ngati Ranginui Settlement Summary
3. Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims{6DF58A78-2E30-4E92-92D2-414D7973B735}
4. James Cowan, The New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, (Wellington, Government Printer, 1955) Vol 1, p. 241
5. Jinty Rorke. ‘Puhirake, Rawiri – Biography’, from the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography. Te Ara – the Encyclopedia of New Zealand, updated 1-Sep-10
6. Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims{6DF58A78-2E30-4E92-92D2-414D7973B735}
7. Ngata, Sir Apirana, The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, Maori Purposes Fund Board, 1922, p. 37
8. Te Raupatu o Tauranga Moana: Report on the Tauranga Confiscation Claims{6DF58A78-2E30-4E92-92D2-414D7973B735}

To discuss this article, please go to the forum here.

Ururangi Trust – a charity or a sham?

Ururangi Trust – a charity or a sham?

 There is a legal requirement under s41 Charities Act 2005 for registered charities to declare the income and donations within a certain period.
S41 Duty to prepare annual return
(1) Every charitable entity must ensure that, within 6 months after each balance date of the entity, an annual return that complies with subsection (2) is—
(a) completed in relation to the entity and that balance date; and
(b) dated and signed on behalf of the entity; and
(c) sent or delivered to the chief executive.
Quite straight forward. Nothing hard or difficult about that legal requirement is there?
Why then do the trustees of the Ururangi Trust
believe it is exempt from the law?
1 2
%d bloggers like this: