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.

It’s All A Big Con Job So Is There Any Hope

It’s All A Big Con Job
So Is There Any Hope?

It matters not where one looks. Or which media one looks at. At every turn, the propaganda, lies and deception proliferate. Rick Barker lost the Tukituki electorate seat for Labour in the 2005 General Election. He now has a cosy sinecure as a HB Regional Councillor and Crown Treaty Negotiator. Despite supposedly being an advocate for – and on the side of – the Crown – that’s  you and me – the taxpayers, he is really a blind, brainwashed and blinkered pawn for racially-biased part-Maori.

In a 2016 edition of Hawke’s Bay’s Bay Buzz he comments: “Signed on 6 February 1840 by the Queens representative Lieutenant Governor William Hobson and the Maori Chiefs, the Treaty was intended to bring peace to the country and promised to Maori, referring to the English version, exclusive and undisturbed possession of lands forests, fisheries and other properties.” [estates]

There is no such thing!

No English Treaty version was presented or signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, as Barker duplicitously and treacherously asserts. In that respect, Rick Barker deceives solely the terminally gullible, including himself. Only the actual Treaty of Waitangi, written in the Maori language idiom of that era, was signed, that day. Aside from the final draft (Littlewood), referring to and describing English pseudo-versions are flights of fantasy by crackpot historians, mendacious part-Maori and brainwashed national and local politicians of all parties.

Read the first sentence of Article Two of the Treaty of Waitangi, for yourself, here:

Ko te tuarua (In Maori)
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa.

Article second (English final draft)
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property.

Now, a literal translation attempt from certain words of Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi:
ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou
to-the-people-all-of-New-Zealand-of-sure-ownership-of-of-their-land-of-all-
kainga  me  o  ratou  taonga  katoa.
ancestral-settlements-and-of-all-possessions-theirs.

Nowhere, but nowhere at all, are found the words: forests (wao) or fisheries (taunga) or estates (heretitamete).

Also, notice the Maori language expression Nu Tirani, in the Treaty. No sign of Aotearoa, except in the befuddled minds of modern mischief makers and pseudo-historians. The tribes are described in the Treaty of Waitangi as tangata Maori – not tangata whenua nor Mana whenua. Those expressions are latter-day wishful thinking pretensions. Another give-away of the fraud of the alleged ‘English’ (and other bogus) versions is seen by examining the Treaty text at the very beginning of the Maori-language Treaty preamble.

The Treaty of Waitangi starts:

Ko-te-Kuini-o-Ingarani
Great-the-Queen-of-England

Bogus English versions begin:

Her Majesty Victoria Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

The false versions difference is glaringly obvious, except to those who are so blind as to not see, plus those who see dollar signs in those misrepresentations.

Despite the meanings of the plain words being unambiguous, (so called) fraudulent Treaty Settlements continue as a huge direct cost to the NZ taxpayer, because of the mendacity of that racially-biased Kangaroo Kourt called the Waitangi Tribunal and gullible, appeasing and self-interested politicians.

Twenty Two Mendacious Modern (part-)Maori Myths

A useful reference when challenged on your stance of 1Law4All:

  1. The Maoris are indigenous to NZ.

Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in Australia, who have been on their land for tens of thousands of years, gaggles of Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. a mere 400 years before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even the modern part-Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.

  1. The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white man.

Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among numerous warring tribes. Since 1820 about one third of their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order were features of their Stone Age existence.

  1. The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.

This lie has recently been put out by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full sovereignty of these violent and anarchic islands to Queen Victoria forever as the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti and other chiefs of the time show. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.

  1. Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the Treaty, are not bound by it.

The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return to the taxpayer all their substantial Treaty settlements. For how do those tribes take a  settlement from a Treaty that their tribal forebears did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations – paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown and Maori.

No. Full sovereignty was ceded to Britain in 1840 as Britain, at the time the greatest empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership” agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace and order to their own lands. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the simple reason that there was no partnership.

This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the words of the Treaty they could not get superior rights over other New Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others, politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have bought into this lie. It is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.

  1. There are principles of the Treaty.

No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles, none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership.” Since the Treaty gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150 years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.

  1. There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty one in English and the other in Maori.

There is only one Treaty and it’s in Maori – (Te Tiriti). It was signed by around 500 chiefs. It was translated from the English draft, known as the Littlewood document. Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, later made some English replica versions of the Treaty, adding his own phrases here and there. Those were neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it. But one of these replica versions in English was signed by some chiefs at Waikato Heads because the genuine manuscript copy intended for signing had not arrived in time for the meeting. By the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the government has adopted this illegitimate version, signed by a mere 49 chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” English Treaty, displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!

  1. The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document.”

Wrong. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later in 1840. By the end of 1840, the Treaty was regarded as having performed its function, viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for full British citizenship for all Maoris.

It’s only become a “living document” for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more spurious rights to the tribal elite -­ including people like former Labour Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, who, since his retirement from Parliament has become the highly paid chief Treaty negotiator for the Tuwharetoa tribe for which, interestingly, if not worse, he used his ministerial position to grant a generous part of the nation’s forests under the Treelords deal a short time earlier.

  1. Colonisation was bad for Maoris.

In one bold stroke the Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of them). They were then free to take work on things like road building contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they liked.

The Treaty brought an end to tribal warfare and cannibalism, thus giving individual Maoris a right to life that they had not had before. For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing, colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and contemporary medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2012 it was 72.8 years for men and 76.5 years for women.

  1. Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote in 1867.

Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders from the very beginning. The Treaty had given them the full rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100 Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17% of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. Those Maoris with freehold land could vote in general seats until 1893. In 1893 all women, including Maori, were granted the vote.

  1. In the 1850s and 1860s Maoris paid most of the country’s taxes.

In the financial year ended June, 1859, for example, the great majority of government income (£150,471 out of £175,310) was from customs revenue. This is manifestly not from Maori as any separate entity.

  1. Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.

In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in payment. This itself is a Maori custom revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.”

  1. In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the Waikato.

This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years, usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The word “invade” suggests a hostile entry by a foreign power ­e.g. Hitler invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal jurisdiction over the whole country, it was not possible for him to “invade” any part of it. What he did was to lawfully send troops into the Waikato to suppress a rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is entitled to do. That is not an “invasion.”

  1. There’s no harm in “co-governance agreements” between Crown and part-Maori.

Wrong. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from their own narrow interests. By his co-governance agreements with Tuhoe and other favoured tribes, Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, is driving a racist, separatist sword through the nation’s sovereignty and undermining our hard-won democracy.

  1. The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.

Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand as they had no sense of a Maori nation – they were­ just separate warring-with-one-another tribes.

In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years. Aotearoa as a fanciful name for New Zealand invented only in 1890 when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country in his fictional story of Kupe. Nu Tirani appears in the Treaty of Waitangi. “Aotearoa” does not.

  1. Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.

Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible. He might be a chief – even a high chief, but a king he is not.

  1. Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand than other New Zealanders.

There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there may not even be any half-castes as a result of several generations of Maoris cross-breeding with other races. We now have a race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. So “tangata whenua” (people of the land) is therefore meaningless. The Treaty specifies 1840 Maori as tangata Maori.

Furthermore, in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance of whose canoes or boats arrived first is irrelevant.

  1. Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap.

Yes, a number of part-Maoris are not doing well; more than for other ethnic groups. But struggling citizens of all races should be helped on the basis of need, not race.

Far too much of the taxpayer-funded Treaty settlement and other race-based payouts from NZ taxpayers have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias Tipene) O’Regan.

  1. The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.

No. People are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. Those who are brought up in a good moral environment are less likely to commit crimes.

  1. Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is only a few fuddy-duddies who object.

Wrong. Some poll results:

* 79% No to special Maori seats in parliament (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)

* 82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools (yahoo Xtra poll)

* 96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori despite it being an available option in many schools (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)

* 85% No to special Maori housing (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)

81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)

* 81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff poll, 2/4/13)

* 82% No to “h” in Wanganui (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)

* 79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)

* 82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council (Taranaki Daily News, 15/5/15)

* 79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012

* 80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013

* 79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012

* 52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012

* 68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council, March, 2015

* 70% want Maori wards in local government abolished (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)

* 68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished

  1. In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.

Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing” something and selling it.

  1. Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are “racists”.

This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are either mischievous or just plain dumb. Special rights/privileges for one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should all be treated equally. To demand equality is not being “racist.” The real racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our democracy with their endless racist demands.

These false claims by the tribal elite, aided and abetted by certain academics, judges and politicians acting for their own dubious motives, are trying to overturn a way of life in which we are all New Zealanders, equal before the law and with equal representation in government.

A purpose of 1Law4All is to reinforce the values that have made New Zealand what it is and for which our servicemen have died on the battlefield, and to expose the lies and racism which – in the twenty-first century – are tearing our nation apart. The continuing transfer of what were once public assets like forests and the foreshore and seabed ­and even state houses – to small, private tribal groups and the racist institutionalisation of a privileged status for those who happen to have been born part-Maori amount to the most radical change in our recent history and the most disastrous in its long term effects.

Citizens have a responsibility to be informed and, if sufficiently concerned, to cease voting from ancient habit rather than clear thought and an intelligent assessment of what is going on. Both National and Labour have been responsible for creating the mess that we are in and they are hardly the types to get us out of it.


Click the ‘download’ button below to save a copy of these myths for your use and reference. Perhaps print a copy to have on hand, too? (Four A4 pages)
Download

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

 

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

 

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The Waitangi Tribunal’s BIG LIE

The powers of the Waitangi Tribunal were massively, unnecessarily and unpatriotically extended by the Lange/Palmer government for no other reason than to try to buy the votes of Maoris at the following election. The ensuing monster that became the toy of a series of radical Maori members of the Tribunal  – types like Ranginui Walker, “Judge”  Joe Williams and Tamati Reedy – and their liberal white lackeys is now a threat not only to our economy (the higher taxes we all have to pay to fund the never-ending and ever more expensive “Treaty settlements”) but also to our rights to formerly public areas and now even to our very sovereignty as a nation.

In November, this racist, unelected, and deeply compromised, if not corrupt, Tribunal issued Stage One of its enquiry into Ngapuhi’s (Northland tribe) Treaty claim, declaring that the chiefs did NOT cede sovereignty to the Crown when they signed the Treaty in February, 1840. This is a lie. A very deliberate lie and a self-interested lie from a Tribunal that seems to see its sole function as an advocacy group for part-Maori and to extract as much as possible off the ordinary New Zealander in terms of tax dollars, public resources (e.g. the loss of the Urewera National Park to Tuhoe) and, by its new ruling, even sovereignty itself.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a very simple document and the chiefs of Northland who signed it understood its terms very well. By Article One they “cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of the country”. These simple words were translated into Maori by Henry Williams, a Maori speaker, if not scholar, whom the Maoris trusted. (But the settlers didn’t!)

It is clear by the objections of some of the chiefs (quoted below) that they understood what they were signing – that they would henceforth be subject to a new and greater sovereignty and, as such, would no longer be allowed to act as independent chiefs, with their power depending on their own might and muskets. “What do we want of a Governor? We are not whites nor foreigners. We are the governor – we, the chiefs of this land of our ancestors.  Do not sign this paper. If you do, you will be reduced to the condition of slaves and be compelled to break stones on the roads. Your land will be taken from you and your dignity as chiefs will be destroyed,” said the Northland chief, Rewa at the time of signing. This hostility, which did not deter other chiefs from signing, shows that the cession of sovereignty was clearly understood and the speech is quoted here (as are those that follow) solely for the purpose of showing that the chiefs knew that they were signing away whatever sovereignty they possessed for a higher purpose, viz. the ending of the terrible inter-tribal fighting.

Another chief, Kemara of the Ngatikawa, said, ” If thou stayest as Governor, then perhaps Te Kemara will be judged and condemned. Yes, indeed, and more than that – even hang by the neck….Were we to be an equality, then perhaps Te Kemara will say yes.”  This chief also knew what the cession of sovereignty meant while his words clearly show that there was no “partnership” between the Crown and Maori as Key, Finlayson, The Tribunal and the Labour Party so erroneously claim, each for their own spurious and self-interested purposes. .

Yet another chief, Tareha, said, “No Governor for me – for us Native men. We, we only are the chiefs, the rulers. We will not be ruled over.. What, thou, a foreigner, up and I down! Thee high, and I Tareha, the great chief of the Ngatirehia tribes, low! No, no; never, never. ”

For the Tribunal and a few biased historians like Michael King and Claudia Orange to say a century and a half later that the poor, dumb chiefs didn’t know what they were doing is false, paternalist and racist.

Even though their culture was less advanced than that of the British, the chiefs were intelligent men in their own way and knew that, because of their endless bloody wars and tribal feuds, they could never choose a desperately needed superior sovereign among themselves and so they put themselves under British rule – a definite improvement to the rule of the musket which had hitherto prevailed.

In choosing the British, the chiefs showed their wisdom, if not their cunning, as in 1840 the British led the world in inventions, engineering, liberty, political stability and humane values, the United States at that time being nothing more than a hurriedly put together federation that was based on slavery while, from 1787 to the late nineteenth century, France teetered between dictatorship and rather bloody forms of republicanism.

“To turn around and now argue that Maori  signing the Treaty of Waitangi did not understand they were surrendering their sovereignty to an entity of even higher mana defies belief and history,” wrote Ian Wishart in his excellent book, The Great Divide. (Page 165)

The cession of sovereignty, which the Treaty enabled, is the very foundation of our rights and of our very existence as a modern, democratic nation (as opposed to the undemocratic, racist and feudal option that would ensue if the Waitangi Tribunal’s recommendation should be accepted by this feckless government). Article One of the Treaty (the cession of sovereignty) has been accepted by historians, politicians, judges and even Maori themselves for at least seven generations  and this nonsensical and false declaration by the Tribunal to the contrary should be seen for the crude, self-interested and nation-destroying fraud that it is.

Even more alarming is the refusal of the appeasing and unpatriotic National government to nip it in the bud by a declaration exposing this lie and upholding the sovereignty of our 175 year old nation.

Thousands of soldiers have died on the battlefield – in the Maori Wars and the two world wars – to uphold the sovereignty of New Zealand and, by failing to condemn this attack on our nation with the urgency and thoroughness that it deserves, John Key has shown yet again that he is seriously lacking in both patriotism and an understanding of our constitutional arrangements.

By attacking our sovereignty, our legal system and our long held rights in this deceitful manner, the Waitangi Tribunal and its ragtag bunch of members have shown that they are the enemy of every New Zealander except, of course, the tribal elite, of which so many of the Tribunal’s members are fully paid up subscribers.

At least the Germans in the two world wars and terrorists like Te Kooti were identifiable enemies whereas the members of this Tribunal are not only tolerated by our dim witted media but they are also showered with honours and high positions by governments both National and Labour. “National” and “Labour”, being two sides of the same racist coin, of course.

If the sovereignty of any other country was attacked by such a monstrous lie, there would be instant outrage. But in our heavily sedated, TV dominated society there was barely a murmur at this affront to our rights and our future.

That is the real problem and the members of the Tribunal who make these attacks on the rest of us know that, with mass-controlled thinking, an education system that is increasingly concerned with telling people what to think rather than how to think, and a government that is in permanent thrall to the tribal elite, it is not difficult for the Tribunal to disseminate its insidious lies and get away with it.

According to the Tribunal’s report, the chiefs believed that they were only giving Britain the right to govern its own settlers and to keep the peace but that Maori would continue to govern themselves. So, why didn’t they continue with their cannibalism, which meant so much to certain chiefs? And, if the Crown has not had the right to govern Maori, why are Maoris taking so much money from the Crown (taxpayer) in the form of pensions and benefits?

It is true that Treaty Minister, Christopher Whinlayson, reacted by saying that there was no question that the Crown had sovereignty in New Zealand and that the report doesn’t change that fact, but why was this potentially nation-smashing lie not knocked down immediately and permanently? Why allow the government to have time “to consider the report”?

And Whinlayson is not the best person to uphold the sovereignty of the nation as he is the biased and deeply compromised minister who undermined New Zealand’s sovereignty by forcing the nation into a “co-governance” agreement with the selfish and backward Tuhoe tribe in the Ureweras. Anything that Whinlayson says should be regarded with the utmost cynicism and one has to wonder if the reason why he said that the Crown does have sovereignty is that, to say otherwise, would be a denial of his own position as Treaty Minister and Attorney-General and so he would no longer be in a position to grant favours to his ex-client, Nga Tahu, and his other favoured tribes.

Among the more inane comments on this important  issue was that by Haami Piripi, described as a “Te Rarawa leader”, who said, “In 1840 Europeans had 5% of New Zealand’s land mass. What logic would lead you to believe Maori would cede the other 95%?” Apart from the inaccuracy of those figures (Maori own quite a lot more than 5% – more, in fact, in proportion to their numbers than other New Zealanders), the answer is that in 1840 and for a few decades thereafter New Zealand was short of a lot of things but land was not one of them. For example, there were only about 2,000 Maoris in the whole of the South Island and so it is not surprising that they sold so much of it to the government for valuable consideration so as to get the money that they needed to develop the  lands that they kept.

And, in a further dent to Mr. Piripi’s logic, the sad truth is that too many Maoris sold land for money and then drank the proceeds. By all its dodgy Treaty settlements the Waitangi Tribunal is now giving them a second bite of the cherry and in many cases they are no wiser, e.g. the purchase of expensive hospitality boxes at Hamilton’s rugby league ground out of Tainui’s Treaty settlement money so that the fat cats of that tribe can wallow in luxury while watching their favoured sport.

The current members of the Tribunal – the body that told this monstrous lie – are:
Chairperson: Wilson Isaac
Deputy Chairperson: Patrick Savage
Members: Robyn Anderson, John Baird, Angela Ballara, Tim Castle, Ronald Crosby, Miriama Evans, Aroha Harris, Richard Hill, Rawina Higgins, Sir Douglas Kidd, Hirini Moko Mead, Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison, Kihi Ngatai, Ann Parsonson, Grant Phillipson, Tamati Reedy, Tania Simpson, Monty Soutar, Paul Swain, Pou Temara, Carrie Wainwright, Keita Walker and Ranginui Walker.

Ranginui Walker, described in Twisting the Treaty as an “angry extremist” (Page 60), was formerly a member of the radical Maori activist group, Nga Tamatoa (The Young Warriors) who took inspiration from Marxist and indigenous rights groups around the world, including the gun carrying Maoist Black Panther gang.

Sir Douglas Kidd is a former National M.P. and no doubt likes the huge salary that he gets for his Tribunal membership. Tim Castle is a Wellington lawyer of European descent who is doing very nicely out of the lucrative Treaty industry. One has to wonder how he can justify being on such a mischievous and deceitful body with his membership of the law profession.

New Zealand is sliding down a slippery slope towards racism and apartheid and this lie of the Waitangi Tribunal is such a serious step on that downward path that it is incumbent on every New Zealander who cares for the future of this country to understand what it means and then tell as many people as possible of the dangers that we are facing.

Neither National nor Labour can be trusted on this issue and we have just under three years to spread the word of what is really happening to as many of our friends, relations, work colleagues, neighbours, team mates, etc, that we can. This is a war – a war for our rights, our sovereignty, our flag, our democracy – indeed for the very soul of our country. Truth must prevail over the lies of the media, of the government and of the Waitangi Tribunal. Our hard won democracy must prevail over the racism and feudalism to which the Tribunal is trying to revert us. A useful first step would be the abolition of this Tribunal which is steadily wrecking all that our ancestors and us have built in this country.

We must nail this lie as, with none of the mainstream media exposing it, it is starting to get legs. Green M.P., Catherine Delahunty, on the last day of parliament in 2014, screamed in the parliamentary chamber at the Prime Minister: “Why will not John Key accept what every high school student knows – that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840?” That shows how far the indoctrination of the young has gone.

For further reading on Article One of the Treaty see The Great Divide, by Ian Wishart (pages 164-194), and When Two Cultures Meet, Dr. John Robinson, Pages 101-7

Pahia Plaque

Pahia Plaque

David Round’s Address to the crowd at the 1Law4All AGM venue

Don’t Miss This

David Round’s address at the 1Law4All AGM venue.
Watch it here in 4 parts

Many thanks to our volunteer videographer.


Like this on facebook and share it as much as you can.
Send everyone you know a link to this page.
Let’s get the word out there!

 

Comments are now closed

1 2
%d bloggers like this: