This is the first of a series of posts designed to bust the myths created by the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry — myths shamelessly presented as truths by your government.
If you think it rude of me to expose these facts, tough. If conmen are going to tell lies about my forefathers, I’m going to tell the truth about theirs.
Much of what you see below is distilled from New Zealand in Crisis by Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation.
In the plainest English I could muster, here is the boiled-down background to the drafting and signing of the Treaty:
c.1350 — Maori meet the tangata whenua
-
Maori history tells of seven canoes arriving from Hawaiki in around 1350AD.
-
They find New Zealand already inhabited by people they call the tangata whenua.
-
Maori historian Dr Ranginui Walker confirms: “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants).”
-
These first inhabitants are either driven into extinction or merge with the tangata Maori (just as the tangata Maori have merged with the Pakeha).
-
Ranginui Walker: “The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes.”
-
Thus Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand.
-
Nor are they the tangata whenua — the first people here.
-
Indigenous means here from the start — like the aborigines who’ve been in Australia for 40,000 years.
-
Maori have been here only about 650 years – only 300 years longer than Europeans.
-
Maori have never been a united people, with a long history of inter-tribal bloodletting.
-
Ranginui Walker: “From this time on [the 14th century] , the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.
1771 — fighting with Frenchmen
-
In 1771 in the Bay of Islands, Maori kill Marion du Fresne and 24 of his party for ignoring wahi tapu when fishing.
-
In retaliation, du Fresne’s crew kill 250 Maori and torch their village.
-
Ever since, the Maori are afraid of the French.
1820-30 — Maori slaughter 20-60,000 fellow Maori
-
By 1820, the Maori v Maori Musket Wars have been raging for around 15 years. They will go on for about another 25 years.
-
There are around 500 battles in all.
-
In 1820, Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika sails to England.
-
He asks the King for muskets. The King declines, but presents him with other gifts.
-
In Sydney on the way home, he trades all the King’s gifts for 300 muskets and gunpowder.
-
He then leads his tribe on a rampage south. They slaughter 20-60,000 of their defenceless countrymen, out of a total Maori population of 100-120,000. With up to half the population wiped out, it has been called the world’s worst holocaust.
-
In one attack on the Tamaki pa, Ngapuhi kill more men, women and children than are killed in the whole 27 years of the 1845-72 Land Wars.
-
By 1830 the southern tribes have armed themselves with muskets and are planning to head north for revenge.
1831 — Waikato annihilate Taranaki, who slaughter the Moriori
-
The Waikato travel south and attack the Taranaki tribes.
-
They kill one-third and enslave another third. The remaining third flees south to the Wellington area.
1831 – Northern chiefs ask King for protection
-
In 1831, it’s rumoured that the French naval vessel La Favourite intends to annex New Zealand to France.
-
The French would have two reasons for doing this: as further payback for the killing of du Fresne and his crew; and to protect the French now living in Hokianga.
-
The natives decide to place a British flag on the mission flagstaff. They reason that if the French tear it down, the missionaries will appeal to Britain for protection.
-
Thirteen northern chiefs write to the King of England, asking him to protect them.
-
They tell the King they only trust the British: “It is only thy land which is liberal towards us”.
-
They reveal their fear of the French: “We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land”.
-
They ask the King to guard their lands from other tribes and nations: “Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land”.
-
At the time there are no property rights. To the Maori, might is right — they hold their land only as long as they can defend it.
- The King acknowledges the chiefs’ request by sending a British Resident, James Busby, to New Zealand in 1833.
1835 – Declaration of Independence
-
New Zealand-built ships are sailing to Sydney.
-
These ships are not registered, so have no flag to sail under.
-
So James Busby introduces to the northern tribes a Declaration of Independence.
-
This gives them a form of identity, and a flag under which New Zealand ships can be registered.
-
In 1835, thirty-four Ngapuhi chiefs sign the Declaration of Independence.
-
This declares their territories independent states. It states they will meet in Congress each year.
-
The annual Congress is meant to make laws to dispense justice, preserve peace and good order, and regulate trade.
-
But, as always, inter-tribal fighting takes precedence over political co-operation.
-
The Declaration is abandoned without one Congress meeting being held.
-
The Declaration can’t give full sovereignty, as the chiefs can’t form a united working government.
-
Tribes only have power over their territories as long as they can defend them.
-
No united political structure exists in New Zealand at this time.
What historians say about the Declaration of Independence
Claudia Orange:
“Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori, who saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation, would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state, there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress.
“However, it did introduce Maori to the idea of a legal relationship with Britain and therefore, five years later, to the Treaty of Waitangi”.
Michael King:
“The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand”.
King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the Declaration.
Paul Moon:
“The Declaration represented a regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance”.
1835 — Maori massacre Moriori in Chathams.
-
In 1835, 900 of the Taranaki (Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama) who flee to Wellington, want to avoid being harassed further.
-
They commandeer the brig Rodney and sail in two trips to the Chatham Islands.
-
Many are sick when they arrive, and are nursed back to health by the peace-loving Moriori.
-
When they recover, and for the next seven years, the Maori slaughter or farm the Moriori to near-extinction.
-
Historian Michael King: “They were laid out touching one another, the parent and the child. Some women had stakes thrust into them; they were left to die in misery. The rest farmed like sheep over the next few years into virtual extinction”.
1837 – Call for better government
-
In 1837, inter-tribal fighting worsens in many parts of New Zealand.
-
Busby can do little to stop it, as he has no forces.
-
The settlers, traders and 192 chiefs want more official commitment. They appeal to Britain for a better type of Government.
-
As inter-tribal fighting worsens, the Maori population plummets.
-
Musket- and goods-hungry Maori are selling vast tracts of their land to land-hungry Europeans.
-
Britain is twice asked (in 1831 and 1835), and twice promises, to protect the people and their property.
-
To bring law and order to both Maori and non-Maori, Britain is obliged to take more control.
-
To do this legally, they need to make New Zealand a British Colony.
-
To make New Zealand a colony, Britain has to get the chiefs’ consent to sovereignty over the whole land.
-
For two years, the Colonial Office debates the best way to become involved in New Zealand. The British don’t really want another colony.
-
With extreme reluctance, the Colonial Office sends out William Hobson, a highly ranked Officer in the British Navy.
-
Hobson’s job is to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs that will give Britain sovereignty over the whole land.
-
That treaty will give Britain the legal right to set up a government.
-
A government will bring law, order and protection. It may investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes.
-
The government will act for all the people of New Zealand, settler and Maori alike.
Next: the drafting and signing of the Treaty.
UPDATE: It’s taking me longer than expected to gather my evidence for Part 2. (There’s just so much of it, and I’m also contending with a family illness.)
For now, I urge you to click on the Comments thread below. It has attracted some experts in the field who have spent decades studying this subject. I’m finding their contributions enlightening.
Can you set out this Ross Baker’s qualifications, the agenda of the “One New Zealand Foundation” and the reason you accept as gospel his version and interpretation of events over those of actual historians?
It’s fairly obvious you’re running with this because your starting point for determining “reality” is consistency with your hard right ideology (ie you need a “right-wing version of truth”) – in the same way, you accept everything Monckton says despite his absence of qualifications and track history of lies.
JA: By ‘qualifications’ I presume you mean a piece of paper from a left-wing university history department. Why should readers regard that as proof of impartiality?
And did you not notice the quotes from Claudia Orange, Michael King and Paul Moon? Are they not actual historians?
If you have evidence that negates mine, please state it. Otherwise readers are liable to dismiss your comments as typical lefty diversionary tactics.
Gentlemen, start your arguments.
Is the One New Zealand Foundation’s line credible? Can its claims be independently verified? Has it omitted any important information?
One New Zealand Foundation needs to nail its colours to the mast and make a full disclosure of its agenda, just as those who cry of “right-wing truth” need to disclose their own agendas.
Let the battle for the hearts and minds of the permanent residents of this nation begin.
JA: Your failure to require left-wing academics (ie pretty much all academics) to disclose their agendas is revealing. Wouldn’t you say, readers?
The term “right wing version of truth” is John’s. A candid admission of his lack of objectivity I admit, but there you go.
JA: Having been expected to swallow the Left’s version for decades, I think it’s high time people learned of evidence that is being actively suppressed by our academics, journalists and politicians.
As someone concerned about getting to the truth, I would be delighted if we could resolve all doubts with a genuine debate, and may the most persuasive evidence win.
But when academia is clearly biased towards the Left’s Maorification agenda, I do not find the work of left-wing historians any more persuasive than right-wing ones.
To get to the truth, these things need to be battled out side-by-side and point for point. Same with climate change.
Why does the Left find the concept of a genuine debate so unpalatable?
And why is their first instinct always to provide abuse rather than evidence?
Facts are neither persuasive or non-persuasive. They are what they are. It is the arguments about the normative consequences of the facts which contain persuasion. However, that’s irrelevant as you’ve made it clear time and again that you’re not interested in facts, but spin. Your insidious disdain for science and the formal accumulation of knowledge attest to that.
JA: As Ronald Reagan once famously said: “There you go again.”
Interesting that the comments so far have nothing to do with the original post. The debate is about the debaters.
All very well to say that the spin is left or right centric, That would have relevance if the commentary so far was about the post.
It is the comments themselves, that is not centred. It is the criticism here which starts from a presumption only a liar would say anything remotely supportive of 1830s Britain, and her role in these by then unincorporated islands.
Humans really are silly at times. You give a 99 reasons for something being so. Some no-name comes along and purports to shoot down one of the 99, and that is seen as being enough to obliterate the other 98. We see what we want to see.
John, I may be wrong on this, but isn’t the letter by the 13 Northern chiefs actually archived?
JA: I don’t know, Wedge. I know the Littlewood Treaty (Hobson’s suppressed final draft) is in the National Archives or Library. But will they let us see it? I don’t know.
But as you say, why should readers automatically presume that Ross Baker would lie but a lefty historian like Jamie Belich would not?
That’s a bit rich considering which side has the well-deserved reputation for suppressing truth, breaking electoral laws and avoiding debate.
And I probably should not use left/right, since John Robinson, author of The Corruption of Democracy — A Treaty Overview is himself a lefty.
As is Chris Trotter who I think agrees with the anti-Maorification substance, but not the tone.
Oh and Judge can’t even negate one fact, yet expects his personal attacks to ring true.
On btw, the thing they call the “Founding Document”.
I have always regarded the letter from the 13 Northern chiefs as
“The Founding Document”.
Well Judge, better get with the facts and they are much as described although we could be forgiven for not thinking so.given the huge effort to rewrite our history.
Your’s is the interpretation of the facts and the spin that hives off as a natural consequence of disbelieving the facts and being not able to make the facts suit your agenda. (what ever that is.)
Google of “13 northern chiefs” produces lots of revealing results.
Such as:
http://www.waitakere.govt.nz/CnlSer/libs/research/treatyofwaitangi.asp
including link to the “letter”.
JA: I love the line from the Waitangi Tribunal website: “But these meetings [of the Maori Congress] did not come about, perhaps because the rangatira were too busy with other matters.”
Perhaps? Other matters?
The Tribunal know damn well that those other matters the tribes were too busy with were the killing, enslaving and eating of each other.
They do not see fit in their little indoctrination piece to mention the Musket Wars at all – wars that killed up to half of the Maori population.
The Waitangi Tribunal would have our children believe that pre-colonial Maori life was idyllic and harmonious, children were treasured by all, and the rule of law provided for an orderly society, which presumably the British disrupted.
No mention of the low life expectancy that the British doubled. No mention of the threat posed to the tribes by other tribes intent on utu. No mention of their fear of the French.
The Maoris’ only cause for concern in the 1830s, according to the Waitangi Tribunal, was the unruly British! Yeah right.
John, I was wondering if the Auckland Council Library and Informations Services (above link) are right-wing liars too.
JA: This would be news to Len Brown.
Back in the beginning…
JA: “This is the first of a series of posts designed to bust the myths created by the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry — myths shamelessly presented as truths by your government.”
Okay, let’s say you produce a piece of research that does just that. What happens next?
If the government is party to the grievance industry, and the opposition and the Greens are on-side with the left-leaning academic world, then it looks like you’re a bit out in the wilderness. It seems to me that New Zealand is on the whole quite happy with the status quo.
JA: True, but the status quo is that people only have one side of the story. Would they be as happy if they knew that the Brits weren’t as bad and the Maori weren’t as good as they’d been led to believe? I doubt it.
What benefits to New Zealand would “busting the grievance industry” and suppressing “Maorification” have? After all, this is what people here seem to want. If they vote National, Labour or Greens, it will be what they will get.
What’s a voter to do?
JA: Vote for a party that is not National, Labour or the Greens.
Odakyu-sen, Mita-eki here. Is that a patsy question? It looks like one.
You can’t be serious. If you are, then I hope you are not seriously pedalling that attitude to politics. We might as well all go back to having John Key appoint John Key Junior as the next King and take whatever it is that Kings want to do for and to the rest of us.
Some of us care about national prosperity for example. And in this respect NZ has a whole culture of sloth and inherited expectation of entitlement here which is dragging the country and ALL in it down through the ranks of (eg) the OECD.
No matter how you measure national prosperity, it is pretty well universal that people who themselves prosper within counties that prosper, are better off than those that don’t prosper. All ships rise on an incoming tide.
Against that backdrop, our ability (and hence my children’s’ ability) to prosper is suffering at the hands of those with their hands out, hands that are out for false reasons.
I for just one, think that solving the problem of the hands being out (among many other problems agreed) involves addressing why the hands should not be out in the first place.
Solve that fundamental problem, and many other problems will solve themselves. And as a nation, we would all be better off. Still not perfect, but better.
Besides Odakyu-sen, you seem to be suggesting that maintenance of status quo is a good reason for entrenching a lie. As a very broad principle of democracy, I happen to disagree.
(Sorry non-Japanese speakers, please indulge us),
Judge and Odakyu-sen: JA isn ‘t very shy about showing his biases, real or imaginary; it would be more helpful if you could direct us to reputable histories which show JA is misrepresenting our history, rather than just accusing him of bias.
I’ve been out of NZ for 9 years and I’m not as up-to-date as I would like. The last histories I read before leaving were two by Bellich and Orange; I intend to catch up when I return in 2012.
And I’m just a bit sceptical about the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal’s approach to our history. It was obvious from the moment it was set up that its role would be influenced by selected contemporary political pieties as well as historical injustices.
I agree Wedge. The trouble is that we are the choir and JA is the preacher.
I suspect that this “a whole culture of sloth and inherited expectation of entitlement” that you mention is the medium upon which the grievance industry thrives.
JA: I agree. I also wouldn’t want you to take my word for anything. I’m simply putting up evidence I’ve come across or been sent. It makes some sense to me or I wouldn’t have posted it.
But if it’s not accurate, I’ll gladly put it right with an apology.
Like all of you, I’m just an interested observer trying to get at the truth. My ego will be satisfied if I’ve helped a few people to explore this issue for themselves, rather than just accept the party line.
Odakyu-sen, if I confined my work that you see a glimmer of evidence of here, then I could claim to being no more than JA’s slave. However, this is but a small glimpse of my purpose in life. Also, not to steal JA’s thunder in the slightest, but it was I who in recent times on this site, raised mention of Maori repeatedly seeking the assistance of the British in the 1820s/1830s. So much to be done. So little time. We have an election to prepare for (after the rugby). And the Warriors are in 4th place, Odakyu-sen.
Hello John,
Here is one of the ‘more credible answers’. People should read more history. Particularly the journal of Rev. Henry Williams. The intertribal wars were one of if not the primary cause of suffering for maori. He gives accounts of the maori on maori brutality and those who sought his aid in the months leading up to the treaty signing. This is only from memory having read over a year ago. Will find the reference and post it as soon as I can.
JA: Thanks for anything you can provide. This tallies with John Robinson’s book too.
I recommend the several books by Paul Moon. These are a counter to the current habit of repeating sometimes ridiculous statements such as the claim of a ‘holocaust’ after 1840. The wars between Maori prior to that date are well documented, but no such loss of life occurred after the Treaty. As to this left-right categorisation, it is immensely sad to me that people calling themselves left are wanting inherited rights. I am all for equality in law.
I have read much history and indeed many books written in the early to mid 1800′s which give a very good idea of what went on in those times, and what Ross Baker has said is very true. I agree entirely with what John Ansell has posted. It might be unpalatable to those who have been indoctrinated into the much re-written history but they should do some research themselves and they will find it is fact. There is even a stone near a Church in Paihia explaining how the 13 Chiefs went to England to ask for the protection of the British under Queen Victoria. So much of our history is being suppressed by those with an agenda and another interesting site can be found by googling Celtic New Zealand in which will be found proof there were other people here before the Maori people.
When Hongi Hika started the Maori Musket wars in July 1821, the estimated Maori population was 150,000 and when our Tiriti was signed in 1840 the estimated Maori population was 50,000. This cannibalistic slaughter of their fellow man was given as a reason for the 13 Chiefs to write to King William of Britain on 16th of November 1831 and ask for his protection. Yes, the 13 chiefs did mention lawless Europeans but could you honestly think a handful of them could be compared to these frightening, Maori statistics found in the authenticated history within Dick Craig’s book “The Realms of King Tawhiao?”
Dick Craig authenticated his evidence through old newspaper reports of this actual era and I would advise purchase. This book clearly shows the British did not make the first attack on Taranaki Maoris in 1860, as we are led to believe by the Tiriti claims industry, but that Wirimu Kingi declared this war, he made his first attack on settlers in 1854, he was the first to confiscate land, settler land, he ransacked their properties and he stole their cattle.
Did the settlers retaliate? No! they retreated to a defensive position in New Plymouth and are, therefore, blameless.
The first to cross the Maungatewhiri stream was King Tawhiao’s forces, who forced their way as close as 40 miles from Auckland in the year 1860. !860 is 3 years earlier than the British retaliation, of which Tawhiao was given two warnings.his land would be confiscated if he did not stop warring. As Tawhiao’s Kingites ignored these warnings, they and they alone are responsible for reprisals made.
JA: Fascinating specifics, Rangi. Would be good to read that book. I wonder if it’s in Wellington Library?
From my understanding, the Musket wars began in 1807, when Hongi Hika was a member of a musket armed Taua (war party) which attempted to take Utu against the neighbouring Ngati Watua tribe, but were beaten grievously by traditionally armed war party with the death of Hika’s uncle and 2 brothers, leaving him the pre-eminent rangatira left alive. Hika only survived because he cowered in a swamp behind reeds and flaxes, and so was lucky to get away. This was a deep disgrace for him, so he vowed to avenge the failure. despite the failure of the musket on this battle Hika believed it was still a paradigm changing technology, and did all he could to strive to acquire more of them, include driving his own tribe to near starvation levels by selling entire crops of potatoes, and carcases of pork for musket. Hika was a wily character and took up the offer of a passage to England to meet the King, which didn’t happen. However he was entreated with many gifts, including a plate armour set. On the return journey the gifts were indeed exchanged for muskets, powder and shot. He accumulated 300 muskets and trained his warriors to fight use them as the British had demonstrated. It was a devastating combination, as the Watua found out.
Hika realised he needed to restock his war supplies, so took prisoners to farm the spuds, rather than just cannibalise all the slaves.
With the subjugation of the Watua, the next Utu targets were the tribes of the Coromandel.
Maori caught on quickly, and the remainder of the Watua took up muskets and invaded the lands further to the South, thus starting off a cascade of Murder, Enslavement, and pillage which stretched as you point out through to the South Island. Hika died in 1832, but left instructions to his descendants to listen to the Missionaries more, and so the relative pacification of Ngapuhi began. It was this pacification which enabled the Chiefs to start to contemplate their peril, and the slaughter the previous 25 years had wrought.
Te Rauparaha probably perfected the warfare with Muskets as it was under his leadership that the Taranaki tribes cut a swathe through the Kapiti, Wellington, and Northern South Island Tribes, exterminating tribes such as the Ngati Ira in Wellington, along with the near extermination of most of the previously resident Top of the South Island tribes who were migrants from North Island East Coast tribes, inter-married into the permanent populations in the South, as a means for setting up trade routes for Argilite, and later Greenstone. Te Rauparaha was Maori’s version of Mengele, or Ghengis Khan in that he took great delight in torturing the vanquished, and then eating them. There is one account in Kaiapoi, where he slit open a Pregnant woman’s belly and hauled the foetus out of her womb, then spit roasted it, and ate it.
JA: Indeed, I intend to do a post on that example of Te Rauparaha’s culinary tastes. And this is the guy that the Porirua City Council saw fit to name their indoor sports stadium after. Is there a Pol Pot Arena in Phnom Penh? I think not.
Gotta admit. Even I am disturbed by some of this stuff, not by the fact of the reporting, but by the events themselves.
That said, it disturbs me even more, that when all is said and done, Maori today are the ones suffering the consequences. But they bring it upon themselves (generalisation acknowledged).
Life is full of paradoxes, sometimes great paradoxes. And isn’t it a paradox that so many Maori see the solution to all their negative statistics in a grievance cheque. Firstly, it’s a welfare cheque never due, but that so many modern Maori have been conditioned to expect. Secondly, at best it will never be enough, and cannot ever be enough to turn the lives of half a million people into those they love to hate so much, but still want to be – wealthy.
(then there is the fact that every time they got settlements in the past, including original payments for land sold, plus repeatedly “full and finals”, it was spent either on muskets or booze. Today sadly we can add pokies. This is the real reason why ordinary Maori have never seen any filtering down of settlements to date, Maori leaders know it would have been pissed up against a wall.) Sorry, bracketed paragraph off topic.
“The Realms of King Tawhiao” by Dick Craig should still be available, probably on order from any book shop.
This book lays bare all the myths of the gravy train. Quite clearly, in Taranaki as early as 1854 Wiremu Kingi was the first to declare war, confiscate land, ransack White property, steal livestock and show intent to clear what he termed as “his land” of White people.
It wasn’t “his land,” the Waikatos drove him from it, he sold it whilst in absence to the New Zealand Company who paid three times for it and the Government bought the whole of Taranaki from the Waikatos, again in absence. This, 6 years before Govt troops retaliated in 1860.
King Tawhiao’s forces were also the ones first to declared war in 1860 and first to cross the Maungatawhiri stream three years before British forces and advance to within 40 miles of Auckland. His intent to totally wipe out all Europeans was made clear.
The truth confirms that the Kingites and those who assisted them to gain settlements of millions of dollars and other benefits should be taken to court and if the verdict goes against them they should be made to repay all they have falsely gained, plus interest and serve jail terms severe enough to ensure corruption of this nature is severely discouraged.
JA: I’ve just borrowed this book from Porirua Library, so thanks for the suggestion Rangi.
This from Ross Baker:
I am extremely pleased that our book “New Zealand in Crisis” has opened the door for debate, as this was its intention.
Members of the One New Zealand Foundation Inc have written this book based on 27 years of researching the Treaty of Waitangi and the history surrounding it.
If you feel any of the facts in this book are incorrect, please notify the One New Zealand Foundation with factual documented evidence and we will make corrections, but remember they must be factual documented evidence.
Please don’t take our word for it, prove it to yourself by studying our true history that is available at New Zealand Archives and the many books written before the Treaty became a multi million-dollar business based on false Treaty documents, distorted history, weak governments and the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal.
“New Zealand in Crisis” gives a brief history of how we all became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law until it was destroyed by the Fourth Labour Government’s unsubstantiated reforms.
In the final chapter, Sir Geoffrey Palmer who instigated these reforms explains how they can be “swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
Ross Baker,
Researcher,
One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
“One Treaty, one flag, one law”
Just as an aside. As regards the “Rangi” comments above. Rangi says they should be taken to court and made to pay it all back.
Just speaking as one person who is just as much offended as anyone else by all the fraud perpetrated over all New Zealanders, I would be happy with all that fraudulanetly acquired money being spent on three things. Those four things –
Maori primary education, Maori secondary education, and Maori tertiary education .. .. and glued-on condoms for Maori on benefits.
So I cant count!!!
Sorry, that’s racist.
.. .. glued-on condoms for anyone on benefits. That would do it.
Re Wedge,
If Treaty fraudsters were taken to court, found guilty, ill-begotten settlements returned with interest and Iwi were left to stand alongside their fellow New Zealander there would be no need for your racist suggestion. Maoris would learn to stand tall, like anyone else, and become real men. If everyone else can do it, it’s unfair to think Maoris can’t.
Racist suggestion? Moi??
But Rangi, you know and I know that neither your “taking to court” nor my “pre-glued condoms” are going to ever happen.
On the other hand, Education, Education, Education is a very realisitic option. One that is much more saleable than “end the grievance industry” will ever be for at least the next two generations. Pragmatism, my dear Rangi et all.
I’m reliably informed that there might be a spattering of genuine claims. I personally would not settle any one of them without at least a 50 percent education component, and unless there is some willingness for Maori as a whole to use existing setllements for the same. That wasy, at least my grandchildren might start to see some results, instead of Maori moving from being the bottom fifth of the statistics, to the bottom half of the same statistics. If you get my drift.
‘Cos for all the Maori complaining, they have left education well to the rear of their endowment priorities. And doesn’t it show?!?..
Rangi, I want to give just a little more air to what I started above, i.e. your “taking Maori to Court for fraud” proposal, alongside my “glued-on condoms” waffle. You see, yours will never happen. So forget it.
But one day, mine will. It will happen. It has to happen, And there are massive votes to be had in making it happen to any party with the guts to tackle it.
The solution isn’t in the condom itself though. (if you will pardon that entirely accidental double entendre). The solution is in the means of incentivising the condom.
We simply have to stop incentivising the growth of families already on a benefit. We have to do it. No more pay rises for more babies, It’s a hard call, but it has to be done. Stop the pay rises, and the condom consumption will rise (oogh).
(WFF aside) no-one else gets pay rises for making babies. Why should the least equipped in our society, be the only ones rewarded (read incentivised) for doing so. For giving birth to little future statistics.
Something has to change. We have the means of making sure the babies don’t starve, so let’s have the courage to close the statistics factories.
Hi Wedge,
There would be no need for your suggestion if Maori were allowed to stand on their own two feet and become.men.
Take note of Ross Bakers book, “New Zealand in Crisis,” and if everything in there’s true there is a darned good reason for the corrupt to fall. Sooner rather than later the cookies going to crumble after running wild for 36 years (1975 T.o.W. Act).
All those corrupt powers in Africa that suppressed, tortured and killed the populace in an effort to retain power have, or are, coming to an end. Nothing is permanent, nothing.
Rangi. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news, but I seem to remember I joined One New Zealand about 20 years ago, for about 5 minutes which was about 5 minutes too long.
You can wait around for the month of Sundays in which Maori are suddenly going to revert to being men, but I have no such plan. Nor will I be waiting for whatever the “cookie to crumble” might mean.
I don’t think it will do any good nicely asking Maori men to change.
Rangi, feel free to try it, I live in Northland, so there is plenty of opportunity here. Tell you what. I’ll buy lunch at the Kaikohe eatery of your choice.
Then after lunch you can walk up to the first Maori man who walks past the Kaikohe NZ Post Office, and tell him to stand on his two feet and become a real man. I suspect the result could be life-changing .. .. But not for him.
So what exactly is your plan? I’m prepared to listen. But please let it be a plan of action, not of emply platitudes.
And Rangi, I guess there is a much simpler reason I’m unmoved by your “Bible”. No-one in their right mind but with a point to be made gives a book the Chicken Little title of “New Zealand in crisis”.
For someone like me who likes to think he has at least half a brain, that title totally repels me, in a country which clearly isn’t in crisis. So if I can’t even get past the title, I’m hardly going to be rushing to buy the book. Yes, there is an issue here. But it is totally repugnant to me to hear someone exaggerating it to the status of anything like my nation being in crisis. It is a problem worth addressing as a priority, and that’s all.
As always, feel free to tell me why I might be wrong..
Wedge, as you have agreed there is a problem and to try and fix it would mean getting your head smashed in, then I think we are in crisis.
Hi Wedge,
If you were the thinker you “think” you are, you would realise the crisis in N.Z. was never made by the good, innocent Maoris you work beside or pass in the street.
We are in crisis due to corrupt politicians, Maoris have little to do with it.
It is the Politicians who lied and said, “We have more than one Treaty!”
It is the politicians who lied and said, “The English version gives Maoris forestry and fishing rights!” Hobson only authorised one Tiriti, Maori,
Fact, the Maori Tiriti does not contain any exclusive Maori rights!
Hugh Kawheru wrote his own treaty and a Government department, Appeal Court, accepted this false document to rule that it declared a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown,” thereby, severing all other NZers Tiriti rights.
Kawheru’s false treaty also changed the meaning of the word “taonga” to “treasures,” an impossible feat if one used an 1840s Maori dictionary, but, thereafter, this gave Maoris employment rights, health, education and a whole stack of stuff impossible to be gained from our one and only Maori Tiriti.
Due to Government handing over our countries wealth to Maori Charitable Trusts, Maoris are now $37billion asset base and Government are $9billion in the red. Does this vast Maori wealth filter down to our Maori brothers walking along the street? Not all that much thank you.
Worse, Charitable Trusts are tax exempt. This means that all the hard work Maoris and Europeans put into generating these assets has all gone up in smoke.
You claim though Government is borrowing $380 million a week while Maori have $39 billion in assets, and we are not in Crisis! The Government couldn’t even invest in the fibro cable from Auckland to Whangarei and want to sell all our power and water assets to Maori and we’re not in crisis! Think about it!
Don’t want any cranks tearing me to bits here, so if you want a reply you must quote from te Tiriti text anything you consider gives Exclusive right to Maoris
JA: I endorse Rangi’s request for rational replies. I am used to abuse, but my commenters should not have to put up with it.
Let the debate continue!
(Mind you, I don’t think Wedge and Rangi are very far apart in their views, and the real cranks seem to have been scared off by the relentless hail of facts. Keep ‘em coming.)
There is only one Treaty – the Maori version. If anyone wants to know what it says, they just have to read the Littlewood version which mirrors it exactly. The English version the Government uses is an earlier draft and omits the words ‘and all New Zealanders’ but these words are in both the Maori and Littlewood versions. Politicians from successive Governments are totally corrupt to have even started the enormous fraud that is going on against the people of this country but to continue along the line they are taking is, I personally believe, treasonable. They should be prosecuted and go to jail at the very least as they have absolutely no mandate from the people. It’s beyond belief that the people haven’t cottoned onto what is going on and started marching in the streets. If they don’t wake up soon it will be too late as most of our country will have been given away to one racial group. Our history has been vastly re-invented and crucial parts have been deleted. The Government has to be stopped.
Hi Helen,
At last, someone who is not afraid to toe the line and stand up to the corruption which is suffocating our nation.
To all you wimps out there, I take it Helen is the name of a woman whose skirt you hide behind.
C’mon, waken up, or the corrupt, sovereignty hammer will fall after the next election.
Helen, Government first abolished hanging for treason and then abolished the act of treason itself. Hense, all the Urawera (can’t call them terrorists) can be charged with is “arms offences.”
Readers, does this tell you something? Are Members of Parliament afraid of being caught out?
Governments challenged http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz and failed. Can Governments challenge the fact our Tiriti holds no exclusive Maori rights and lose, without knowing their exclusive Maori rights policies are, indeed, fraudulent and corrupt?
“Wedge, as you have agreed there is a problem and to try and fix it would mean getting your head smashed in, then I think we are in crisis.”
God I hate it when my words get mangled and something completely outside what I have said, gets thrown back at me.
Please desist from mangling my words. I said nothing like your attribution. Nothing like it. God I hate it when people put crap words into my mouth.
“You claim though Government is borrowing $380 million a week while Maori have $39 billion in assets, and we are not in Crisis”
And please stop calling more than one Maori, “Maoris”. It’s regarded as disrespectful. Some would regard it as racist.
Rangi said: “At last, someone who is not afraid to toe the line and stand up to the corruption which is suffocating our nation.”
I happen to not think that saying our nation is being “suffocated” in the context of this column, is an enourmous exaggeration and unhelpful hyperbole.
(Rangi, please take note that the real reason for this comment is to demonstrate using a practical example, how to disagree with someone’s actual words. Please desist from mangling mine or anyone else’s words. It is as unhelpful as it is irritating.)
Webster’s New World Dictionary (okay, it is the 1986 edition) lists the plural of Maori as -ris or -ri. So I geuss either will do. My arguement is that “Maoris” (pl) is English; whereas “Maori” (pl) is correct te reo.
(I apologise for moving off-topic.)
In principle, I want to communicate clearly. In English it is important to distinguish between singular and plural, so why not stick the “s” on the end for clarity.
I don’t like forcing a langauge to “correctly” pronounce foreign words. Once a language borrows words from another and makes them its own, it should be allowed to pronounce them as it sees fit. Why is Taupo now pronounced “Taw-po” on the TV? What is wrong with the English “Tow-po”? After all “Taupo” is now an English word.
When speaking Japanese I’ll be damned if I’ll drop out of the Japanese vowel and consonant set mid-passage to bring the English pronounciation into play to refer to a person’s name or other proper noun. It just isn’t natural. Why should English have to do it for te reo?
That’s “Tow” as in “Cow.” (I hate the English script as it’s not phonetic…)
Odakyu-sen,
Thank you, you are correct.
If I wrote in Maori I would use Maori as plural.
Wedge,
There would not one person in New Zealand who could make even the slightest attempt at speaking Maori.
Fact. Hongi Hika, Rev. Kendall and some other Maori chief obliterated the Maori language when all three consulted with a prof. Lee at Cambridge university, UK.. What they did was throw out a number of consonants, replace them with vowels and add a vowel ending, completely obliterating the original spoken language.
There must have been a strong reason to obliterate a language and the only reason I can think of is political. What it leaves me wondering is, “What was there to hide?” Could the original language be traced to another country such as Maori culture can, Britain.
The Maori they returned to New Zealand with has also undergone such drastic change that Hongi Hika would have no idea what was being said on Te Karere and we do know that a number of these changes have been made for political advantage to Maoris.
In our Tiriti “taonga” was translated from the English “possession,” When Hugh Kawheru back translated “taonga” within his false treaty he back translated this to “treasures,” the Appeal Court accepted his unauthorised and false treaty as being the “real deal” and this is how Maori have exclusive rights in language (snigger), health, education, employment and etc..
Another false treaty translation is the word rangatiratanga, translated from the word “possession.” This has since been back translated to mean “Maori sovereignty.”
http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz rose to the challenge of the new back translations above and the Government of the day was unable to prove otherwise, Can Government lose this battle and claim ignorance?
Am I racist for bracketing “snigger,” or is Governments racist for losing its battle against the Tiriti web site above but not changing its view?
Gee John, quite a crowd of ummm eccentrics you’ve accumulated in your relentless pursuit of outsider “facts”. We need some young-earth creationists. Are there any creationists in the house? How about moon-landing conspiracy theorists?
JA: How about a fact or two from you, Judge?
John Ansell. If this is what the topic of “Maoris asks Britain for protection of Maoris” attracts, then I’m convinced. It is no longer a cause I wish to pursue. At least here.
I thought I was on the lunatic fringe, but I’m not even lukewarm.
Now I’m being told that (the American) Websters Dictionary is a better authority than I am, on the NZ English that I use every day, FFS. I would no sooner use the (non)word “Maoris”, than I would call a similar number of “nihonjin”, “Japs” or “Nips”.
John Ansell, your heading of this topic contained an implied warning. No wonder.
You emailed me to solicit my support in the comments section. And now a little army (of 2) is going off halfcocked about why it is preferable to deliberately insult Maori by calling them “Maoris”. And then John Ansell, you publicly accuse me of abusing others where I have not.
John, I should have heeded your initial warning.
Enjoy your discussion of Maoris. I’m taking my ball and playing elsewhere. Don’t forget it’s Maoris in the next DomPost ad that gets rejected. “Sick and Tired of Maoris .. (fill in the blank).. ”
This is rank stupidity, part in which I will no longer play.
JA: Wedge, I’ve done my best to explain my position to you. I did not publicly accuse you of anything. I told you this in a private email, but you don’t seem to have taken me at my word. I don’t know what more I can do.
Within reason, people are free to say what they like on this blog. I’d rather they didn’t accuse people of stupidity and the like, but if they want to, that’s their choice.
You chose, for example, to strongly criticise the name of Ross Baker’s book. I don’t suppose that went down too well with everyone, but it’s OK by me, just as it’s OK for Ross to defend his name.
You’ve chosen to criticise the plural ‘Maoris’. Again, you’re welcome to do that, just as those who argue that ‘Maoris’ is an acceptable English form are welcome to argue that.
To me, it’s been quite a useful discussion so far. I hope you’ll stick around.
“You emailed me to solicit my support in the comments section.”
Oh dear John, you’ve been sprung. And here I was thinking this outpouring of novel “facts” was genuinely spontaneous, when it was in fact an orchestrated litany of crazy.
JA: Good to hear you’re thinking, Judge. Hopefully it won’t be long before you’re contributing some facts of your own. (And feel free to solicit as much support for them as you like.)
Judge Holden,
Great to have an academic on site, of the profession who make most from the corruption of our Tiriti.
You accuse me of being eccentric without giving me a reason why, you are what I would call eccentric.
However, I’ll give you an out. Please quote to me from our proven to be one and only Tiriti text anything, anything at all which gives a privilege to Maoris that others cannot claim? Please supply this in English, so all readers can understand and participate
Where are all the bold politicians who pontificate all Maori privileges within the protection of Parliament. C’mon, show me your metal?
Here’s a fact John; This is a typical outsider fact (and absolutely hilarious):
“Fact. Hongi Hika, Rev. Kendall and some other Maori chief obliterated the Maori language when all three consulted with a prof. Lee at Cambridge university, UK.. What they did was throw out a number of consonants, replace them with vowels and add a vowel ending, completely obliterating the original spoken language.
There must have been a strong reason to obliterate a language and the only reason I can think of is political. What it leaves me wondering is, “What was there to hide?” Could the original language be traced to another country such as Maori culture can, Britain.”
JA: Glad you find it amusing to copy and paste someone else’s comment, Judge. Do you have anything else to say, or do you think your sniggering is persuasion enough?
The Treaty was in fact written in English first and then translated into Maori. So it is quite beyond me how when you back-translate it (or whatever you call it) it doesn’t again translate into the original English version. Another reason why the Treaty should have long been consigned to history is that today many Maori words have quite different meanings to what they were in 1840. The Treaty was only ever meant to be a simple document bringing the Maori people under the Crown to be treated as New Zealanders. It should be like the Magna Carta and put where it has long belonged – into history!!
We should dispense with the word ‘Maori’ because there aren’t any Maori left – only people of mixed ancestry. It’s long overdue for everyone to be called New Zealanders and then they can have their descendancy/ancestry referred to if they must. Until they come on board as New Zealanders they will never feel they belong. It’s the only way forward. I’m convinced the tribal system and attitudes are what’s holding the negative performers back.
That’s the first I’ve ever heard of Hone Hika and Rev Kendall consulting with Professor Lee re the Maori language, and obliterating it. In the masses of information I’ve ever read, the Maori language was written down by the missionaries as they heard it spoken. That’s why I will never pronounce ‘wh’ as ‘f’ because I firmly believe that if it was spoken as ‘f’ it would have been written as ‘f’!!
However apparently there was a variation in the spoken language with the various tribes so I would imagine the language originated mainly from the north of the North Island where most of the missionaries were in the very early days. I certainly don’t believe the language was re-invented for any ulterior reason. If anything, something might have been done to match up the various dialects. The missionaries would have been focussed on getting the language written down as close to how it was actually spoken. I would be glad to hear from anyone who knows the real facts on how the Maori language was written down.
JA: Careful, you’re mixing up Hongi Hika and Hone Heke, Helen. All those H’s! Even more confusable are Hone Heke and Hone Harawira – not a lot of evolving seems to have gone on there.
You’re right about the ‘Wh’s. I’ve been reading the diary of Henry Williams. He refers to Kerikeri as ‘Kedi Kedi’, obviously taking pains to correctly transcribe the Maori rolled ‘r’.
In the same document, he also refers to Wangaroa, which today is spelt Whangaroa and pronounced Fangaroa. His pernickettiness over Kedi Kedi suggests to me that Wangaroa must have been pronounced as spelt.
I thought this unaspirated ‘w’ was a peculiarity of more southern regions like Whanganui, but perhaps not.
If you look at the spelling of the words in te Tiriti, you will notice that there isn’t even a word whenua to mispronounce. It is spelt Wenua. The Wh- sound is just that, a wh as in Wh-istle. Maori had not form of writing apart from their carvings and tapestry, so the only people who had the skills to attribute the phonetics of Maori to a written language were the Missionaries.
The F sound came in after a visit to the Fijian Islands by members of the Waikato tribes, who to the disdain of many other tribes are forcing their dialect with its foreign F onto other Iwi.
Other examples of Maori dialects can be seen with the Ngai Tahu actually referring to themselves as the Kai Tahu ( te Rauparaha certainly took that name literally).
Powhiri in Ngapuhi is pohiri on the east coast.
While this novel and selective retelling of history and general discussion of linguistics is moderately interesting can someone explain how you’re going to get from here to your pre-determined conclusion that the treaty should be trashed and iwi’s rights under it extinguished?
JA: This is Part 1 of a series of posts, Judge.
Even the author of the book from which I’ve taken most of the info has invited corrections, if anyone can negate his findings.
No one has done so, so I presume I’m on solid ground.
The reason I called this book, “New Zealand in Crisis”. In 1831, thirteen northern chiefs realised their country was completely out of control and wrote to the King of England asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from themselves but also from the French that wanted to annex New Zealand to France. Britain sent a Resident in 1833 that encouraged the chiefs in 1835 to sign a Declaration of Independence to recognise their state and to form a government, but with the continuing intertribal tension and fighting, congress never met, the Declaration was never ratified and was abandoned.
In 1839, Britain reluctantly agreed and the chiefs accepted that New Zealand would have to become a British Colony to bring law and order to “all the people of New Zealand”. The Tiriti o Waitangi was signed during 1840 and “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed, were given the same rights as the people of England (Article 3). As each chief signed the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”
After a couple of decades or so to bring the few rebel tribes into line with the rest of the county, New Zealand was developed into one of the most beautiful and prosperous countries in the world to live, work and raise a family. Law and order had been established under one flag and one law, the first time ever for Maori. Intermarriage between the races continued until the distinct race of people that signed the Treaty of Waitangi with the British no longer existed. Virtually everything in New Zealand today, except for the land was brought here by people willing to share it with all as one people. In 1933 Britain believed we were mature enough to grant us the Statute of Westminster giving New Zealand complete control in foreign as well as domestic affairs. Between 1933 and 1947 Britain settled claims where Maori believed they had been unfairly treated since 1840. In 1947 we adopted the Statute of Westminster and became “all New Zealand Citizens under one flag, one law – A united Nation was born.
In 1975 the Treaty of Waitangi Act created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal giving one small group of New Zealand citizens that could claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry advantages and privileges over those that could not by using false Treaty documents and distorting our history. At first the Waitangi Tribunal could only hear claims, if any that occurred after 1975. In 1988 the Fourth Labour Government was allowed to destroy all this by creating the “Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” and a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”, which completely wrote the majority of New Zealanders out of the Treaty as well as allowing the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims dating back to 1840, claims, which in most cases had already been heard in the 1940’s with “full and final settlements”. New Zealand was now a divided country, a country of them and us. This was never the intention of the Tiriti o Waitangi or our ancestors that signed it in 1840 with a handshake and the words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.
A few years after the Hon Geoffrey Palmer and the Hon David Lange as Prime Ministers and Attorney Generals had made these unsubstantiated reforms, I believe they realised they had made a terrible mistake and quit politics at the height of their political careers. In the final two sentences of the Introduction to the Hon Sir Geoffrey Palmer’s book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis”, he states, “For the situation we are in, I blame neither my former opponents nor my friends. It is a book written with sorrow, although with conviction that things can change”….. “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
We must now take his advice and petition our politicians to sweep away the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other apartheid statutes before our country is once again, completely out of control, a divided Nation, a country in crisis.
Ross Baker,
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
OK Ross, NZ was a monocultural kiwi paradise from 1840 until 1975 when apartheid started. Got that cheers. So that was what the Springbok tour protests were all about.
Now Maori overlords who don’t even exist rule us with an iron fist. This is reflected in the appalling social indicators of the pakeha underclass.
Also very interested to learn the fact that Palmer and Lange left politics, not as a result of the failure to rein in the right wing nuttery that had colonised the Labour Party, but because they realised their efforts to provide justice for Maori had created hell on earth. Yo don’t need to provide citations demonstrating this. It’s a fact because John likes it.
JA: I don’t like your comments, Judge, but you’re still here.
Ross has provided a damn sight more evidence on this thread than you have. We’re still waiting for your first fact. Your entire repertoire seems to consist of sarcasm.
I would also like to know, given that Maori have built a $37 billion economy, why their leaders have not done more to improve the lot of their underclass.
(Since I wrote that, I watched John Tamihere on Close Up, and he was making some strong noises about Maori needing to take more responsibility for improving their performance. His efforts at the Waipareira Trust sound positive – including a success story from Macsyna King’s sister.)
That said, I’d also need more convincing that Lange and Palmer left for the reason Ross states.
As I remember it, Lange lost the support of his caucus when they voted to bring back Douglas. And Palmer lost the leadership to Moore.
Lange lingered in Parliament for quite a while after 1990, as I recall.
Palmer was probably keen to get out for a variety of reasons. Regrets over his role in the Treaty industry – not to mention his disastrous RMA – may well have been among them.
“We’re still waiting for your first fact.”
How about New Zealand does not operate under apartheid, it is not divided by race or in any sort of Treaty induced crisis, Palmer and Lange did not resign over their government’s treaty policy, New Zealand had serious issues with the way it treated Maori from 1840-1975, the Crown did not honour its obligations under the Treaty of Waitangi and is required to make redress, the claim that there are not any Maori left is false, the Maori language was not obliterated by Hongi Hika, Rev. Kendall and some other Maori chief, Monckton has no scientific qualifications or Nobel Prize and is not a member of the House of Lords, and surreptitiously e-mailing people to solicit support for your views in the comments section of a blog without declaring it is dishonest and a little bit slimey.
JA: It’s my blog, Judge, and I see nothing wrong with inviting people who know more about this issue than me to share their knowledge. It’s not like the Labour Party rigging an online poll. I’m not trying to deceive anyone – just stimulate discussion.
Your mind may be closed to new info, but my growing visitor numbers suggest that others seem happy to have a chance to read the other side of the story.
To Judge Holden, 24-08-11
Act is the only Party promising to support “One Law for All” and mean it, If you don’t want a transfer of sovereignty after the next election Act is your only chance of stopping it. Remember, it’s your Party vote that counts
JA: Rangi, you’re barking up the wrong tree. I think Judge would be quite happy with a People’s Republic of Aotearoa, together with Green policies to complete the journey back to the Stone Age.
From R Fitzroy 1839
The term Rangatira, Rangateeda, or Rangatida, has spread among all classes, excepting only the slaves, who are prisoners taken in war or their descendants. Every free Zealander now styles himself rangatira.
This comes up at least three times in early accounts that i know of
H Williams makes a similar comment
Changes the meaning of te treaty a bit
Hi Helen,
Our Tiriti was superseded by the “Statute of Westminster” in 1947, after which we all continued to be one people under one flag regardless of race, colour or creed, just as our Tiriti intended.
Our people became divided by following Acts of Parliament of which the intention was stated by P.M. Helen Clark, “To Bring us Closer Together.”
To Judge Holden, 24-08-11.
Our Tiriti has already been superseded by the Statute of Westminster 1947, after which Maoris continued to have the same rights as any other NZer. Why not!!!!!!!!!
My article was to show why I chose “New Zealand in Crisis” for its title. The evidence will be revealed as J A continues to review it.
Ross Baker.
Researcher, One New Zealand Foundation Inc.
[...] David Round (Time to Say “No!”). NZCPR Update: John Ansell has an absolutely “must read” post on the subject. This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← you [...]
You have absolutely GOT to go to http://www.enzb.auckland.ac.nz and go to ’1863 – Maning, Frederick. Old New Zealand’ on the list, and read Chapter V of this man’s documentary of his experience buying land from the Maori of the time, and then READ WHAT THE LAND COMMISSIONER DID!
This chap Frederick has been a very entertaining writer. It has been a very amusing and interesting read I must say.
Most Europeans that purchased land from the Maori before the Treaty of Waitangi had a very difficult and expensive time in proving their purchase after the Treaty was signed. Many, such as Wentworth who purchased a large portion of the South Island just walked away. Even those that could afford to prove their purchase had it reduced to 2560 acres, the rest being retained by the Crown or returned to its original Maori owners. The New Zealand Company that bought the whole of Taranaki from the few remaining after the Waikato drove them from their lands had this drastically reduced.
Even today, it’s debatable who actually owned Taranaki, the Taranaki that remained on their lands, the Waikato who drove Taranaki off their lands, the New Zealand Company or the Crown that paid off the Waikato before the Wesleyan missionary led the Taranaki slaves back to their home lands. An interesting debate.
I am sure if the Waitangi Tribunal were open to all, there would be many claims from Europeans that had land unjustly taken by the Crown.
I totally agree with Ross. There were many injustices done to European land owners who literally jumped through hoops trying to purchase from the natives, paying many times over, only to have it taken back again later by the New Zealand Company. It is very interesting to read Frederick Maning’s books. I did so a long time ago to get a feel for our history when all of this fraudulent nonsense first started and our history was being re-written. Yes, there are definitely injustices relating to the colonists.
In answer to Ross of Aug the 27th @ 5.38am
When E.J. Wakeling of the N.Z. Co. found Taranakis offshore, on the Sugar Loaf mountains, New Plymouth, too afraid to grow crops on the mainland in case returning Waikato noticed their presence. “Adventure in New Zealand,” by E.J. Wakefield, Volume 1, page 167. “I clambered up the sides of Moturoa island and found Dick Barret and family, Barret’s black cook Lee, E. Rangi and children and six or seven natives of both sexes.
Now Europeans are being blamed for causing a holocaust in Taranaki? A bit thick, what?
“Adventure in New Zealand” by EJ Wakefield, volume 2, chapter xv, page 374, Te Rauperaha said, “Manawatu was fairly sold; so was Wanganui; so was Taranaki; the White people might go there.” To those who would like to argue here, Te Rauperaha had a lot to lose by his statement.
In the book, “The History of Taranaki”, published in 1878 by B. Wells, a letter from warrior chief Ihaia Kinkumara, written in conjunction with his friend Tamati Tiraura, is addressed to the settlers in New Plymouth. In this letter, the chiefs mention three of the earlier purchases of Taranaki.
“Friends, formerly we, the Maoris, lived alone in New Zealand; we did wrong one to another, we ate one another, we exterminated one another. Some had deserted the land, some were enslaved and the remnants that were spared went to seek other lands.
Now this was the arrangement of this Ngatiawa land. Mohau was the boundary on the north. Ngamotu on the south; beyond was Taranaki and Ngatiruanui. All was quiet, deserted; the land, the sea, the streams, the lakes, the forest, the rocks were deserted; the food, the property, the work was deserted; the dead and sick were deserted; the landmarks were deserted.
Then came the Pakeha hither by sea from other dwellings, they came to this land and the Maori allowed them – they came by chance to this place – they came to a place whose inhabitants had left it. There were few men here – the men were remnant, a handful returned from slavery. And pakeha asked, where are the men of this place? And they answered they have been driven away by war, we few have come back from another land. And the Pakeha said, are you willing to sell us this land, And they replied, we are willing to sell it so that it will not remain barren, presently our enemies will come, and our places will be taken from us again.
So payment was made, it was not said, let the place be taken, although the men were few, the Pakeha did not say, let it be taken, but the land was quietly paid for.
Now the Pakeha thoroughly occupied the purchases made with their money, and the Maoris living in the land of bondage, and those who had fled heard that the land had been occupied and they said, Ah! Ah! Ah! The land has revived, let us return to the land. So they returned. Their return was in a friendly manner. Their thought of the Pakeha was, let us dwell together, let us work together.
The Maoris began to dispute with the Pakeha. When the Governor saw this, he removed the Pakeha to one spot to dwell. Afterwards the Pakeha made a second payment for the land, and afterwards a third, and then I said Ah! Ah! Very good indeed is the goodness of the Pakeha, he has not said that the payment ceases at the first time.
My friends the Pakeha, wholly through you, this land and the men of this land have become independent, do not say that I have seem this your goodness today for the first time, I knew it formally, at the coming here of governor Grey, I was urgent that the land may be surrendered and paid for by him, that we may live here together, we the Maori and the Pakeha. And my urgency did not end there but through the days of Governor Grey”
From Internet “Google”.
You can argue history all you like , and not get anywhere….it is the future that concerns me. Maori do have some legitimate claims and they need to be addressed …..however if that is to be done by dividing up this country , its resources …..and even the rights of its people….on the basis of race , colour or tribe……then you are , by any definition on the planet , practicing racism. If that is not already illegal ….it will , one day , be….and all of the decisions that are being made on that basis now , will have to be overturned. If the treaty decrees that racism must be practiced in order to honour it….then it must be an illegal document ….and destroyed.
We need an enlightened government with the strength and forsight to lead us into the future as one nation , one people , with one rule , one right and one law for all.Until then we have no future ….exept as a bunch of primitives squabbling over a bit of dirt.
Dave’s last paragraph says it all for me!! Surely as we have all lived side by side for over 170 years, it is time to put the Treaty in the same place as the Magna Carta – history. We need to move on as one and stop all this divisive racist nonsense. Most people who identify as ‘Maori’ are more ‘other’ than ‘Maori’ with intermarriage over time. The numbers of ‘Maori’ won’t increase but will decrease with this dilution – surely. Ideally we should stop referring to people as ‘Maori’ as we don’t refer to others by their ethnic preference. We are all New Zealanders – and then of such and such descent, if we must.
Is Judge Holden really a Judge? I would hate to come up against him on the wrong side of the Court system. What a closed mind he has. It certainly seems he would be quite happy for us all to revert back to the Stone Age indeed.
By all means , lets keep our different cultures alive…they are what makes us all Kiwis, after all in another 170 -200 years almost all Kiwis will have some Maori blood in them….then , to distinguish Maori from non Maori we will have to quantify the amount of Maori blood a person has in them….and as time goes by that amount will have to be changed and modified until it is almost impossible to do so and the seabed and forshore….and all the other issues will be meaningless. Like it or not ….we will , eventually be one people…why bicker about it for so long , and drag this country and its people through so much divisive suffering ,when we can make it so….now?
Excellent comments by Dave, but remember it’s the distorted interpretations at fault, not the Treaty.
Dave,
Like you, everyone continues to say “Maoris do have some legitimate claims and they need to be addressed.”
Maoris declared and started war in Taranaki in 1854, 6 years before Government troops interveined. Maoris were the first to kill, confiscate land, destroy property and steal cattle. Europeans retreated to New Plymouth and did not interfere.
In 1860, rebel King Tawhiao was the first to declare war on the Government, first to cross the Maugatawhiri stream, first to confiscate land, plunder and kill. In this year he even advanced as close as 40 miles of Auckland, After being warned twice his land would be confiscated unless he honoured our Tiriti of Waitangi, he ingnored the warnings and land was taken to cover the cost of the war he started.
Now we come to a huge question, “What compensation has he, or Government, ever offered to the White victims he promised to drive into the sea had he won his conflict?”
I’ve never heard a squeak. How about you?
Dave and Helen – I agree with you both 100%! You have both nailed it down so beautifully! You get a gold sticker from me at least
Oh damn! I just posted a gold sticker to Dave and Helen and then I see Rangi had a new post . . . AW BOY!! This Rangi stirs a Celtic warring mama in me! (ROFL)
Sorry Rangi, I know it may look like I am making a mockery of your comment post but I can assure you I am not, you raised a point that I can totally appreciate.
I think I need to make a confession to all. I’m one of those people who are inconsistent with my views and feelings when it comes to the Treaty issue.
I can go, from what I believe, is central and fair in my thinking because we are two cultures of people who have to live with each other in one country and therefore it is important to take into consideration the past events. How our forefathers occupation of land and religious beliefs impacted on the tribes and their culture over their generations, and that it is important to not let our passions get ahead of our sense blah blah blah.
Then at a flick of a coin I can get all fired up when I think about the bias and divisive policies and consider the implications it imposes on non-iwi of this country. I think to myself ‘why the hell are we still carrying this ball and chain?’, ‘its like we are being held to ransom’, ‘what future is in store for my kids?’
All in all, Im actually not angry with the general maori population. Im angry with the policies and the people who are making them. It is them and their radical assembly who are pushing the treaty and in turn creating the division between us.
How we handle these issues at this point in time will determine how our children and grand children, european and maori will handle each other in the future . . . yeah, I think that is important.
(Rangi, just a point of interest, I learnt recently through my sister, who is doing our family tree that we had a 17 year old male cousin killed in the Taranaki wars. We found his grave site at the old New Plymouth cemetary)
Thanks, Trina. I’m a little like you too but overall I really feel that the Treaty should be put behind us, once and for all. There should definitely be no more compensation. Goodness me, many are now onto their third and fourth ‘FINAL’ settlements. Doesn’t final mean final??!! What Rangi has said and what most of us know to be true actually reinforces my views. The Treaty must be consigned to history – now. I’m sure if the ones who cobbled this simple little document together to bring the Maori people under the Crown to be treated as one with the rest, saw how it has been magnified, reinterpreted and re-written, they would turn in their graves. In their wildest dreams they could never have imagined the importance it would gain at the will of corrupt politicians and radical Maori. One really has to wonder at the intelligence of those who have brought it to its new heights. They are either bad or mad to put it mildly!!
Hi Helen,
There’s nothing wrong with our Tiriti and to prove it I’ve posted Article two under for all to see. This is the Article through which Maoris have gained all their false advantage over others, have a good read and count how many exclusive Maori privileges you see?
It is through the first sentence of this article Government has confiscated from “all the people of New Zealand (Article 2)” and gifted to Maoris fish, forests, mountains, rivers, land, air and lakes. Our seabed and foreshore has also been confiscated and only Maori have the right to apply for ownership. Article 2 is also the article which is recognised as pertaining to Maori “treasures” only and this is why many White people were ejected from the workplace and replaced, mainly, by Maoris who were given first right to employment, health, education and whatever else.
Have a good read and see if you need our Tiriti, or not!
Article second
“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.
But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such land as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as shall be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.” END
As the law stands, our Tiriti was replaced by the Statute of Westminster in 1947 and was buried in this year when NZ became an independent state. Almost all Tiriti disputes were “Fully and Finaly Settled” before the hand over, in particular the big ones such as Ngai Tahu, Taranaki and Tainui. As the latter started the “Maori Rebel Wars for sovereignty” (I guess that is what throwing the Government and White settlers into the sea meant) in Taranaki in 1854 and Waikato 1860, I can’t for the life of me see why anyone owes the rebels anything. Work that one out, if you can!
Hitler said, “The bigger the lie the more apt are the masses to believe it, If it’s repeated often enough.”
Among other things, the word “partnership” is used at every conceivable opportunity, even though no one can quote it from our Tiriti, because the Government believes I’m stupid enough to believe it.
What about the rest of our readers, are you stupid enough to believe it?
You are absolutely right, Rangi. However, the Treaty they are now using isn’t the original one. It is a re-invented one with a re-interpretation of the basic wording and they’ve even added ‘Partnership’ which not mentioned anywhere in the original. Hitler was so right when he said if you repeat a lie often enough people will believe it. I can’t believe how stupid many New Zealanders are as they just nod their heads and believe what they are told without questioning anything. I call them Sheeple. They are dangerous to our once peaceful country.
I’ve long been critical of the Press/Media in this country for not questioning, researching and informing the public of what is going on. It is even more vital now with the election looming and Finlayson poised ready to give away most of what is important to us after the election to one racial group who don’t now resemble the original signatories to the Treaty anyway.
How are we going to stop this fraudulent corrupt rort? We must do it – somehow – before the election!! I was horrified when we returned to NZ 14 years ago and I could see where we were heading and started writing to politicians. However, I’ve achieved absolutely zilch!! It’s now far worse and like an unstoppable train.
There is a way from the man that instigated “this fraudulent corrupt rort’!
Leading Constitutional Lawyer and the man that instigating all these reforms, Sir Geoffrey Palmer stated, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
It’s time the majority of New Zealanders that have suffered under the Fourth Labour Government’s unsubstantiated reforms, continued and expanded by future Governments, petition their Member of Parliament to force Parliament to repeal these apartheid Acts of Parliament based on the Hon Geoffrey Palmer’s experiences in America and using false information and false Treaty documents. If they will not agree to repeal these Acts, then we should not vote for them as they will continue to endorse this false legislation and you and your children will continue to suffer at the hands of these traitors.
“New Zealand in Crisis” published by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc. http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
Helen: I think it’s more like, we nod, slump our shoulders, take a deep heaving sigh and then mute our brains and get back to our work . . . but we are not stupid. We pretty much know we are getting bent over.
Over the years resistance/opposition to the treaty by the country has been met with protests and slammed with statements of racism. Then we are given the great historical education on how hard done by the Maori’s were and how bad the european was to their culture. How we DID rip them off and that we are all just a pack of land grabbing mongrel bred species of human.
We take all this in our face then watch as the government ignore’s everything we are saying and go out of their way to make the demands from the Iwi easier for them to achieve. Hell, the government will even provide them with Police escorts on their protests!!
It is a real ‘put up and shut up Pakeha’ attitude, and it has worked.
Now they are as bold as hell. They can get on TV and tell us they are educating future activists and tell us what their next move is going to be.
We hear of ALLLLL this money being given out hand over fist to the corporate Iwi’s and then in the same breath how Maori remain under privileged. Personally, and at the risk of sounding like a conspiracy theorist, I question if it is designed that way to keep the Pakeha government paying out more money!
Ross: NZCPR seem to be on the ball in that department. Have you been to the human rights site? That’s an eye opener.
Hey Ross, a pat on the back for all your hard work and years of research.
Yes I have been to these sites but WE must make a stand and force, yes force our MP’s to sweep these apartied Acts from our Statute Books.
Here we have our leading Constitutional lawyer, Sir Geoffrey Palmer telling us how to do it. Are WE going to sit back and ignore it?
He got us into this mess, I beleive he should get us out of it.
I agree with you to a degree, Trina, and can see how we have all been dummed down. However, surely we have some fight in us and if we all see how we are being ‘had’ and the wrongs being foisted upon us all, why on earth don’t we all unite and protest? I can’t see the Aussies taking these things lying down. I remember a march up our main street down here when the Foreshore and Seabed issue first arose and the one good thing Helen Clark did was close it down with her legislation of which there is absolutely nothing wrong, no matter what the radicals say. Now several years later, we are just taking everything and more or less turning the other cheek without a murmur. We must protest loud and clear otherwise we will continue to be walked all over. We must not allow both the radicals and the politicians to let us think we are in the wrong, are racist and whatever else they are trying to brainwash us with. That’s what it is basically – brainwashing. These radicals are extremely cunning and they know exactly what they are doing and how to get the better of us. We MUST show them we are onto their devious little fraudulent game and work relentlessly to shut them down.
How on earth do we get the masses moving?! I’ve certainly tried. Do we have no fight in us? Are we just wimps? I must be different because I’ve been protesting in various ways since 1997. I know it’s got me nowhere but perhaps if we had the numbers, we might be able to get through to the powers that be that we won’t have any more of it. I will never give up and that should be the motto of all of us.
Oops!! I’ve just seen your reply Ross and you have more or less said what I’ve been advocating. How do we get Sir Geoffrey Palmer to clean up the mess he started? Is there any way we can get in touch with him? Is there anything he can do personally? My word he has a lot to answer for.
Helen,
You say the press are partly responsible, try writing something which exposes the lies Gvt say of out Tiriti and you might find why.
Aside from the above, you might enjoy this. When the Taranaki farmers took their case to court to stop them having to pay market rates on their own property which they bought and paid for on Maori lease land, buildings, fences and grass, they hired the best lawyer they could think of to defend their case and lost. Their lawyer was Geoffry Palmer.
Rangi, I’m intrigued by your comment about me finding out why the press are partly responsible if I tried writing something which exposes the lies the Government are saying of our Treaty. How would I write anything? The Press wouldn’t publish it. Please tell me what you are getting at. Does the Government control the Press? If not, I would think big business aligned with the Government could be. Someone must be but then Lindsay Perigo told me in answer to a question I put to him that the Press are self-censoring. Not sure why. I would have thought they would have thrived on controversial subjects.
Here is a snippet of a study by Elizabeth Rata to consider. For those who want to know her credentials, here they are:
“Associate Professor Elizabeth Rata is Deputy Head of School (Research) in Critical Studies in Education. She is a sociologist of education specialising in the relationship between education and society. Dr Rata is Editor of Pacific-Asian Education, Leader of the Knowledge and Education Research Group, a member of a European Union International Research Staff Exchange Scheme, and a former Fulbright Senior Scholar to Georgetown University, Washington D.C.”
(http://www.nzcpr.com/guest232.htm)
“Elizabeth Rata
13 March 2011
People Power or Ethnic Elites?
Introduction
In the last five years there has been a shift in the strategies used by iwi in their quest for property rights and constitutional recognition. The shift is from a Treaty of Waitangi justification to a more comprehensive indigenous group rights argument. The group rights argument is used to claim customary rights, and in an extension, to claim that those customary rights are property rights guaranteed under English Common Law.
Professor Matthew Palmer has expressed this approach succinctly: ‘Most would say individual rights come first, but under our law, even if the treaty was extinguished, Maori rights do hold sway. Aboriginal title of customary rights exist in law separate from the Treaty – arising from a common law doctrine inherited from England and applied in Canada, United States and Australia. “It is a recognition by the English legal system that the people who were here first gained an interest in property by virtue of that fact’. (Palmer cited in Barton, 2004).
Today I will make a counter-argument in order to show that there are problems with the concept of historical continuity that underpins the iwi approach. This concept may seem of remote academic interest but I want to show today how its interpretation is crucial. If the iwi approach were to be successful, the consequences for New Zealand are serious. The property rights argument will privatise large public socio-economic assets into the hands of iwi corporations. This will create a permanent gap between a small iwi elite with aristocratic pretensions on the one hand and the majority of New Zealanders of all ethnicities on the other. The larger group rights argument for the inclusion of iwi into the nation’s constitutional arrangements[1] will undermine the integrity of the New Zealand nation.” (http://www.nzcpr.com/guest232.htm)
Helen,
Write to your local paper and tell them,
“Governments, through attempting to prove false and failing, are fully aware Gvnr. Hobson authorised one Tiriti only, Maori, and that it gives no exclusive right to Maoris http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz
This means Governments know they are conning the taxpayer out of multi-millions in its quest to deliver Tiriti favours to Maoris that do not exist. There is no mention in our Tiriti of fish,forests, partnership, lakes rivers, employment, health education, nothing that isn’t available to any other New Zealander. Those Treaties Government say hold these things are false,
If you visit http://www.kilts.co.nz/mhorruairidh.htm and scroll to the last part, you will find here that Governments are doing their best hide the fact that Celtic people were the first to come here, not Maoris. You will be disgusted what Governments have done to the real indigenous people in order to con the taxpayer
Log on to http://www.celticnz.co.nz/hot_mail4.htm (scroll to first photo to save time) and you will find that the culture Maoris worship and adore is, in fact, the culture of those who came here before them, the Ancient Celts.
Governments are telling more lies when they con you by saying Maori are the indigenous people of New Zealand. The fact is, Governments do not have a definition of indigenous. Write in and prove it for yourself. Neither do the United Nations, anywhere in the world!
Maoris are so watered down by interbreeding, there is not one Maori who could say, “I am pure bloodied Maori” and prove it.
Who pays for all these claims? You! Regardless of your race!
Helen,
I have on first hand knlowledge that all articles opposing the Treaty gravy train are rejected by editors. It worth more than their jobs. Still this is fairly obvious to those that write letters to the editor as you have found. That’s why website such as this one, the http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz, NZCPR and a few others are so important to our message out. Please keep up the good work and thank you.
You are so encouraging, Ross. I should be the one thanking you because you have done enormous work on this matter. It is so despairing not being able to make much headway especially via the Press which would reach so many but I will never do what many are doing, putting their heads in their hands and telling themselves it is useless trying. I will never ever give up, no matter what people think of me. It’s too important and I could never live with myself. The day is coming when the sleeping Sheeple are going to realise what has happened while they sat by and did nothing!!
You too, keep up the excellent work, and thanks again.
Very interesting Rangi,
I watched a History channel doco on you tube one day and was amazed at the similarities between their culture and the Maori.
Go to: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjKJiYcATRk&feature=related
Or google You Tube and search ‘Lost treasures of the ancient world: The Celts. It has 5 parts to it.
Err, there is no evidence for the Celtic NZ thesis, which is the invention of a couple of neo-Nazi nuts, both of whom have been published by Ross Baker. Nor would a single serious historian concur with the judgment that the Musket Wars were esclataing in the late 1830s. They were petering out as iwi achieved parity of arms. There is no conspiracy to ignore Bker and the Celtic NZ nuts – people don’t take them seriously because they offer no evidence.
http://www.books.scoop.co.nz/2008/11/18/no-to-nazi-pseudo-history-an-open-letter
You’d need to write a book to reply to all the insane comments in this thread, but Rangi’s claim that Tawhiao declared war by crossing the Mangatwhiri with an army and coming within ’40 miles’ of Auckland in 1860 is particularly worthy of note. The Mangatawhiri hadn’t even been nominated as the border between the Waikato Kingdom in 1860, Tawhiao only became King in the second half of the year and didn’t have an army at his disposal, and there were no violent attacks on the southern fringes of Auckland until 1863, when the invasion of the Waikato was beginning. And in any case the spot where the Mangatawhiri flows into the Waikato is in itself very close to 40 miles from Auckland! So much for Tawhiao battering at the gates! Rangi is just pulling stuff out of his arse. He cites Craig’s book, but this does not support his claim.
Oh dear John, while the One New Zealand Foundation Inc has published many articles with reference to pre-Maori, the article you refer to was published in the ELocal magazine. The One New Zealand Foundation publishes many articles of interest to the people of New Zealand, in most cases with reference to their source. i.e http://www.celticnz.net.nz.
If you would like to sent an article with proof that Maori were the first inhabitants of New Zealand, we would be happy to post it. Our email address is, ONZF@bigpond.com.au. The ball is in your court, I only hope it’s not a Dear John article.
Oh dear John,
References to “The Realms of King Tawhiao,” by Dick Craig, still available on order
Tawhiao’s father Potatao Te Werowhero, died in early April 1860, Tawhiao then declared war, page 79
Kingite forces advanced to within 40 miles of Auckland, page 78
“The war would not be as other wars, the young men would slay indiscriminately. Princess Te Paea’s (Tawhiao’s sister) comment to Gorst (page 81).”
This was 3 years before the Waitangi Tribunal could find the Government retaliated.
Buy the book John!
Oh dear John,
Go to http://www.celticnz.co.nz and buy the book “Ancient Celtic New Zealand,” by Martin Doutre.
If you cannot afford the book, go to any marae and you will find it covered in Ancient Celtic art as Maoris followed the culture of those who came here before them.
Don’t call me names, it’s Governments that led to to the “Pride before the fall.”
Trina,
Thank you. You would find it a lot more than similar.
If Maoris had come here with a culture of their own, it would have been quite different, no similarities, and it would have been held if they were as proud of it as they are Celtic culture
My goodness, does this make you think of a reason why and it’s not good!
Cheers Rangi, I will confess that I have been sitting on the fence with the theory of Celtic people in NZ. However, I was informed of an incident last year by a trusted friend.
An elderly gentleman in my home town makes a living by taking people for river cruises. On this day he only had two people on board – a woman and her elderly mother. They both sat very quietly on the boat as he slowly navigated his way some distance up river. Then out of the blue, the elderly mother leaned forward, and pointing to an area of bush said: ‘up there is where my tribe belonged, We were the Patu-paiarehe’. He told my friend that the hairs stood up on the back of his neck.
When you hear things like that and watch doco’s like the one I have posted, It makes you go ‘hmmmmmm’.
When I am down home I will try and track down this chap and talk to him about it. He may have more to say . . . we shall see.
Martin Doutre does have some scathing opposition to his work. The sad thing is, it is by the very people who are important in helping to investigate the validity of the anomalies he has noted and the questions that it raises.
I read one of the arguments on the net by an archaeologist. From memory I don’t believe he presented his argument as well as I expected. He was dropping to many personal attacks on Martin Doutre for me to continue reading it with any serious consideration.
I cannot stomach people who show disregard with an arrogant snigger.
On one of JA’s posts a person left a comment asking John not to dis-respect scientists or science. My answer to that, after searching the net on the arguments on ‘climate change’, is that the ‘scientists’ are doing a good job of that themselves.
There is that old saying of ‘actions speak louder than words.
I look at peoples behaviour and when I see vehement attacks and discrediting of previously respected individuals I question what they are protecting.
In saying that, I also think that if you are going to tackle a controversial subject like this, it is critical that you do not do anything or say anything that can defame your credibility.
Anyway – this is getting off topic – we are meant to be talking about the Treaty! .
Reply to Dear John about the Mangatawhiri Stream.
Unfortunately for the Government, Potatau Te Wherowhero died on the 25th of June 1860. Had he lived, it’s doubtful that there would have ever been a Waikato war, as Te Wherowhero remained a good friend to the British and an advisor to their Governors, for about two decades.
The fact is that Hobson’s Government was asked to move from the Bay of Islands to the Waitemata (Auckland) by such chiefs as Te Kawau of Ngati Whatua and his son Te Reweti Tamaki. Ngati Whatua chiefs had even travelled up to the Bay of Islands to finalise arrangements for the seat of government to move to Auckland.
The first purchase of land by the Hobson government from Ngati Whatua was about 3000 acres. By 1842 land as far South as Papakura had been sold by Maori owners to the Crown. By the 1850′s large tracts of land, extending through Franklin & Manukau (Eden County) and southwest to parts of Northern Raglan had been purchased from the native owners. Early purchases on the south eastern side of the Auckland Isthmus included Clevedon and Miranda.
Fifty years later it was possible to buy from the Crown sections at a lower price than they originally cost.
‘The Maori population, which had dwindled, sadly, during the past quarter of a century, was now scattered here and there, in small hapus for the most part, though there were still some fairly populous villages. At Mangere Mountain, Ihuimata, Wairoa, Papakura, Patumahoe and Tuakau were fairly prosperous communities, and there were a considerable number on the Awhitu Peninsula, but these were greatly scattered’ (Wily).
By about 1851 Wiremu Tamihana began advocating that a Maori King should be chosen. Hongi Hika’s forces had, over 3-decades before, driven the sub-tribes of the lower Waikato and Coastal regions into the interior and they were now thickly clustered in Taupiri and the fertile lands east of the Waipa, as far as Te Awamutu. It was estimated at the time that the Waikatos could muster a fighting force of 1200 men, which denotes a population of probably 7000.
Potatau Te Wherowhero, in his old age, was chosen as king in 1858, but died within two years. He was succeeded by his son Tawhiao.
The latter Waikato War stemmed largely from an 1861 incident wherein a young Patumahoe Maori man was found dead from a gunshot wound to the chest. Other Maori assumed the murder to have been carried out by a white man, although there was never any evidence found to confirm this. Rumours spread that Patumahoe natives were going to murder all of the white settlers at Mauku in retaliation. The women and children were evacuated and the men garrisoned in the church to protect the settlement.
Reverend Robert Maunsell left Te Kohanga to enter into peace talks with the Patumahoe natives and avert bloodshed. However, another large group of Maori came up from Waikato to investigate the incident. Maunsell, Selwyn and others met with them at Rangipoki in South Mauku and convinced them to let the law deal with the situation and bring the murderer, whether white or brown, to justice.
Some months later a part Maori surveyor (Fulloon) told the Government of a plot to attack Auckland from the Hunua Forest regions close to Auckland. It was known that the Waikatos were accumulating large stocks of weapons and ammunition. This led to the Auckland Defence Department mustering a force for the protection of the city and redoubts were built in anticipation of an invasion from the Waikato.
During the summer and autumn of 1863 it was an almost daily occurrence that outlying settler’s homes were invaded and looted and the occupants subjected to violence and intimidation. These incidents were far to the North of the Mangatawhiri Stream, which constituted the northern boundary of the Kingite territory.
In June 1863 the governor instituted measures to protect the outlying settlers and more redoubts or fortified defence facilities were built in areas like Papakura, Mauku, Pukekohe, Ramarama, Bombay and other frontier locations.
The situation had become so intolerable and dangerous for the settlers that the Government, in exasperation, required that Maori living to the immediate north of the Mangatawhiri stream, in the region of growing hostility, plundering and constant unrest, swear an oath of allegiance to the Queen or move to the south of the stream.
Those who moved to the south were allowed to take their firearms with them. Evidence suggests that earlier, Sophia, a relative of King Tawhiao, had crossed the Manukau to Waiuku to supply the Waikatos with several large cases of arms and ammunition.
Murder of the outlying settlers began in earnest after June 1863, which led to the first engagement at Koheroa, east of Mercer. The entrenched Maori warriors were chased out of their rifle pits by the 14th and 70th regiments, with heavy losses to the Maori combatants. Following this battle there were many months of hard bush fighting.
In January 1863 Governor Grey had visited Wiremu Tamihana (the kingmaker) at Ngaruawahia. At this meeting it was admitted to Grey that there had been a plan to attack Auckland, but it had placed in abeyance when Grey had replaced Gore Brown, the previous Governor.
By mid-June 1863 there was a report that the plan to attack Auckland had, indeed, been reactivated, while the government’s troops were in Taranaki, but the plan had been opposed by Tamihana.
In August a combined force of Wairoa Rifle Volunteers and Auckland Volunteer Rifles found a large secret camp, with enough whares for 1500 men. It was hailed as the Maori base for an attack on Auckland.
In September another combined force from the same unit, under Major Lyon, attacked a Maori village at Otau, which was full of supplies and in December Jackson’s Forest Rangers [with Von Tempsky in attendance] surprised a secret Maori camp deep in the Hunuas. Several [battle] flags were captured.
These finds provided Grey with evidence that positions within the Hunua Ranges were being prepared for use as staging areas for a major assault on Auckland. The situation, for the safety of the seat of government in New Zealand, was getting very dangerous.
Grey prepared an 18-page summary of this and other reports he was receiving from the Waikato and finally made up his mind to proceed with the invasion, for which he was now fully prepared.
In 1843 the Great South Road had been commenced to provide a thoroughfare to the outlying settlements south of Auckland City. It started at New Market and ultimately proceeded through Greenlane, Penrose, Otahuhu, Papatoetoe, Manukau, Manurewa, Papakurato Drury and Bombay, over the Bombay Hills to the banks of the Waikato River.
By 1861, with the growing unrest and prospects of war looming, Governor Grey gave priority to the road’s completion. Thereafter, the (now) military road was constantly besieged by small guerilla forces and it took a lot of manpower to protect it or the supplies flowing to forward settlement and engagement positions.
What followed after 1863 was the usual ebb and flow in the fortunes misfortunes, triumphs and tragedies of war, for both sides. Finally, on February 20th, 1864 Cameron employed a tactic which effectively stripped the Waikatos of their ability to make war from Paterangi Pa. One thousand men marched silently past the Pa and through the night, reaching Otowhao (Te Awamutu) at daybreak. They pushed on to Rangiaowhia plantation, upon which Paterangi Pa relied for its sustaining supplies. The Pa was evacuated shortly thereafter and its occupants fled into the King Country. Apart from a few ongoing skirmishes in the months that followed, the war was over.
South Auckland, by Henry E.R.L. Wily, 1939, Franklin Printing and Publishing Company Ltd., Pukekohe, NZ.
Martin.
JA: Thanks for getting involved, Martin. I have read much comment for and against you, and I note that you are remarkably thorough in your presentation of evidence.
This often causes your academic opponents to employ the trademark lefty diversion of personal attack. When an academic does this, he reveals his agenda and his credibility is gone.
Reading The Realms of King Tawhiao by Dick Craig, it seems to me that the most worrying aspect of king-maker Wiremu Tamihana’s plan to attack Auckland was his stated goal of wiping out all the residents – men, women and children.
This from page 135:
“‘I have consented to attack the whole of the town of Auckland’, he wrote on July 13, 1863 [in a letter to a missionary and friend, Rev A.N. Brown]. ‘I shall spare neither unarmed people nor property. If they (the Pakeha) prove the strongest, well and good. If the Maoris are the strongest, that is how it will be. The unarmed people will not be left.’”
And this was one of the more moderate Maori leaders – a man about whom Waikato Civil Commissioner Sir John Gorst later said, “I have met many statesmen in the course of my long life, but none superior in intellect and character than this Maori chief.”
If such a capable opponent says he’s going to slaughter the entire population of your capital, I imagine any prudent governor would do whatever is necessary to stop him.
Hey Martin, do tell us about what happened on 9/11! You’ve got a great range of outsider “facts” about that that John will no doubt want to buy, given your total lack of credentials and qualifications.
Hi Martin,
Great to have you here! I am going to put a question out to you all,
How long would it take a Kauri tree to grow 120 foot tall?
It must be remebered, while this excellent research is by Martin Doutre the actual facts were written by by Henry E.R.L. Wily, in his book South Auckland written 1939 and printed by Franklin Printing and Publishing Company Ltd., Pukekohe, NZ. If you don’t believe it, then I suggest you do your own research. That’s if the books have not been destroyed to allow our true history to be distorted, but there are copies still around and the truth will win out in the end, it always does.
Hear, hear, Ross. I have read Martin’s book on the Littlewood Treaty and other articles, and have the utmost faith in his research. Well done, Martin. There is so much distortion of our history in this day and age which is such a travesty and our children will have much research to do when they get older to finally learn the true facts. However, as Ross has said the truth will win out in the end – it always does and I firmly believe it will..
And his research into how the object that hit the Pentagon on 9/11 was not an aircraft, but a missile is meticulous! The truth will win out!!!
JA: As a right-winger, I should, I suppose, be lampooning those who believe the Republicans were implicated in 9/11. (I’m a bit surprised you’re doing it, Judge.)
However, I think it’s important to keep an open mind. So when a friend gave me a documentary claiming that the World Trade Center collapse was a controlled demolition, I watched it.
Like all such documentaries (including An Inconvenient Truth), the evidence – from architects and engineers – looked compelling and, to this layman at least, plausible.
I knew that our mutual friend Lord Monckton had studied the issue and supported the orthodox explanation of Al Qaeda terrorism, so after his Wellington talk I asked him how he accounted for the collapse of Building 7.
He batted off my concern by saying that the whole site was integrated in a grid structure, and Building 7 collapsed because of reverberation generated by the collapse of the towers.
An engineer present thought this explanation was rubbish. As for me, I’m not qualified to judge either way.
But I don’t automatically rubbish those who advance alternative explanations if they have taken the trouble to present detailed evidence.
And I most certainly don’t rule out someone’s research on one issue simply because he was involved in something controversial somewhere else.
As a judge, Judge, you would know that it’s part of our legal system that people are entitled to be judged on the merits of the evidence they present.
Those who attempt to smear them rather than debate that evidence just damage their own credibility.
To understand our true history, I ask readers to read books prior to 1970. These researchers/authors wrote books relaying the history from their own experiences in early New Zealand, local and international archives, private diaries and Court Minute books etc. Prior to 1970 there was very little gain by distorting our history.
After the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act, which created the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal, to distort our history meant hundreds of millions of dollars could be gained and has been gained. Since 1970, most books are not worth the paper they are written on as they are based on “selective research” to allow Treaty claims that would never stand up to scrutiny if we were to use these early books, archived documents and the Tiriti o Waitangi as our ancestors intended.
The $6 million government Treaty 2 U Exhibition was a shining example of Government distorting our history to allow the outlandish Treaty claims to be accepted by the naive public. Just compare Treaty 2 U publications with those published before 1970.
Distorting our history has become a billion dollar business after the Fourth Labour Government allowed the Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims dating back to 1840, re-writing the Treaty by creating the “Five Principles” and writing the majority of New Zealanders out of the Treaty by turning into a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. This was never the intention of the Treaty of Waitangi or our ancestors that signed it in 1840. The Treaty of Waitangi has been illegally transformed from a unifying document into an extremely racial document to divide a Nation into them and us.
Unfortunately many of these early books have disappeared from our public libraries for very obvious reasons but many of us still have very good private collections where this undisputable evidence is still available, researched and published.
“As a right-winger, I should, I suppose, be lampooning those who believe the Republicans were implicated in 9/11. (I’m a bit surprised you’re doing it, Judge.)”
Yes, well I don’t decide what “truth” is based on my political ideology like you do John. I use things like logic, evidence, judgment and probability.
JA: You’ve just done the complete opposite here, Judge. I’ve shown I’m prepared to put truth before ideology, and you cherry-pick a convenient sentence to pretend otherwise.
“Yes, well I don’t decide what “truth” is based on my political ideology like you do John. I use things like logic, evidence, judgment and probability.”
I guess the problem arises Judge, that you don’t believe any evidence that doesn’t support your pre-conceived ideals, and when you come across an argument you don’t fully accept you try to denounce the messenger with lame comments. Its a weakness you should work on, it will make your arguments more contestable. Unfortunately 99% of the time you resort to this tactic, especially if you evidence/argument is shown to be lacking or contestable.
“Yes, well I don’t decide what “truth” is based on my political ideology like you do John. I use things like logic, evidence, judgment and probability.”
Wel, Judge, l if you were using the last 4 items you would be questioning the official line. I too am keeping an open mind but there is compelling evidence that something very strange went on, not only with the apparent controlled demolitions but with the nanothermite discovered in the dust and ash by a Danish Scientist!! This commodity comes from explosives used in controlled demolitions and there is no other way it could have got there..
However we are getting off topic here and like Ross has said, I too have read many books even from the 19th century just to get a better perspective of what went on and it is blazingly obvious that our history has been suppressed and re-written. I absolutely agree with both Ross and John’s latest posts.
Your post came in while I was in the middle of posting, Mort. Well said and I couldn’t agree more. It is not helpful or enough to continually denounce people without putting up good arguments as to why you are doing this.
“I’ve shown I’m prepared to put truth before ideology, and you cherry-pick a convenient sentence to pretend otherwise.”
You’ve admitted that that’s exactly what you don’t do. For you ideology determines “truth” (a “right-wing version” thereof). And it’s a bit rich for you to accuse someone else of cherry-picking. It’s true you might also be susceptible to conspiracy theories, which explains why you’re torn on the 9/11 truthers, but that’s a whole other issue.
We seem to be getting off-topic here. Instead of sneering at what people say, Judge, how about you give us some facts instead on the farcical fraudulent actions of this currrent Government with regard to the Treaty. It is indisputable that they have re-invented it because not only are they using an English draft instead of the original which mirrors the Maori version exactly, they have actually added 5 new Principles and re-interpreted the meaning of basic Maori words spoken in the 1840′s. Words mean different things over 170 years later. The Treaty is too simple a document to be used in today’s world and as the basis for giving away so much of our country to one racial group, and should have been consigned to where it belongs, like the Magna Carta – history – and long ago.
We should trash the US Constitution too. It’s old and simple and that jolly Supreme Court keeps on “reinterpreting” it and issuing rulings about how it should be applied. Outrageous!. And as for the Bill of Rights! Ancient! Words are different now. Plus we have electricity.
Oh, you’re actually serious…
Judge, with all due respect, you are something else!! Really. The US Constitution was specifically devised for all the citizens and their rights, with very specific laws for specific happenings, unlike our little simple Treaty the sole purpose of which was to bring the Maori people under the umbrella of Queen Victoria so that we could all be one people. From then on, we would be under the laws of Great Britain for everything else. The Treaty did not lay down any specific laws. All the settlements being done today are using an ancient Treaty which was devised with quite different meanings and for a different purpose. You just can’t apply it to today’s world with today’s values. With intermarriage etc there are no longer the people left that the Treaty was created for. Today’s part-Maori people now have not only Maori blood but also ‘other’ blood, probably more than Maori, and more than likely from the very people they are saying ‘deceived’ them. We are now too far down the track to apply something from so long ago to today. The whole scenario is too muddied and mixed. We should be living as one in peace.
Now, I’m only a simple soul and may not have put this as well as others could but I hope you understand what I’m saying. I ask again, are you really a Judge??!! Your thought processes really beggar belief if I may say so. I actually think you might be having us on and getting great enjoyment out of it!!?? Perhaps you are stimulating debate? This matter has absolutely no relevance whatsoever to the US Constitution or the Bill of Rights which lay down very clear specifics for all scenarios.
“Your thought processes really beggar belief if I may say so.”
Yeah, you’re the one who claimed that the treaty was too old and simple to be used in the modern world. When it was pointed out that the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights are also old and simple you switched tack and are now suggesting that those documents lay down “very clear specifics for all scenarios” (bzzzzzt false) so are therefore exempt from your rule. Although for some reason the magna carta gets trashed. Consistent much? You’ve then fallen back on the old “there are no Maori left anyway” argument, which is empirical nonsense. But then any old “fact” that supports your prejudged conclusion, is regardless of its veracity, available for use.
There is nothing simple about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are quite specific. I didn’t ‘switch tack’ as you eloquently put it but elaborated because it was obvious you didn’t understand the differences between them and the Treaty. Very marked differences. I would be grateful if you could tell me where I trashed the Magna Carta. I just mentioned that it had quite properly been consigned to history and we should do the same with our Treaty. And, for your last point – there ARE no Maori left, only a mixed race of people who mostly are more ‘other’ than ‘Maori’ today. Part-Maori or of Mixed Race would be a more apt description.
Response to Judge Holden:
On September 1, 2011 at 9:47 pm Judge Holden said:
Hey Martin, do tell us about what happened on 9/11! You’ve got a great range of outsider “facts” about that that John will no doubt want to buy, given your total lack of credentials and qualifications.
Hi Judge,
I’m unashamedly and without the slightest reservation, an associate member of “Architects & Engineers For 9/11 Truth”. This is a body of over 1500 of the world’s top experts, with impeccable credentials, who state that the Twin Towers & Building 7 were brought down by controlled demolitions. See: http://www.ae911truth.org/
My back-ground is in the building trade as a site-surveyor, builder of reinforced concrete (and other) structures and a welder of structural steel beams … so I am very well acquainted with the physical attributes of building materials.
Perhaps you’d like to attend one of the many gatherings around the country next Sunday 11th, on the 10th anniversary of that “insider-job” & “false-flag” tragedy.
Go to Aotea Square in Auckland at 2 pm, then up to The Winchester Function Venue, located at 24 St. Benedicts St., Newton, Auckland Central, at 5 pm to see the latest movie released by the AE911 organisation.
This presentation will be based upon actual sciences called “Physics”, “Chemistry”, “Forensics”, as well as Architectural Design Engineering Codes of Practice, etc., all of which are totally at odds with the official explanation given for the unprecedented collapse of 3 modern buildings on 9/11.
I listen to and take seriously “true engineers” not “social-engineers”. I quote “documented-history”, not “doctored-history”. I’ve also taken notes in hundreds of university classes and know first-hand that there are large “sins of omission” in what’s taught to our students concerning the (re-invented) Treaty of Waitangi, as well as New Zealand History generally (colonial or long-term), or the distorted points of view proffered in subjects like Political-Science & Sociology etc., etc., ad nauseum.
The truth of the matter is that our students (in a particular range of subjects) often have to perjure themselves, these days, in order to get a degree. They pay out huge sums of money to be, largely, indoctrinated with Marxist-laced pseudo-history or concepts that have nothing to do with anything that ever happened in the real world, but which is very politically-expedient to those who control our institutions of higher-learning.
Take as one small example the never-ending lament about how Maori were not permitted to speak Maori at school and how the language was violently beaten out of them by (obviously) twisted and sadistic whitey’s.
Strangely, I’ve never once heard the professors admit that it was the early Maori leaders of the 19th century who instituted this hard-nosed policy and demanded stringent adherence to it right through to the middle 20th Century.
Our earliest missionaries and leaders had followed a policy of teaching Maori in their own language and had provided a copious, ever-growing, assortment of Maori-language literature accordingly.
With the demand from mid-19th century Maori leaders that their children be taught English as a first priority, books in both Maori and English were provided by the NZ Government.
Here’s a quote from the book, A civilising mission?: perceptions and representations of the native schools, by Judith A. Simon, Linda Tuhiwai Smith, 2001, pg. 164.
‘In the 1870s, shortly after the Native Schools system had been established, a number of prominent Maori sought through Parliament to place greater emphasis on the teaching of English in the schools. A newly elected Maori Member of Parliament, Takamoana, sought legislation to ensure that Maori children were taught only in English. A number of petitions in a similar vein were also taken to Parliament by Maori. One such petition in 1877 by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others called for an amendment to the 1867 Native Schools Act which would require the teachers of a Native School to be ignorant of the Maori language and not permit the Maori language to be spoken at the school.
Some school committees developed similar restrictions themselves. The minutes of Waima School committee show that as early as 1883 this school developed a policy forbidding both parents and children to speak in Maori. The minutes recorded that,
“[to] supplement the law forbidding the speaking of Maori in class, or in the school grounds in school hours, no person or parent can engage a child in speaking Maori, and in such cases, any child can inform on that person or parent to the Committee, who shall be empowered to fine that person or parent the sum of five shillings. If it is a matter of emergency or extreme importance, the child can be removed out of sight or hearing of other children before any communication takes place.”
These rules would have been generated and approved by the committee, which in all likelihood was all Maori except for the teachers. It is ironic that the minutes that the above quote summarises were written in te reo Maori. It was commonplace for such meetings to be held and recorded in Maori during this period.
Minutes of Waima School’s committee meetings continued to be recorded in Maori until 1942, when the then head teacher’s wife took meeting minutes in English in the secretary’s absence.’
Many, many more references could be cited, but the bottom-line is that European teachers were forced to adhere to this policy by the Maori leaders themselves, who had instituted it in the first place, then continued to enforce it relentlessly for decades to follow.
The harshest enforcers of the “no Maori to be spoken at school” rule were often the Maori teachers or the parents of Maori pupils.
This grievance-industry-pushed deception is one of the best kept secrets in town and the 1877 petition by Wi Te Hakiro and 336 others is, seemingly, only available on the Internet in a much-abbreviated form, with all the juicy-bits and telling-revelations left out.
There were many other similar petitions or directives by the Maori leaders, which are conspicuous by their absence in our modern-Marxist history books.
Martin.
Great post J.A., refreshingly well researched – a dying art I think.
You even have your own one-man lefty fan club using the amusing and highly predictable mockery ad nauseum. Probably reading too much Saul Alinsky, or taught by professors who had. “Judge’s” youth filters throughout his little typing spasms though, especially as its clear how little he’s read of anything unsupportive of his recently installed belief system. I guess we can thank the “education” system for that.
“There is nothing simple about the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They are quite specific.”
Even if this were true, and it’s not; the Bill of Rights in particular is very straightforward and both documents are extremely broad, so what?
“there ARE no Maori left, only a mixed race of people who mostly are more ‘other’ than ‘Maori’ today. Part-Maori or of Mixed Race would be a more apt description.”
Again, even if one was to accept this as fact (and it’s not, there are hundreds of thousand of ethnic Maori), so what? How does that negate the fact that the Crown ripped of the direct descendants of people living today and it needs to make redress?
“You even have your own one-man lefty fan club using the amusing and highly predictable mockery ad nauseum.”
Says Max mockingly (although not very amusingly).
Again Holden, you attack the messenger without putting up an actual evidence based argument. I think Helen is both right and wrong about the treaty, and you also are right about the US constitution.
The US constitution is a ‘living document’, with the various amendments adding to it’s worthiness. Helen believes the ToW is not a living document, and from your argument are we to believe that you take a contra stance? (not sure you haven’t actually stated).
If you believe the ToW is dead, a relic of history then indeed any additions will be null and void. But if you believe it to be an adaptable living document, then additions such as legislative amendments can be made (not sure how you deal with previous case-law and parliamentary law which found the treaty to be an anachronism).
But I guess the issue becomes if you believe the ToW to be a living document that can be added to, the actions of the 1975, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1992, 1993 are ‘amendments’ to original document. It follows then that you need to base your arguments on the amendments then rather than the original document. The arguments used shouldn’t then be a sanitised list of reasons for interpretation or arguments for further amendments. If there was some injustice then a complete historical picture of the alleged injustice needs to be revealed.
In many cases we have seen that the currently agreed to history, which is being used as the basis of restitution/ muru is not taking into account the ill deeds of the parties seeking Muru. Look at Ngati Toa, currently seeking Muru for loss of a Naval Empire. If this is paid out, the people of the Ngati Apa, and the Ngati Ira then have a claim against the Ngati Toa for loss of their Naval Empire and trade routes?
Magna carta is not dead Helen as is evidenced by the limits of Britain’s constitutional monarchy, and indeed lives on in the US constitution, the Habeas Corpus Act, and is part of the Bill of background to the bill of rights, and just about every British Modelled Government’s constitution. It was described as “the greatest constitutional document of all times – the foundation of the freedom of the individual against the arbitrary authority of the despot” by lord Denning.
should read “WILL the Ngati Apa…”
Thank you, Mort. I stand corrected if I am wrong. However, my understanding is that the Magna Carta, whilst the foundation of what Britain has today, was consigned to history long ago because it was overtaken by later laws etc. However I don’t say our Treaty is dead at the moment because it is still being used for so much that is irrelevant to it. However, it should be also consigned to history because we have always been ruled under British law and the Treaty was only written to bring the natives under this same law so that we could all be treated the same under the same laws. I think there is a subtle difference here.
I dispute the new laws from 1975 onwards are an extension of the Treaty because they changed the tone of the whole document completely and instituted something that the citizens as a whole are totally against. They created inequality, in that specific assets are being given to one group of people based on race (or part-race as it now is), even though that race doesn’t now represent the race the Treaty was written for and part of their make-up now is from the people who supposedly deceived them!!??. It completely overlooks that many full and final settlements were made several times before the current ones. What does full and final really mean? If they are still coming back in spite of previous full and final settlements then the process will never end.
It is all a no-brainer and must stop because enormous wrongs are now being created to the rest of us.
The reason for the Maori language being forbidden long ago was because the Maori leaders could well see that their people would never progress if they didn’t become totally conversant in the English language and this would not happen while they continued to converse in Maori. Sir Apirana Ngata was a great advocate of no Maori language being spoken.
Ironically, we now have Maori immersion schools. How stupid is that? We will now be breeding children who have no comprehension of English (even though they will still be able to speak it) as John Tamihere very soon found out when his children attended such a school. He quickly took them out and put them back in a regular school. How will these Maori immersion children get on in the real world? I feel very sad for them. Another under-class?
the school system is currently failing 20% of pass throughs anyway, and the comprehension of English in many University graduates is not to be desired.
Sir Apirana advocated for Maori to be spoken at home to keep the language alive. Being Bilingual is seen as a positive, but I suppose even if we had 1 trade envoy for every island in the Cooks those positions will employ 15 people.
The Treaty of Waitangi was to allow Britain to form a legal Government within New Zealand. To do this legally, New Zealand had to become a British Colony and for New Zealand to become a British Colony to bring law and order to both Maori and the settlers (“all the people of New Zealand”), Britain had to obtain the chief’s consent to sovereignty over the whole land. Over 500 chiefs signed the Treaty of Waitangi with Queen Victoria and New Zealand became a British Colony in 1840.
For the next 91 years, New Zealand was recognized internationally as British soil and all the people of New Zealand as British Subjects with British passports issued under the Dominion of New Zealand. In 1933 Britain decided to grant New Zealand the Statute of Westminster, which allowed New Zealand complete autonomy in foreign as well as domestic affairs but this was not adopted by New Zealand until 1947. Between 1931 and 1947 the government, still under the control of the British government, made “full and final” settlements to the tribes with alleged grievances against the Crown.
In 1947, New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster, which granted complete autonomy to New Zealand in foreign as well as domestic affairs. All the people of New Zealand became New Zealand Citizens with New Zealand Passports and our own Coat of Arms. The New Zealand Coat of Arms is the oficial symbol of New Zealand and is recognised internationally. A traditional expression of national identity, the New Zealand Coat of Arms proclaims the sovereign nature of New Zealand and the authority of the Government.
Question: Did the Statute of Westminster supersede the Treaty of Waitangi when we all became New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law?
.
Thank you, Ross. I knew someone could put it much better than I had. As the Treaty was signed for the express purpose you said, then surely the answer to your question at the end is YES. But I’m not a legal person so others might not agree but if it granted us complete autonomy for our foreign as well as domestic affairs then I can’t see any other answer. The Treaty had served its purpose and the Government had since made every effort to settle claims – not once, but twice, thrice and now four times in some cases – all full and final!!
The reason we are in the unholy mess we are currently in, is because Governments have been too weak to put the radicals in their place and say finito – no!! Most people of Maori descent have been quite happy to be decent New Zealanders and are totally against what is going on via the radicals. However the radicals have long learned that if you ask for something outrageous and keep on keeping on, they will eventually get something. I bet we have exceeded their wildest dreams in recent times and they are very adept at making us feel they are owed what they get. How they must be laughing at us behind our backs and we deserve it totally.
Thanks again, Ross. You are so knowledgeable on this issue and I was hoping you would pop in.
what happens when legislation is passed that steals property rights from all nzers, and denies them all the rights and privileges of British citizens? Like the appropriation of minerals, or the river beds, or things that common law said were pertaining to the property and yet were stolen away, especially under council decrees for faulty science, or rubbish legislation like the RMA?
I agree Helen, we do need a legal opinion but I do not believe we would get an honest opinion from a New Zealand lawyer, they have too much to loose $$$$$$$. Even Sir Geoffrey Palmer, our leading Constitutional lawyer stated in his book, New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis, ”I was utterly opposed to the Privy Council having anything to say about what the Treaty meant in New Zealand”, but didn’t Britain instruct Hobson on the Treaty meaning! It seems they were so afraid of what the Privy Council might say; they have now got rid of the Privy Council as well as removing the death penalty for treason.
It seems Palmer later changed his mind when he stated, “For the situation we are in I blame neither my former opponents or my friends. It is a book written with sorrow, although with conviction things can change…… It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other Statutes, which give explicit recognition of the Treaty, are not entrenched. They can be sweep away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
As I believe he got us into this mess, I also believe he should get us out of it!
From Prime Minister Palmer and Attorney General David Lange’s clashing views with the Governor General, the Rev Sir Paul Reeves on Australia’s ABC Four Corners TV report in 1990, there is no doubt they had both changed their minds. Lange stating, “Did Queen Victoria think for a moment of forming a partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumb prints and 500 people. Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”.
Interesting that both Palmer and Lange disappeared from front line politics at the height of their political careers, were they pushed or did they resigned for telling the truth?
Sir Paul and Government differ over Treaty on Screen
NZPA 6 March 1990 Sydney
The clashing views of the Governor General, the Most Rev Sir Paul Reeves, and the Government on the Treaty of Waitangi were aired on Australian Television of Monday night.
The Prime Minister Mr Palmer, and his predecessor, Mr Lange, now Attorney General, ruled out yielding to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi when they were interviewed on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners current affairs programme. But Sir Paul joined Maori leaders in hinting that failure to address “injustices” under the treaty would lead to violence.
While Mr Palmer described the treaty as vague and unclear, Sir Paul compared it to the “covenant between God and Abraham or God and Noah” and said it was a binding document. “Many Pakeha people get impatient at what they see at be the way in which Maori keep dredging up things that happened 100 years ago” he said. They say, ”Why can’t we just live together?” and Maori can’t buy into that because their justice won’t go. What we’ve got to do is relieve people of that sense of injustice and if we don’t take the justice option, we run the risk of reaping the whirlwind”. Sir Paul said a white backlash against Maori claims was unavoidable and that the backlash was an expression of prejudice. Even though change “scares the pants off” prejudiced people, he urged legislators to create a society beneficial to all.
The head of the Ngaitahu Maori Trust Board, Mr Tipene O’Regan, acknowledged that the Crown could not afford to meet the value of the tribe’s South Island claims and declined to say how much the tribe would accept in settlement. But he agreed to the reporter’s suggestion it would have to be, “hundreds of millions of dollars”.
Mr Palmer said such expectations were unreasonable and would not be met. “The idea that somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are going to change hands in a short period of time …. Is, I’m afraid, idle”, he said. “And the reason it is idle, is that the country can’t afford it and it won’t happen. And in any case, I don’t know of any authoritative adjudication anywhere that would suggest it ought to happen”.
Both Mr Lange and Mr Palmer warned against making literal interpretations from the Treaty. “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people”? Mr Lange said. “Queen Victoria was not that sort of person. That does not distract from the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi. It can become the Magna Carta of New Zealand society but it is not going to become that from Dead Sea scroll eschatology examination”.
Mr Palmer said the meaning of the Treaty, in terms of its operational consequences now, was “far from clear”. In fact, it’s a document that is so vague that that is its primary problem”, he said.
A Tainui leader, Mr Bob Mahuta said, if thousands of young Maori were allowed to sit and brood on their situation, being unemployed and deprived, they would react lie any other young blacks around the world. “They will take from the haves because they are the have-nots. They have nothing to loose”. He said. Asked if they would take by force, he said, “Naturally, yes”.
A former Labour Government minister, the Hon Matiu Rata said, that when Maori people’s faith in the rule of law was destroyed it would introduce such things as civil war. “That would be so absolutely absurdly stupid”, he said. “That is why our ancestors signed the treaty”. End.
The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has the DVD and a transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners Programme, “Trick or Treaty”
In case people are wondering where I’ve got to, among other things I’ve been conducting a line-by-line, side-by-side comparison of various Treaty versions, to test to my satisfaction the validity of Ross Baker’s claim that the Hobson-Busby Final Draft (AKA Littlewood Treaty) was indeed the English version upon which the Maori Tiriti was based.
I want to post my Part 2 very soon, but have also been having trouble getting the WordPress program to cooperate. Hope to have this sorted today.
‘Mr Palmer said the meaning of the Treaty, in terms of its operational consequences now, was “far from clear”. In fact, it’s a document that is so vague that that is its primary problem”, he said.’
This is exactly why it should be consigned to history and we should all live together under the same laws as New Zealanders. Geoffery Palmer is a lawyer and if he couldn’t understand it, how is anyone else expected to. The reason he can’t understand it is because it was only ever meant to be a very simple document to bring Maori under the Crown with us all as New Zealanders. Nothing more. You can try and tease something from it until the cows come home but there is nothing to tease. That’s why he reinvented it and created five new Principles.
I have a transcript from the House of Commons of a session 4 years after the signing and even then they were at a loss to understand how a simple little document could be causing so much conflict. They were quite dismissive about the Treaty saying it was a little document of no consequence and it was only meant to cover the north and middle islands in any event!!?? If it meant very little to those who created it, then how are we creating so much from it?
JA: Helen, it would certainly be interesting to read that transcript to see which English translation they were using. Any chance of writing it out for us – or the key bit?
It does seem odd to minimise the north and middle islands, since that includes all New Zealand apart from Stewart Island, and I don’t suppose there were many people there.
Appreciate any clarification you can offer.
Resources from my online book:
If it’s any help, John, the Treaty wording of the Hobson/ Busby final English draft (the Littlewood Treaty) is shown alongside that which James Reddy Clendon (U.S. Consul) sent to the U.S. Secretary of State (Despatch No. 6) on the 20th of February 1840. See: http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Chapter11.htm
The Hobson /Busby final English draft is again shown alongside that which Commodore Charles Wilkes sent to his American superiors in Washington D.C. on the 3rd of April 1840 (Despatch No. 64), as well as what was recorded in the U.S.S. Vincennes letter book as a back-up copy. See:
http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Chapter12.htm
You can then compare James Stuart Freeman’s “Formal Royal Style”, composite version (made from bits and pieces of the early, obsolete & superceded, English rough draft notes), which has (tragically & illegitimately) become our legislative English text. This much longer, rambling composite, is shown alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi and Te Tiriti is not a translation of that English wording.
Also, the NZ Government officially requested that a back-translation of the Maori Tiriti be supplied in 1869 and this is displayed alongside the other two in a third column. See:
http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Chapter13.htm
This same chapter features the Hobson/ Busby final English draft, placed beside Te Tiriti and the Native Department’s 1869 back-translation, showing consistency in the word-weight and sentence order between all 3 texts.
All of this can be viewed within my online book: The Littlewood Treaty – The True English Text of the Treaty Of Waitangi Found. See: http://www.celticnz.org/TreatyBook/Precis.htm
Further side-by-side comparisons can be found in my response to Dr. Donald Loveridge. See:
http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/LoveridgeResponse.htm
I hope this helps. The online book contains many other rare documents pertinent to the study and a paper trail that is sufficiently complete to prove each historical point raised.
Best wishes in your very worthy efforts,
Martin
“Geoffery (sic) Palmer is a lawyer and if he couldn’t understand it, how is anyone else expected to. The reason he can’t understand it is because it was only ever meant to be a very simple document to bring Maori under the Crown with us all as New Zealanders. Nothing more.”
Devilishly complicated and very simple, thus throw it out! Gee Helen, no one could accuse you of rational thought. Anyway sounds mighty like the US constitution after all.
How do you know “it was only ever meant…to bring Maori under the Crown with us all as New Zealanders. Nothing more.”? That would have required one short article. Doesn’t have that though does it?
John, I’m not sure exactly what you want. Was it relevant excerpts from the Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New Zealand, House of Commons, April 1844? If so, will do.
Helen, I don’t believe Palmer meant the actual Tiriti o Waitangi was unclear, I believe he meant the treaty documents the Government had been using were unclear. It must be remembered the Government was using an English version, (one of many compiled by James Freeman’s “Royal Style” versions from Busby’s earlier draft notes of the Treaty) and a modern day translation of the Tiriti o Waitangi when they created the Five Principles and the Partnership.
Six month before he and Lange appeared on this TV programme the final draft (the Littlewood document) had been found and the Prime Minister and Attorney General would definitely have been briefed on this major find. I believe they would have realised that the English version they had been using was not the final draft, which was being interpreted and used to divide our Nation, the reason for their about face, and their rapid exit from front line politics.
If we use the Tiriti o Waitangi and the final draft (the Littlewood document) it was translated from, it is an extremely simple document. In the Preamble the chiefs must give up their territories to the Queen for Britain to form a legal government (The preamble is conveniently missing from most government publications since 1988 including the large panels at Te Papa). Article 1 explained they must also give up their entire government to the Queen forever. In article 2 the Queen guaranteed to protect the chiefs, the hapu (Maori) and all the people of New Zealand (the Settlers) their land, settlements and property. It also stated Maori could only sell their land to the Queen. Article 3 gave Maori the same rights as the people of England, No more – No less. The Consent stated, the chiefs understood the meaning of all the words and affix their names/marks.
I am sure Palmer would not have been referring to the Tiriti o Waitangi as you don’t have to be a lawyer to understand this very simple document. A document that did exactly what it was asked to do.
I suggest you read, “The Littlewood Treaty – The True English Text of the Treaty of Waitangi is Found”. See Martin’s blog above for details.
I’ve read all of Martin’s work and also much of what Ross has put out. Perhaps I have been wrong but I always understood that Palmer found the Treaty they had been using (obviously the wrong one as it later turned out – a draft version) to be unclear and that’s why he reinvented it and created the 5 Principles. Then the Littlewood Treaty was found. The whole sorry mess need never have happened if they had used the Maori version all along because it translated back to what the Littlewood Treaty said, so was correct. The one they were using omitted the important words ‘and all the people of New Zealand’.
I have re-looked at the House of Commons Inquiry of 1844 and I was wrong in one aspect. I had forgotten the exact working. Part of it said, ‘The sovereignty over the Northern Island might have been at once assumed, without this mere nominal treaty, on the ground of prior discovery,and on that of the absolute necessity of establishing the authority of the British Crown for the protection of the natives themselves when so large a number of British subjects had irregularly settled themselves in these islands, as to make it indispensable to provide some means of maintaining good order amongst them.’
They went on to say ‘This was the course actually pursued with respect to the Middle and Southern Islands, to which the Treaty of Waitangi does not even nominally extend’.
That’s from the horse’s mouth so to speak. So this wonderful founding document only actually covered the North Island and nothing else!!??
Governor Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 21 May 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840 and New Zealand became a British Crown Colony. Captain William Hobson became the first Governor of New Zealand.
Check this out, (sigh)
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/5564731/University-backs-racist-Maori-academic
I believe Margaret Mutu has a bad habit of translating the Maori language to suit her needs. In the Murewhenua claim (Northern Land Claim, Sunday Star Times, 23 March 1997) she claim the closest translation of the Maori word “tuku whenua” meant, “leasing or allocating”. This was agued by Lyndsay Head of the Caterbury University that “tuku whenua” meant “to sell”. William’s early dictionary, as well as all modern dictionaries also confirms this translation. Tuku (-a) whenua – let go; give up; etc. Lease being translated as “rihi”. “Tuku is also the word used in the Tiriti o Waitangi when the chiefs must cede, give up their territories to the Queen for Britain to form a legal government “for all the people of New Zealand”.
Another shining example of translating to suit her needs is in, “Weeping Waters – The Treaty of Waitangi and Constitutional Change”. In this book Mutu tries to translate the Tiriti o Waitangi to once again suit her needs. Remember Sir Hugh Kawhura also had a go with his, “attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text” for the 1987 Court of Appeal between the New Zealand Maori Council and the Attorney General (CA 54/87). There is an “official” translation made by Mr T E Young of the Native Department in 1969 for the Legislative Council as well as we now have the “final draft” from which the Rev Henry Williams translated the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. These 3 versions are virtually word perfect to each other.
A few months ago the Hon Pita Sharples asked, “When we arrive in the presence of God, what if he asks us: What became of that noble language that I gave you”? His response will have to be, “Our Maori scholars distorted it to such an extent for greed it could no longer be translated”. It is obvious from the modern translations of the Tiriti o Waitangi in “Weeping Waters” from Maoridom’s leading scholars; the Maori language can no longer be accurately translated into another language, which is very sad. See article on ONZF website, “What Happened to that Noble Language”. http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz
Correction, Mr T E Young of Native Department’s translation for the Legislative Council was made in 1869, not 1969.
Dr. Margaret Mutu, Maori Supremacist & Chronic Racist.
Some years ago, Mutu tried to use the case of dispossessed farmer, Allan Titford and his family, as an example of how Maori were being ripped-off. Titford had his freehold-title farm stolen off him by a false land claim, based upon concocted history that is, very-obviously, transparent-fraud for anyone who wishes to see the documented historical evidence going back to 1870 and thereafter.
Here’s some very “creative-accountancy” proffered by Dr. Margaret Mutu, as quoted in a 2003 N.Z. Herald article:
‘She worked out a formula using the 1995 deal in which Pakeha landowner Alan Titford received $3.25 million in compensation for the 94 acres of Far North farmland taken off him to return to Maori. Based on that, she said, the settlements paid out so far were 0.06 per cent of what they were worth. Ngai Tahu’s $170 million was 0.01 per cent of $1192 billion they would have got under Professor Mutu’s formula, and Tainui’s $170 million was 0.4 per cent. “I think I can only put it down to that there is a deeply embedded racism…”
“I don’t use the term racism loosely. Racism is the powerful exercising control against the powerless and depriving them of resources that are rightfully theirs.” Processes where iwi were expected to negotiate on Crown terms and use Pakeha methods to prove they were entitled to negotiate a settlement – even when the Waitangi Tribunal had already upheld their grievances. “I wonder what Pakeha would do if they were made to do this sort of thing. You prove conclusively that you’ve been robbed and then you go through years of trying to prove you have a right to talk to the Crown.” (see NZ Herald, 26/9/03).
The reality of the Titford farm-theft is this:
• The fraudulent issue of Manuwhetai and Whangarairiki, as “forgotten reserves” had been raised and dealt with several times since 1895, through Parliament, the Native Land Court, the Surveyor General’s Office or the courts and proven to be spurious when studied in light of the documented evidence. To this day the Waitangi Tribunal cannot produce one historical document that validates the claim.
• The claim itself gobbled up sixteen hundred and fifty-three acres (1653) in two freehold titles, in addition to the proceeds derived from the sale of an additional eighty-nine acres (89) of Titford’s land, which amounts to seventeen hundred and forty two acres (1742) total, not ninety-four acres (94) as Mutu deceptively states.
• If, as according to the “creative accountancy” of spin-Dr. Margaret Mutu, Titford got $3.25-million for 94-acres, then, at that exorbitant rate, he should have been paid $56,978,723.4 for the other 1648-acres that were either confiscated or the monies from which ended up in the coffers of very creative-extortionist government departments.
• One of their best con-jobs perpetrated on Allan Titford involved the Rural Bank offering to help Titford to buy a “replacement” farm at Taupo (which never went through), for which the Rural Bank would put up a deposit of $200,000, to be held in trust by the bank. The Taupo farm sale was “conditional”, with the vendor required to meet a series of well-described conditions before the deposit was paid. Allan Titford had no access to the money, which could only be released directly through the bank. By some inexplicable means, the $200,000 was released to the land agents, Elders, and it then disappeared into the system, undoubtedly coming back to the Rural Bank. Titford was held liable for the sum, although he derived no benefit whatsoever from it, and six years later, when the government finally forced the sale of Titford’s Maunganui Bluff farm (under duress), the $200,000 deposit that the Rural Bank gave to Elders (or whoever) had grown to a $460,000 debt (with the tagged on interest). According to Titford, government henchman, Ray Chappell, who had himself formerly been a director within the Rural Bank, in smug amusement, told him later that it had all been done to break Titford and force him into bankruptcy.
• If Mutu would care to take into account all contingencies of Titford’s investments into the property, for which no latter compensation was forthcoming, farm working capital confiscated by the Rural Bank or other government departments and agencies when the farm business was frozen by official interference, highly inflated penalty interest charges unfairly imposed by the government owned Rural Bank after the curtailment of day-to-day farming activities, loss of weekly farming returns and such bizarre items as crippling ACC levies and other cons designed to drain equity and lead to bankruptcy, etc., etc., then Allan Titford’s final payout per acre, in real accountancy terms, was more akin to about $91.50.
At the true acre rate that represents what Titford received in his hand, the $170,000,000 paid to Ngai-tahu would have purchased 1,857,923.497-acres.
Dr. Margaret Mutu also conveniently omitted to mention how Ngai Tahu received a “Full & Final Settlement” in 1944 (The 3rd time they’d been paid & fully compensated for a few “loose-ends” left over after the Kemp Purchase of their South Island holdings). There’s a whole Act of Parliament outlining this “Full & Final” payment, which had been agreed to by all parties in the years leading up to 1944. Similarly, the NZ Government completed “Full & Final Settlements” with Tainui by 1947.
Martin.
Also see, “Stolen Lands at Maunganui Bluff”.
http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/documents/StolenLands.pdf
Wow, thank you for the history of my ancestors. I have enjoyed this discussion.
JA: I’m pleased you’ve enjoyed it, Zelda. Also thrilled that we’ve managed to attract two of the most thorough investigators of Treaty issues in the country, Martin Doutre and Ross Baker.
The PC brigade love to hurl insults at Martin and Ross in the hope of discrediting them, but the more I investigate the counter-claims the more respect I have for the diligence, doggedness and exhaustive knowledge of this pair.
A big reason why I have yet to post Part 2 of my series is that I kept uncovering fascinating new facts in Martin and Ross’s work. Unlike them, I’m very slow, but hopefully when I do publish, you will be able to follow the sequence of events very clearly.
(Also, my 91 year old dad had a stroke on Monday, so my attention is somewhat divided. So far so good though.)
Yes, it’s been marvellous hasn’t it, and so extensively researched. It’s a pity this site wasn’t viewed by the masses. It would certainly open their eyes wide.
Helen, it can be viewed by the masses, it just needs people to send it on or post it on other websites. We can do the research, it’s over to you to distribute it. It’s not what the country can do for you, it’s what you can do for your country. Please send it to all your friends, family and colleagues.
Actually I’ve worded that incorrectly. I should have said if only we could wake the many apathetic people up. Believe me, I’ve told all and sundry at different times over the years about the distortion of our history and where they can read the true facts. I’ve even offered to lend books and papers. While, many agree that things aren’t as they should be, say how they don’t like the racial privilege being granted more and more, not to mention the Treaty settlements which they don’t agree with, they don’t try and find out or bother themselves with the facts. In other words, too many people just roll over, mutter under their breath, and just take what’s dished up by the politicians and radicals. I honestly could shake them until their teeth rattle, such is my frustration with them. I just know they are actually going to wake up one day and ask ‘how did this happen’? In this country it’s like the saying about evil prevailing while good men do nothing – or similar words. However, I will never give up even if people start to think I’m a nutter!!
Helen, I did not mean to point the finger at you, I can see you are doing an excellent job of getting the message out to the masses, but like you I am frustrated people will not stop and think what is happening to their country right under their noses. Thank to all those who are doing their best, especially JA. The truth will win out in the end – it always does.
ONZF, sadly you thinking “The truth will win out in the end – it always does.” I would like to disagree. Sometimes it is so embarrassing to people in power that it is sanitised and buried. Leaving people with terrific burdens of knowlege to bear unto their graves. I could add threats from high places to that too.
Aunt Pane Ututaonga spoke to a hall full of family about our ancestors still eating people in the 1920″s, she told family never to forget it!
Pane had very little tolerance for the relations at Ti Tai Marae.
JA: Zelda, if you are Maori then your efforts count at least double – but probably more like a thousandfold.
New Zealand badly needs one inspirational Maori to stand up to the radicals and say:
“We have a lot more to gain from charting a future as part of the human race than by perpetually grieving for the past losses of the Maori race.
“It is time to accept that the upside of colonisation – the phenomenal improvement in our life expectancy and standard of living – has far and away outstripped the downside.
“Pakeha have learned to become more accepting and respectful of our ways. They have tried to put right that which they now believe to be wrong.
“But we must not push them too far. We too are Pakeha as well as Maori. We must see life with the Pakeha as an opportunity to build a golden future, not a problem to be cursed.”
Who is that Maori?
ONZF please know that I didn’t take offence or even think you were pointing the finger at me. Like you I get so frustrated with the apathy but I’m also inclined to agree with Zelda and worry that the truth just might not out in the end. I’ve been agitating about what is happening since returning to NZ in 1995 and sadly and worryingly it is not getting better but is getting worse. It seems like an unstoppable train and is gaining momentum. No truth will out until the masses wake up from their long slumber, face facts and start agitating for change in a big way. It’s almost becoming ingrained into people that what is going on really is okay and we should feel guilty for what we have done to ‘Maori’!! I’ve always said that if you repeat something often enough, people will believe it and this is exactly what is happening. We can’t give up no matter what even if we often feel like voices in the wilderness.
A beginning a middle and an end.
Presently, our immediate and by far worst threat is not by distortions done to our Tiriti, but by the secret deal engineered by our Prime Minister, Hon. John Key, and Maori Party Co. leader, Hon. Peter Sharples when Hon. Sharples sneaked off to New York and signed the Declaration of Indigenous Peoples. I believe this will have a great impact on our first written constitution, presently being thrashed out by a committee which, I believe, have tabled before them for consideration the “Bolivian Constitution.”
To ensure you read this to the end, the Bolivian Constitution nationalised all private property, forcing property, car owners and owners of whatever else (I don’t know) to rent them back with the proceeds divided between the Government and the indigenous people.
Number one! Government do not have a definition of Indigenous, due to interbreeding. I encourage those who disbelieve me to write and ask Government for a definition of indigenous.
The beginning. In the year 1422, Zheng He, the Chinese pirate/trader, abandoned some sick slaves on NZ’s shore who were cared for by the descendants of the Scottish Taine Ruairidh Mhor (changed to Moreore when Hongi Hika, Rev Kendall and Prof Lee changed the Maori language at Cambridge University, UK). Not knowing where they came from, Taine Ruairidh Mhor named them “Populi de Mare (People from the Sea), which later became “Mare” and changed by the foregoing to Maori.
The middle. When these slaves recovered, they turned on their benefactors demanding everything for themselves.
The end, “caught out.” At the time of the slaves abandonment, an old woodworm eaten ship was burned on the shore and the hand of God saved the log book which carries the details of the event naming names of all of the men who were abandoned. This raises a huge question, the question being, “If all those abandoned were male, how come Hons. Key and Sharples consider Maoris indgenous?
The crunch. Though the original log book is held by a British museum, a copy remains in New Zealand held by the oldest survivor of the original chief of Taine Ruairidh Mhor.
JA: Have you seen these log books, Rangi? How would we get a look?
See where your embracing of “outsider” facts takes you to John? 9/11 was some sort of Republican conspiracy and that fantastically entertaining comment by Rangi. Very amusing, but a basis for determining policy? Nah.
JA: You prefer to just believe insiders, Judge? Not me. I’m curious for truth, wherever it may lie. You must be too, since you’ve sat through 146 comments!
On 9/11, I’ve seen a compelling documentary by a sober-sounding engineer that put up a great deal of evidence that the World Trade Centre collapse was a controlled demolition. A Danish explosives expert says he found traces of explosives at Ground Zero.
I have no idea whether any of this is true, but I don’t think we should shoot the messenger simply because his conclusion seems bizarre. That would be closedminded. Only by keeping an open mind can we hope to find truth.
I say let both sides of all disputes go at it until one side’s case collapses.
The issue of whether Maori were the first people inhabiting New Zealand has nothing to do with the Tiriti o Waitangi, it’s immaterial. If there were people inhabiting New Zealand before Maori, then they intermarried with each other to become a distinct race of people called Maori that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. See article 3.
Maori today have again intermarried with other races of their own free will until they are no longer the distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840. With the signing of the Tiriti o Waitangi, New Zealand became a British Crown Colony and the continuing legislation made all the people New Zealand Citizens under one flag and one law.
The problem with the Tiriti o Waitangi, over the last 30 years we have been using an English version never authorized by Governor Hobson, plus distorted back translations when compared with the final draft dated the 4 February 1840, a back translation published by J Noble Coleman in 1865 and a back translation by Mr T E Young of the Native Department in 1869 for the Legislative Council. These 3 documents of the time are virtually word perfect to each other and show without doubt, the Tiriti o Waitangi related to “all the people of New Zealand under one flag and one law”.
As for the Indigenous People of New Zealand, I thought we all arrived by canoe, ship or plane only a few hundred years apart then intermarried and breed like rabbits, hardly indigenous, no wonder we don’t have a definition.
What has 9/11 got to do with the mess New Zealand’s in?
JA: That’s the nature of unmoderated blog debate, ONZF – it can go off at tangents. In this case it’s one of Judge Holden’s tactics to divert attention from the facts that the likes of you and Martin Doutre are presenting.
This is the first time I’ve seen anyone say that the presence or otherwise of pre-Maori people doesn’t affect the Treaty, and I think it’s a good point.
How do you answer the claim that the Treaty was with tribes, and that the racial purity of the people in those tribes is similarly irrelevant?
“I have no idea whether any of this is true, but I don’t think we should shoot the messenger simply because his conclusion seems bizarre.”
I bet you were a birther too, weren’t you?
JA: Judge, you’ve had a good run with your sniping, but it’s becoming boring.
From now on I want you to confine your comments on this blog to constructive points of debate. Polite disagreement is fine, especially if it’s backed up by some sort of evidence. Relentless poisonous meanspirited carping is not fine.
This thread has attracted people who have devoted a big part of their lives to in-depth study of Treaty matters, and they are entitled to our respect.
This applies to anyone who has done serious study on any issue, whether or not I agree with their conclusions.
John, it had to be with the tribes as there was no united political structure in New Zealand in 1840. Each individual tribe protected their own territory for as long as they could, “might was right”. “The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand” Historian, Michael King.
I do not say people should not pursue pre-Maori history, its just that it has nothing to do with the Treaty, which was signed with a distinct race of people made up of many tribes called Maori.
As for racial purity, how far back in time would we need to go to find racial purity, we can only take a race for what it is at the time.
JA: Thanks – makes sense.
John, just to clarify my last post, since New Zealand adopted the Statute of Westminster in 1947, the New Zealand Government has been signing agreements around the world on behalf of the people of New Zealand, a people of many races.
Howdy folks!
I have been down home and have done some of my own research re Patu-paiarehe. The elderly boatman who I mentioned in earlier post confirmed the story I heard about the woman claiming she was Patu-paiarehe then he went on to tell me a lot of other stuff. He helps run the museum and directed me to 2 books which had historical accounts of these people amongst the detail of what happened when the Waka’s landed etc. I did not read these as they required some serious sitting and analysing of information, of which I am going to do next time I am home. Better still, ill photo copy them. Then he gave me a name of another chap who lived in our district who could further confirm Patu-paiarehe.
I managed to get his phone number and yes, he said as a teenager he remembers his father speaking of large bones in sand dunes, and then one day he came across these human bones in a sand dune himself. He remembers measuring a tibia bone against his leg from the soul of his foot and it went above his knee. Being a cheeky teenage boy, he formed them into a skull and cross bone and took a photo of them.
He then went on to say he has documentation (about 4-5 pages) of some research that he is going to send to me that mentions pre – maori reminants. I have no idea on how important the information will be. I am of the impression that it is not very detailed just from what he told me over the phone and I am thinking it will not provide anything conclusive, BUT we shall wait and see.
Ill take copies and send them to you Martin and ONZF if you would like.
JA: I think you should, Trina. Sounds interesting.
I am so impressed with what both ONZF and Martin Doutre have to say on Treaty matters. Their research is impeccable, so explicit and easy to understand and not at all complicated so I really can’t see what on earth recent past and present Governments are going on about. It is very clear that we are all New Zealanders, have been for many decades, and everything relating to the Waitangi Tribunal is just a great big fraud.
Weak Governments have allowed 3 and 4 full and final settlements in the past and certain cunning people have been exploiting these weak Governments over time. If there were any problems/grievances in the beginning the time for settling them should have been well before the turn of the 20th century and anything after that should have been given a big NO!! There should never have been anything after a first full and final settlement, otherwise what does ‘full and final’ really mean?. Unfortunately these people have long learned that if you go on and on about something for long enough eventually people will believe you and give in.
We need a very strong leader after the next election to turn this whole fraudulent mess around. Unfortunately it is not looking very likely unless something quite unforeseen happens. I won’t hold my breath.
JA: I agree with you, Helen.
To me, the way to raise public awareness is to carefully boil down the work of the Martins and Rosses into a simple sequence that any curious-but-busy person can instantly grasp.
That’s what I’m trying to do. (I know I’m taking my time, but getting clear can be complicated and time-consuming. I’d rather get it right than rush it.)
Then, once we’ve got the definitive easy-to-read version of events, we can distribute it far and wide via email, posters, whatever.
Another piece of information that came out while I was doing my own little bit of research was this.
A Maori guy told the local man that helps run the museum that ‘Pakeha are stupid’. He said ‘look at it, Maori have received a number of ‘final’ settlements on Taranaki and now they are going for another ‘final’ settlement. He said they will not stop. After that payment is made they will keep at Government, needling them for another 20 to 30 years about how they had their lands stolen, how Pakeha brought diseases and muskets blah blah blah until the government gives in and pays out again. He said they wont stop until they become that wealthy they can tell the government to F off. He said himself that Pakeha need to stand up and start saying NO!
The other chap who I spoke to about the papers expressed a very deep concern about civil war breaking out in the country. I have had the same concerns myself.
With the way the treaty guilt trip has saturated every policy and conscience of the country, how do you get action on the truth without triggering a senseless break out of violence.
I am angry and frustrated but I am certainly not hateful towards Maori people. I understand that the average Maori family is just trying to get ahead in this damn country like the rest of us.
After a bit more searching and reading around on the Internet I came to my own conclusions.
It is the Government and the elitist/corporate Maori who are doing all the scheming, secret meetings and self serving deals with each other. THEY are the one’s that are seeding racial tensions among us, then tell us we are being racist. THEY are the one’s who write up the fraudulent policies that THEY benefit from and divide the people in this country further apart.
It is always the tax paying civilians, Iwi and non-Iwi that end up paying for it in more ways than one.
If we want change then we need to stop pointing fingers at each other identify who the true enemy is and stand united, shoulder to shoulder, Maori and Non-maori against THEM.
JA: I agree with all of this, Trina. Maori leaders are just exploiting opportunities offered by dumb Pakeha.
As Dover Samuels used to say, “Put a cloak on a Pakeha politician and he goes weak at the knees”. As with Doug Graham, so with Chris Finlayson.
Oh Trina, if only we had more people like you. You have hit the proverbial nail on the head. Of course we don’t have any bad feelings towards most people of Maori descent. I’ve always said they are indistinguishable from the rest of us and just trying to work, get a decent wage and pay their way in this world and I count a number amongst my acquaintances, not to mention a couple as relatives by marriage. The ‘Maori’ man you spoke to who said the Pakeha are stupid, was so right. Those of us who aren’t voicing our concerns are totally stupid and like I’ve always said, they will wake up one day (when it’s too late!!) and ask how this happened.
Again, as I’ve always said, if you say something often enough, people will eventually believe it and that’s why so many Sheeple are running around feeling guilty. These radicals are fiendishly cunning and they know exactly which buttons to press and how to go about their deceitful nonsense. They’ve perfected it over many years – very successfully.
Your second to last paragraph said it all. I couldn’t agree more.
Response to Trina & Helen … I apologise if this explanation is a little lengthy, but it’s what this old man saw unravel in New Zealand:
We could almost use the opening chapter of H. G. Wells, War Of The Worlds, to describe the pre-planned political and social destruction this country fell victim to after about 1975:
Chapter 1.
The eve of the war.
No one would have believed in the last years of the [twentieth] century that this [country] was being watched keenly and closely by [globalist] intelligences greater than man’s and yet as mortal as his own; that as [New Zealanders] busied themselves about their various concerns they were scrutinised and studied, perhaps almost as narrowly as a man with a microscope might scrutinise the transient creatures that swarm and multiply in a drop of water.
When I was a young man in the 1950’s & 60’s, New Zealand was predicted to become “The Switzerland of the South Pacific”. We were an immensely rich little country, with plenty of natural resources, a moderate growing climate and vast arable lands.
The people of New Zealand were the undisputed “owners” of many “State Owned Enterprises”, including hospitals, all public transport including railways, an international airline, cargo-shipping, telecommunications, electricity, forestry, fisheries, coal & gas, steel, etc, etc.
Our fishing fleets would set out and fish our coastal waters under the secure protection of our navy and air-force, which would ensure that foreign fishing vessels stayed outside of our exclusive economic zone.
The health of New Zealanders rated amongst the highest in the world, alongside other “socialised-medical-systems”, such as those of Sweden and Denmark with their equally low statistics of infant-mortality.
In all of this, we were fully protected from international big business schemers, inasmuch as we enjoyed the insulating protections of our nation’s founding document, Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Its clauses constituted a virtually impenetrable barrier to outside multinational exploitation strategies and tactics.
All the large blocks of lucrative resources of New Zealand were owned by “all the people of New Zealand”. This lock-out condition could only change if Te Tiriti o Waitangi was somehow reinvented and New Zealanders were systematically duped into believing that the treaty meant something diametrically opposed to what its clauses clearly stated.
We saw a campaign of disinformation begin in earnest by about 1974. The Polynesian Panther Party had started up in the early seventies, arguably or mostly as a fashion statement and fad movement. It idolised the black-American Panther Party and modelled itself on that, but lacked any history of “slavery” in common with the American counterparts.
The Polynesian Panther wanabees, desperate to clamber onto the black-American bandwagon as co-sufferers, invented an unsubstantiated, undocumented history of regional oppression under British Imperialism.
At first, university educated Maori showed little or no interest in the nonsense and were reluctant to be in any way involved. Later, others like Brown Power (Nga Tamatoa) warmed to the idea of forming a confederation with the Polynesian Panther Party.
Marxist elements in our trade unions, ever-vigilant in looking for political advancement or opportunities, got in on the act and instituted programmes whereby local dissidents could receive overseas training to learn political destabilisation tactics.
Some sponsored activists like Donna Awatere went to Cuba, whereas others went to communist Russia or China or even to Libya for weapons training.
Placid little New Zealand was to be their chosen playground for some “helter-skelter” fun and games.
Within the spate of a few short years many hundreds of our reliable old history books began to be unfairly demonised as “Euro-centric or ethnocentric” and unceremoniously discounted.
By the use of a mere, put-down buzzword like “Euro-centric” the content of these deeply-researched treatises didn’t need to be weighed in the balance for accuracy or even debated and the whole sorry exercise of dismissing them out-of-hand was little better than “book-burning”.
These many hundreds of very reliable, impartial works, where the testimonies of actual witnesses to 19th & 20th century events were recorded, had fallen from grace. They were later largely replaced by very limited, Marxist pseudo-history and propaganda, with its inevitable goal of socially-engineering the New Zealand population in ways that were useful to Marxist political aims and agendas.
The cancer of reinvented-history quickly spread into our universities and places of higher learning or government departments and became tenaciously ensconced.
An era was ushered in whereby lack-lustre historians, quite prepared to spout the newly-manufactured and approved Marxist version of regional history, were catapulted to success over the heads of real historians to become leading-lights, as well as much lauded-&-applauded spokespeople on all matters of public concern.
These politically aligned moral-cowards were simply ideological officers, prepared to sell their fellow New Zealanders down the river.
Dislodging or nullifying the Treaty & removing its protections:
The Treaty of Waitangi Act, 1975, largely pushed by Maori activists, required that an English version of the treaty be introduced to sit alongside Te Tiriti o Waitangi (the singular and only treaty wording that has ever existed) and be co-equal to Te Tiriti in any law-drafting and legislative incentives.
For this ruse, the very wily and deceptive activists forced-in the usage of an early, obsolete, composite English draft of the treaty, based mostly upon rough notes written on the 2nd & 3rd of February 1840. They deliberately avoided introducing the “final English draft” text of the 4th of February 1840, which was the mother document from which Te Tiriti was translated, as that wording was counter-productive to their long-term political aims (This text was available on microfilm, based upon overseas despatches of 1840).
They also avoided using the official back-translation text of 1869, issued under a formal request of the NZ Government to the Native Department.
These very accurate, fair and benign texts in English said exactly the same thing as Te Tiriti o Waitangi and guaranteed absolute equality to all New Zealanders altogether.
If the activists were to have any success in distorting the meaning of the treaty, they desperately needed the earlier, obsolete, rejected draft wording that had been cobbled together by James Stuart Freeman to form a “Formal Royal Style” text version (intended as a memorial-document and earmarked only for overseas despatch).
Freeman had created about 7 of these, over several months, during 1840 and their overly-pretentious wordings differed from each other to a greater or lesser degree.
In the early, developing English draft notes, where the British emissaries worked out exactly what they wished to say to the Maori chiefs, James Busby had initially forgotten to make clear reference to the rights of the British residents in Article II.
Busby’s temporary omissions and oversights didn’t matter at all, inasmuch as the essential corrections were made for the final English draft of the 4th of February 1840, written under the careful scrutiny and guidance of Queen Victoria’s duly appointed representative, British Consul, Captain William Hobson.
The activists of 1975 got their way in getting the defective, rejected 3rd of February rough-English-draft, composite-text to be recognised as “The Official English Version” and sit alongside Te Tiriti as our legislative text.
Over the next few years it utterly eclipsed and nullified Te Tiriti, which is exactly what the activists and social-engineers had planned should happen. Now, for the first time, they could cause widespread confusion over what the treaty truly said or meant and introduce convenient legalese arguments to totally distort the treaty’s true content.
With the waters sufficiently muddied, the treaty protections were gone and the country was opened up for plunder.
Also in 1975 the Waitangi Tribunal was created, which body continues to use twisted, biased and largely undocumented pseudo-history to disenfranchise the majority of New Zealanders and deceitfully turn them into second-class citizens.
Using the totally distorted, nouveau interpretations of the treaty, which cannot be sustained or justified by any historical documents, a confederation of Maori activists and government corridor-creepers have systematically defrauded all the people of New Zealand and divested them of their State-Owned wealth, which has been largely siphoned off by overseas interests.
The only winners in this nefarious con game are big business, a few selected Maori leaders and traitorous NZ politicians with globalist alliances.
Absolutely nothing in Te Tiriti o Waitangi allows for such things as segmenting off large lumps of New Zealand’s precious resources like fisheries to be given exclusively to selected Maori and, thereby, opening up our waters to hugely-damaging exploitation by foreign vessels and their accompanying factory ships, etc.
Nothing in the treaty justifies the theft of our laboriously hand-planted forests and public lands, foreshore & seabed, radio spectrum frequencies, etc., etc.
The other big, big secret is that “ALL” full and final settlements with iwi for any perceived or real outstanding grievances and loose-ends were finished by 1944-1947 under the Fraser Government.
A little digging into our true, documented history will show that everything of any known consequence was settled, with the final progress payment made in 1974
(See: Settlements Of Major Maori Claims In The 1940’s: A Preliminary Historical Investigation, by Richard Hill, 1989, Commissioned by the Lange Government).
Most New Zealanders don’t realise that we have, languishing in our archives and places like LINZ (Land Information New Zealand), full sale agreements for whole provinces like Taranaki, which was purchased by Governor Hobson from Te Wherowhero of Waikato in 1842 (the pre-treaty conqueror and owner).
The fact is that the same lands, throughout most of New Zealand, were sold many times over by Maori and paid for repeatedly by the government, the New Zealand Company or individual settler groups (as in Taranaki).
Most present-day land claims are outright fraud that could not be sustained or proven in any fair and impartial court.
Dr. Michael Belgrave, former historian working on Waitangi Tribunal claims, states:
‘…it is necessary to gain an understanding of how the Treaty of Waitangi has been subject to the same sort of reinvention as the particular claims of different groups’.
He goes on to say:
‘It would come as a surprise to most New Zealanders to learn that for almost every case examined before the Waitangi Tribunal since 1985, there have been previous court proceedings, or commissions of inquiry (including royal commissions), recommendations, negotiations and even an extensive record of settlement or partial settlement. The Waitangi Tribunal hearings are only the latest in a long line of legal investigations of Maori claims…’
(see Historical Friction – Maori Claims & Reinvented Histories, pp 3 & 7, Auckland University Press, 2005).
Martin Doutré.
JA: Thanks Martin for this superb summary – one of the very best I’ve seen.
“From now on I want you to confine your comments on this blog to constructive points of debate. Polite disagreement is fine, especially if it’s backed up by some sort of evidence. Relentless poisonous meanspirited carping is not fine.”
Oh come on John! I’m just trying to explore the extent of your credulity when it comes to formulating your “right wing version of truth”. You’re not ruling out 9/11 being an inside job, or there being a cover up over a mysterious prehistoric race of Scotsmen who populated NZ before the Chinese arrived (or something). Where does this end? Was Obama born in Kenya? If not, why not? Did we land on the moon? Who is suppressing the invention of a car that can run on water? Where’s the line drawn?
JA: I draw the line under the truth, Judge. Where do you draw it?
I open my mind to all possibilities until one of them is proven true. What do you do with yours?
Thanks you very much, Martin. I’ve long known what you have said but to see it all set down like you have just done, is extremely illuminating and helpful. I also find it very encouraging to read something which says very much what I have long thought as to how we have all been duped and ridden roughshod over.
It has long been very obvious to me that any claims in today’s age, must be fraudulent because all claims would have been settled long ago. You have just confirmed they had been. Also it’s beyond my comprehension why there have continued to be claims after a claim had been settled, e.g. some iwi are now onto their 3rd and 4th FULL AND FINAL settlement!!
So, how do we stop this rot?? Something has to be done otherwise it will proceed until we are being ruled by this rabid mob. It just doesn’t bear thinking about. I really fear for this country.
Thanks again.
What rabid mob? The globalists? Does this have something to do with the Bilderburg Group and Bohemian Grove I wonder? Perhaps the Illuminati are involved somehow. How deep does this go?
Judge Holden said, “Evidence of pre-Maori settlement is not a basis for determining policy.”
Dear Judge, please re-read my letter. The recent secret signing of the Declaration of Indigenous Rights is the biggest threat to our country at the moment.
If you want to find evidence of the disgusting manner Governments treat the real indigenous people of our country, log on to the web site below. This should sicken anyone.
Here is a list of what’s and why’s courtesy of http://www.kilts.co.nz/mhorruairidh.htm
What happened to the remains of short 4 foot tall people (utensils and all) uncovered by a landslide in the Kaimanawas? Why are such remains, and skeletons, usually handed to Maori, or carefully slipped out of the public arena into oblivion?
What happened to the tall seven foot plus, skeletons found in a rock cave, to which the entrance was conveniently detonated to cover up the evidence? What about the grave of a tall warrior wearing full armour?
Why are authorities now vociferously trying to deny the facts that confirm and prove the Moriori were not Maori?
Why are early Portuguese artifacts, Phonecian artifacts (or are they Carthaginian?), Celtic and Viking artifacts deliberately destroyed or handed to local Maori Iwi for displosal BEFORE legitimate scientific analysis, genetic DNA fingerfrinting and carbon dating can be done?
Why are all the strange wrecks around New Zealand, ignored, re-buried, destroyed, and not investigated properly?
Where did all the ancient fruit trees around the Kaipara harbour come from? Local lore has it that they have been there from the beginning!
Why are ancient Maori oral records about earlier peoples ignored, hidden, or conveniently supressed, yet equally oral records about land claims are accepted as gospel?
Why do so many early skeletons have characteristics that are definately non-maori (or even any sort of polynesian), when found, simply get handed straight to Iwi who immediatelty secret them away for destructive or secretive disposal?
Why are thousands of pre-Maori sites deliberately being engulfed by Maori claims under covert procedures processed by the Treaty of Waitangi tribunal? Or “by arrangement” with local bodies. or DOC or environmental and government cultural organisations?
Why was Capt. Cook using Portuguese charts when he visited NZ for the first time? Why did these charts show Cook Straight as Portuguese Pass? Why did the map have Portuguse names assigned to various east coast features and places? Why do the East Coast Maori look so Portuguese yet no research is funded to link the facts to the present historical understanding of our country?
Why are numerous constructed stone walls around the country simply written off as “natural rock formations and features”?
Why are strange writings, glyphs, and the like on rocks abounding in waterways and coasts not widely acknowledged as being pre-Maori and associated with known cultures and examples in the old world? Why are Maori given control over waterways where such items are found? Do Maori have or deserve exclusive rights to everything?
Do the Patu pai-arehe people still inhabit remote parts of our country? Some reports, suppressed or ignored of course, indicate they may still be there. Turehu? Te Roroa? Waitaha? there are many names for pre-Maori peoples. Maori elders know this, but avoid giving out the truth or deliberately convey opposite or missinformation about so many things if given a chance.
Why do so many so called Maori designs reflect a strong celtic influence? Were they borrowed from their Celtic predecessors? Or is it that Celtic design and Maori design had a common origin?
Why is “old Maori” suggested to have similarity to much older Celtic languages or an earlier common language? Why do so many so called Maori place names have such similarity to Gaelic and Celtic language root sounds and meanings? “Tara” in Taranaki is a normal Celtic Gaelic term for a place of significance. eg. Tara in Ireland. Can some ancient Gaelic and Celtic scholar investigate the so called Maori place names of NZ and give us insight into their origins? Modern spellings for Maori may inadvertantly conceal linguistic links or borrowed words. Dialectic variance may also add to the puzzle.
For more insults to the indigenous people, log on to the site above and wonder why Governments knowingly keep this quiet.
Rangi what you say has as much validity and makes as much sense, if not more, than the other “facts” presented on this thread. A mixture of gigantic and midget Scotsmen living here 900 years ago with their Portuguese friends and Phonecian antiques is perfectly possible, despite the absence of any actual evidence. Good work researching this. Why the Bilderberg Group is keeping this a secret I don’t know. Any ideas?
Martin, I can’t thank you enough for that post. I need to have more faith in my instincts. They have been working over time this past year and your post just confirmed how right they have been.
In the 1980’s the Fourth Labour Government turned our Tiriti o Waitangi into one the most racist document ever written. It allowed one group of New Zealand Citizens by race alone the privilege of a taxpayer funded tribunal to claim against their fellow citizens using Principles and a Partnership dreamt up by its Ministers and bureaucrats based on American Civil Rights and a false treaty document. We believe future Government’s being too afraid to repeal these unsubstantiated reforms in fear of a threatened civil war if Maori did not get their own way, but Geoffrey Palmer explains, there is a way out of this mess.
Based on extracts from Sir Geoffrey Palmers Book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis”,
1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act
The Treaty of Waitangi Act created the Waitangi Tribunal, which was set up to hear and recommend claims after 1975 as previous claims had been fully and finally settled in the 1930/40’s. While the Tribunal recommended settlements to Government, they were not binding, although the Government seldom refused. The taxpayer’s fund the Tribunal as well as most of the research and legal fees that are seldom if ever questioned by the Crown lawyers or its researchers. New Zealand Citizens that cannot claim a minute trace of Maori ancestry cannot lodge a claim, participate, cross-examine claimants or their researchers or lodge an appeal. Most hearings are held on a marae where Maori protocol is observed and oral evidence in many cases over-rules documented evidence, especially if it is from a Maori elder.
The Waitangi Tribunal breaches Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi. The Tribunal is taxpayer funded and for the benefit of part-Maori only.
1979 – Hon Geoffrey Palmer Enters Politics.
In 1979 Geoffrey Palmer entered New Zealand politics after studying United States constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School. This was at a time when the American Civil Rights revolution was at its height, which was part of his studies. He also went to university with Chief Judge Eddie Durie, former Chief Judge of the Maori Land Court and Chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal. From his book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis”, Geoffrey Palmer states, “At the University of Chicago I lived in a ghetto, on the one side of the street only whites lived, on the other side only blacks lived. Relations between the two groups were strained. Marches were taking place in the south to force racial equality”. There is no comparison between our history and race relations in New Zealand compared to the people of America – absolutely none! While there have been grievances against the Crown by Maori, they have not been between the races of New Zealand. Most New Zealanders have lived in harmony with each other, intermarriage between the races freely accepted, a common factor. We had the Tiriti o Waitangi in New Zealand giving the same rights to all the people of New Zealand, irrespective of race, colour or creed – not so in America – the black people were slaves. It is impossible to compare New Zealand’s history and race relations with those in America.
1983 – Fourth Labour Government opens “A Can of Worms” based on American
Civil Rights
In the Fourth Labour Government, the Hon Geoffrey Palmer became Attorney General, Deputy Leader of the Labour Party and Chairman of the Policy Council. Geoffrey Palmer continues, “The factor that shaped my intellectual approach to Maori issues in New Zealand was my experience in the United States…… It was on this background that I drew, and with adaptations used as the basis for legislation to advance the interests of the Maori minority in New Zealand. I did some researched on the outstanding grievances and it did not appear to me that looking into them would open the can of worms, which many feared. I took the view that the claims may take a decade to deal with, that it would cause some anguish but it would be worth it in the end”.
Nearly 3 decades later, billions of dollars and hundreds of alleged claims still to be settled with no end in sight, how wrong he was. If it is allowed to continue the anguish this “can of worms” has created could very easily lead to violence.
Geoffrey Palmer teamed up with the Minister of Maori Affairs, Hon Koro Wetere. “We were able to accomplish a lot together in this area and I have a lot of respect for him. Why not give a body equipped with powerful research (Waitangi Tribunal) tools and powers of inquiry to look into old grievances and powers to recommend what should be done. It would be for the government of the day to decide what to do about the recommendations. A body, which looked at the evidence fully and fairly, sifted through the history and measured it against the treaty would give Maori an outlet for their grievances. The courts would give very heavy weight to the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal, which were of great value”.
Government power was shifting to the Waitangi Tribunal and the Courts without the public’s knowledge or consent. How can it be fair when only 12% of the population can participate while the other 88% pay the bills without the right to participate, cross examine or appeal?
1985 – Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act.
While Prime Minister David Lange was overseas in Europe, Acting Leader Geoffrey Palmer introduce the 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act to hear claims dating back to 1840, which completely overlooked the fact that most of these claims had been fully and finally settled in the 1930′s and 40′s when the New Zealand Government was under the control of the British Government. This Act also stated, “Any claim that was or is, inconsistent with the Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This was the first time the Principles of the Treaty had ever been mentioned and while they had never been debated by the public or defined, reference to them started appearing in many Acts of Parliament once the 1985 Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act was passed in 1985. But what were the Principles of the Treaty?
The 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act and its amendment are the biggest injustices ever created by any Government on its people as it allows one group of New Zealand Citizens the privilege of a taxpayer funded apartheid Tribunal to claim against their fellow New Zealand Citizens using Principles and a Partnership dreamt up by Ministers and bureaucrats using false information and a false Treaty document.
1986 – The Five Principles wrote the Majority of New Zealanders Out of the Treaty
of Waitangi
In 1986, Sir Geoffrey Palmer instigated the Principles, which effectively wrote the majority of New Zealanders out of the Treaty and made it into a Partnership between Maori and the Crown. This was never the intention of the Treaty or those that signed it. The Maori activists and the Courts grasped the Partnership with both hands and the can of worms was open. New Zealand would never be the same again; the Fourth Labour Government had now created a divided Nation of Maori and the others.
1986 – Changing the Bureaucrats Attitude to the Treaty.
In 1986 Geoffrey Palmer and Koro Wetere teamed up again to change the bureaucrat’s attitude to the Treaty of Waitangi. They got together a Cabinet Paper, which required Government Departments to take Treaty Principles consideration into account when making policy. In June 1986, Cabinet: (1) “Agreed that all future legislation referred to cabinet at the policy approval stage should draw attention to any implications for recognition of the Principles of the Treaty”. Not to the Treaty, but to the Principles dreamt up by people only interested in pushing their own hidden agendas.
1986 – State Owned Enterprise Act.
In 1986 the Labour Government decided to change most of our trading departments into corporations run on commercial principles for profit. Maori became concerned that this big re-organization would have the effect of denying them Crown assets that passed out of the Crown’s hands to the State Owned Enterprises, which then could not be given back under the Treaty to Maori claimants. The Government opposed taking this to the Privy Council with Geoffrey Palmer stating, “I was utterly opposed to the Privy Council having anything to say at all about what the Treaty meant in New Zealand”. Was Geoffrey Palmer afraid the Privy Council would say that the Treaty gave, all the people of New Zealand the same rights, irrespective of race, colour or creed and therefore the Principles and Partnership were a fallacy?
Hon Geoffrey Palmer, now the Minister of State Owned Enterprises made the following amendment to the State Owned Enterprise Act, (9). Treaty of Waitangi. “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”. This Act stated that any State asset sold by the Crown would have a clause stating resumption to the Crown if a claim was successful. The Waitangi Tribunal recommendations in this instance were legally binding on the Crown. In Geoffrey Palmers book, “New Zealand’s Constitution in Crisis” he admits, “I thought this a rather elegant legal solution myself”, but he later admitted, “I was wrong”. The apartheid Waitangi Tribunal and the Courts now controlled the Crown’s assets, our assets and Palmer thought at the time this was, “a rather elegant solution”.
1987 – Out of Order Court of Appeal Establishes ‘Principles and Partnership’.
The 1987 Court of Appeal between the New Zealand Maori Council and the Attorney General (CA 54/87) stated, “The Treaty of Waitangi has been primarily interpreted in the New Zealand Courts and this Appeal was significant in establishing the modern views on the Principles of the Treaty”. This Court also confirmed the Treaty was a Partnership between Maori and the Crown.
On page 663 of the Appeal document we find instead of using an official text of the Treaty, this Court used an unauthorised text by Sir Hugh Kawharu, which he calls his, “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text”. This is unbelievable; this Court decided to use an, “Attempt at a reconstruction of the literal translation of the Maori text” by a man representing people who were to gain most from its outcome. The Court stating, “It was put before us on behalf of the applicants. The Crown likewise accepted it for the purpose of this case”. Here we have the Crown accepting a bogus translation to interpret the Treaty and establish the unfounded “Five Principle of the Treaty” and a “Partnership between Maori and the Crown”. This Court of Appeal’s findings were a sham based on a bogus translation and must be ruled out of order. See the Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi, page 41.
There was Never a Partnership Between Maori and the Crown
Why do the Politicians, the Crown, the Courts and the media keep claiming a Partnership when there was no united Maori authority or all-over entity with the power to take on a Partnership? Maori were simply individual, scattered fighting tribes in no way equal to the status of a sovereign country under unified rule. It is unbelievable to even think that the most powerful nation in the world at the time would contemplate a partnership with some uncivilised natives, constantly at war with each other at the bottom of the world. Queen Victoria would never have agreed to a partnership with Maori in 1840.
1989 – The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi
In March 1989 three years after the Principles started appearing in legislation, Hon Geoffrey Palmer put forward a Cabinet paper seeking permission for a group of officials to prepare a paper setting out the Principles of the Treaty. Cabinet publish, “The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” on the 4th of July 1989. Principle 4 stating the Treaty was now a Partnership between Maori and the Crown, therefore writing the majority of New Zealanders out of the Treaty. Palmer stating, “The work that went into the Principles were based on scholarly analysis of all the material available on the Treaty, including the findings of the Waitangi Tribunal and the judicial decisions up to this time”. At the time the final draft had not been found; therefore “the scholarly analysis of all material available on the Treaty” that created the Principle and Partnership was obsolete a few months later when the final draft was found. The Principles and Partnership were now based on false information and false Treaty documents.
No Partnership and the Principles are a Fallacy.
While the Fourth Labour Government now allowed claims to date back to 1840, created Five Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi, accepted the Treaty as a Partnership between Maori and the Crown and had written the majority of New Zealanders out of the Treaty of Waitangi, the final draft proved this completely wrong. The Tiriti o Waitangi was never a Partnership between Maori and the Crown. There is only one valid principle. “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.
There was only one valid Principle agreed to by those that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in1840 “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. The Principle for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi, are only opinions dreamt up by a group of bureaucrats based on false information. They have no relationship to the Tiriti o Waitangi’s one principle of “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”.
1989 Fisheries Act
The Waitangi Tribunal sent an interim finding to the Minister of Fisheries on the 30 February 1987, which in effect said that if the fishing quota for commercial purposes were issued, the Crown would be in breach of its Treaty obligation since the Treaty guaranteed the tribes “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their… Fisheries…”. There is no mention in the Tiriti o Waitangi that over 500 chiefs signed that they had “full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Fisheries…”. In 1989, the Government ended up giving Maori 20% of the fishing quota and $100 million dollars of taxpayer’s funds, plus customary rights to exceed fish limits. The Waitangi Tribunal had used and the government had again accepted a false Treaty document. This was just one of many Acts that have been passed by Governments using a false version of the Treaty of Waitangi.
1989 – The Final Draft is Found.
Six months after “The Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty of Waitangi” appeared, John and Beryl Littlewood (Needham) were going through their deceased mother’s estate when they found a document entitled, “The Treaty of Waitangi”. This document, which was named the Littlewood treaty document by the Government’s historians, created great excitement amongst the amateur and professional historians. Was it the long lost final draft of the Treaty of Waitangi?
After two years of working on the authenticity of the final draft/Littlewood treaty document, Government paid historian, Dr Claudia Orange announced, “It was just another translation of the Maori version by an unknown author”. From its pedigree this is not so, the fact is, the Government did not want the people of New Zealand to know they had made a terrible mistake, therefore forced its paid historians and Government funded websites to misinform the public of its true identity. The Government had used false information to divide the people of New Zealand by stating the Treaty was a Partnership between Maori and the Crown. It had then created Five Principles that misrepresented the Treaty to allow those that could claim some minute trace of Maori ancestry to steal assets from their fellow New Zealand citizens. The Government also did not want the Privy Council to get involved and tell the public “what the Treaty really meant”!
On close inspection in 1990 I found it was dated the 4th of February 1840, the day the final draft was written. It was written on paper predating 1840 with a W Tucker watermark and it had the word soverignty spelt wrongly. Busby had spelt sovriegnty wrongly in his draft notes. Henry Littlewood had been James Clendon’s solicitor in New Zealand shortly after the Treaty was signed, therefore could have quite easily come into his possession and been passed down through the family. From its pedigree, this document could only be the final draft Hobson had given to the Rev Henry Williams to translate into the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 4th of February 1840. It was virtually word for word to the Tiriti o Waitangi and the Native Departments translation. See copy of article that appeared in “He iwi Tahi tatou – We are now one people” in 1992, page 34.
The final draft was virtually word for word to the translation Rev Henry Williams had made, except for the Preamble and Article 3 of the translation having the phase, “people of New Zealand” substituted for “chiefs and hapus” in the Preamble and “maoris” in Article 3. “All the people of New Zealand” was unchanged in Article 2 as it referred to “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed. No back translation has “people of New Zealand” in the Preamble or Article 3 and all are dated the 6th of February 1840, so it could not be a back translation from the Maori text. “Forests and fisheries” were not mentioned in the final draft and also not mentioned in the Tiriti o Waitangi signed on the 6th of February 1840.
From extensive research in 1990 and published in my book, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” and the continuing research and documented evidence by historian Martin Doutré and published in, “The Littlewood Treaty – The true English text of the Treaty found”, this could only be the final draft. The English text that the Government has been using was not the document used to translate the Treaty into Maori. Governor Hobson never made or authorised an English version of the Treaty of Waitangi and it would have been impossible to translate the English version attached to the 1975 Treaty of Waitangi Act into the Tiriti o Waitangi. The document found in 1989 by John and Beryl Littlewood (Needham) was the final draft that was given to the Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward on the 4th of February 1840 to translate into the Tiriti o Waitangi. It was also the document Governor Hobson had read in conjunction with the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 5 February 1840 and the document he had given to James Clendon to make a copy and sent to his superiors in America. See Final Draft, page 33.
Partnership and Principles a Fallacy
The final draft/Littlewood treaty document threw a completely different light on, “the work that went into the Principles that were based on scholarly analysis of all the material available on the Treaty”. The final draft showed there was no Fisheries, Forests or Partnership in the Treaty and the newly announced Principles based on a few bureaucrats personal opinions, were a fallacy. The Fourth Labour Government created a divided Nation based on false and obsolete information!
1990 – Governor General and Government Differ Over the Treaty
On the Australian ABC Four Corners current affairs programme in 1990 called, “Trick or Treaty” the Government and the Governor General differed over the Treaty. The Attorney General, the Hon David Lange stating, “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a Partnership with a number of signatures, a number of thumb prints and 500 people. Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”. Prime Minister, the Hon Geoffrey Palmer warned against, “making literal interpretations from the Treaty”, stating, “The meaning of the Treaty in terms of its operational consequences now, was far from clear. In fact, it’s a documents that is so vague that that is its primary problem”. But Mr Palmer, you had just clarified the Treaty with your Five Principles making it into a Partnership in our legislation. Why the complete about face from our two leaders? See copy of New Zealand Herald article on “Trick or Treaty”, page 43.
The Governor General, Rev Sir Paul Reeves, of Maori descent joined Maori leaders by hinting that, “Injustices under the Treaty would lead to violence”! Here we have our Governor General, the Queen’s representative joining Maori leaders in violence if Maori did not get their own way. When Tainui leader Bob Mahuta was asked, “If they would take it by force”, he replied, “Naturally yes”. Former labour Party Minister, Matiu Rata, stating, “When Maori people’s faith in the rule of law was destroyed, it introduces such thoughts of civil war”, a major fear of any current or future Government and its Ministers.
1990 – Palmer and Lange About Face
The only explanation for Palmer and Lange’s about face in March 1990; they had just received Richard Hill’s report into the full and final settlements in the 1930’s – 1940s’ as well as being briefed on the final draft/Littlewood treaty document and realised the terrible mistake they had made. What other reason could there have been? Up until 1990, they had both believed the Treaty was a Partnership between Maori and the Crown and had created the Principles for Crown Action on the Treaty to address alleged Maori claims, but now found most had already been settled and there was no Fisheries, Forests or Partnership in the Tiriti o Waitangi.
1990 – Palmer and Lange Quit Politics.
A few months after the ABC report, Prime Minister, the Hon Geoffrey Palmer and Attorney General, Hon David Lange disappeared from politics at the height of their political careers. Had they been pushed for changing their minds about the Partnership and Principles and the fear of a civil war as stated on the ABC programme? Or had they realised they had made a terrible mistake but it was now too late to make amends and so they both simply quit. Two leaders at the height of their careers do not just quit politics overnight without a very good reason.
In Geoffrey Palmers final two sentences in the Introduction of his book, he states, “For the situation we are in, I blame neither my former opponents nor my friends. It is a book written with sorrow, although with conviction that things can change “. Unfortunately, they have got worse – far worse Mr Palmer. Since 1990, I have written to both the Hon Geoffrey Palmer and the late Hon David Lange on numerous occasions asking whether they quit politics because of their terrible mistake or were they pushed. While they have never replied to my letters they have never denied it. While David Lange has taken it to the grave, we still await Mr Palmer’s reply; we believe the people of New Zealand deserve an answer. See letter attached. Page 54 and 55.
While in power the Hon Geoffrey Palmer and the Hon David Lange allowed the apartheid Waitangi Tribunal to hear claims dating back to 1840 and introduced the Principles and Partnership, the biggest injustices ever forced on the people of New Zealand by any Government. We believe, instead of staying on in politics and correcting their mistakes, they took the easy way out and quit!
The Fourth Labour Government successfully destroyed our country using false information and false treaty documents. Successive Governments have continued down this same path but no more so than Prime Minister, Hon John Key and Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, the Hon Chris Finlayson.
Can We Fix It? – Yes We Can!
Leading Constitutional Lawyer and the man that instigating the reforms, Sir Geoffrey Palmer stated, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which give explicit recognition to the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
It’s time the majority of New Zealanders that have suffered under the Fourth Labour Government’s unsubstantiated reforms, continued and expanded by future Governments, petition their Member of Parliament to force Parliament to repeal these apartheid Acts of Parliament based on the Hon Geoffrey Palmer’s experiences in America and using false information and false Treaty documents. If they will not agree to repeal these Acts, then we should not vote for them as they will continue to endorse this false legislation and you and your children will continue to suffer at the hands of these traitors.
For the full story, “New Zealand in Crisis”, http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz/new-zealand-in-crisis.pdf
What a shocking state of affairs. However, it’s not new news to me as I’ve long followed ONZF’s research and read Martin Doutre’s book on the Littlewood Treaty as well as articles and books by others, and this is why I continue to oppose what’s going on in this country with every fibre of my being. I’m not really sure how we can stop this mess though because since 1995 when I returned to NZ after several years overseas and was shocked to learn what was happening, I’ve written to politicians, my local MP and discussed the issue with all and sundry, as well as participating in Forums like this one. I’ve made absolutely no difference whatsoever. If treason was an offence, there are many in this country who would be had up for it and now be in jail. I’m at a loss to know what to do because I feel I’ve explored every avenue even at the risk of being labelled a nutter. I’m amazed at how many people actually feel like me but don’t do anything. Perhaps they are wiser than me but I feel people power is the only way to force change although it doesn’t seem to be happening and I’m not sure what to do to make it happen.
I forgot to say – what on earth reason do the powers that be have for suppressing our history? Surely history is there for us all to know about, and research to learn even more as technology improves. It’s quite beyond me how an intelligent person can actually suppress something in the past.
Also, as many of us know that ‘Maori’ are NOT the indigenous people of this country, then surely we should not fear their signing of the Declaration of Indigenous Rights!! If they try to use it to gain an advantage, the masses should insist on our true history being acknowledged. However, the other part of me, knows there is a fat chance off this happening, given what has been going on in the past!!
“A few months after the ABC report, Prime Minister, the Hon Geoffrey Palmer and Attorney General, Hon David Lange disappeared from politics at the height of their political careers.”
This is false. They were not at their peaks. Their political careers were pretty much over thanks to their weakness over Rogernomics, not the treaty. Neither disappeared from politics anyway. Lange remained in Parliament until 1996. The implication, based on a single quote indicating his support for legislative entrenchment, that Palmer somehow agrees with your thesis is patently absurd. The material presented about the giant, midget prehistoric Scotsmen and their Portuguese butlers has more validity.
JA: Judge, on this point I’m inclined to agree with you.
Lange, as I recall, resigned the leadership after his caucus voted against him to readmit Roger Douglas.
Palmer I don’t think was much interested in being PM anyway, and was happy to return to the law and let Mike Moore lose the election.
This point aside, can I assume you agree with the dozens of other points Ross made?
Judge, while I agree Rogernomics was also a factor in Lange and Palmer’s exit from politics, the reforms they instigated in the 1980′s had a far greater and longer lasting impact on the people of New Zealand. As for the height of their political careers, you cannot get much higher in New Zealand politics than Prime Minster and Attorney General from which they disappeared. From their clash with the Governor General on the ABC Four Corners programme, there is no denying they had completely changed their minds over the Fourth Labour Government’s reforms. I did not say Palmer agreed with my thesis, I just said he had not denied it.
John I agree there were other reasons why Palmer and Lange resigned their leadership, but from the comments they both made on the ABC Four Corner’s programme, there is no denying they had completely change their minds over their previous understanding of the Tiriti o Waitangi. While Palmer was not interested in being PM, he was extremely interested in allowing the Treaty to be re-written to give advantage and privilege to one group of New Zealand citizens over the others based on his experiences in America. Lange completely rejecting the Partnership between Maori and the Crown, which was the basis of their reforms.
John, Richard Hill of the Justice Department’s report in 1989 into the previous “full and final” settlements must have absolutely shattered both Palmer and Lange. They had just amended the Treaty of Waitangi Act to allow claims to date back to 1840 and given the Tribunal more power to investigate these claims to now find they had already had “full and final settlements” in the 1940′s. Some like Te Roroa’s “alleged” claim being rejected through lack of evidence in 1942 but recommended by the Tribunal and accepted by the Crown today.
I believe the final draft and Richard Hill’s report would have had a major influence on their clashing views with the Governor General and others on the ABC Four Corner’s programme and then resigning their leadership a few months later.
Yeah, you certainly raise a question ONZF and Ross. Unfortunately it is a speculation more than a fact though aye.
Imagine yourselves standing in a court room giving evidence based statements. Lawyers would have a total field day with this and use it to discredit you and all your hard research up to this point.
Trina, I have never said they resigned their leading roles in politics because of the Richard Hill report and the final draft, I have simply asked the question. From the evidence, I beleive the Richard Hill report and the final draft had a lot to do with their resignations and have written to them both on behalf of the ONZF asking if this was so, but they have never replied. I am simply asking the question. Hopefully, we will get a reply one day to see whether it was speculation or not, until then, yes I agree it is speculation, the reason I asked the question.
Why can’t NZ citizens demand an investigative enquiry into all this stuff? Surely there are big gun lawyers out there who would love to knock the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty off its pedestal and expose it for what it is?
Trina, this is exactly what the ONZF and I am sure Martin Doutre and others are trying to do, we can expose all the evidence, it is over to the NZ citizens to demand an inquiry. We just need one lawyer prepared to take this whole Treaty mess on and expose it for what it is – just one!
NZ Herald
Sunday Sep 11, 2011
It is late afternoon in Wairoa, a country town in New Zealand’s picturesque Hawke’s Bay region. In the park, Lambton Square, several dozen teenagers are performing press-ups, warming up for their after-school rugby training.
The peaceful scene is a sharp contrast to three days earlier, when a rugby league match ended with members of a Maori gang, the Mongrel Mob, firing a sawn-off shotgun into the air. No one was hurt, but the incident – apparently provoked by the presence of a rival gang, Black Power, among the spectators – terrified the Saturday afternoon crowd of mainly families.
These events may seem out of place in a country whose marketing slogan is “100 per cent pure”. New Zealand, though, has an entrenched gang culture, and rarely a week passes without trouble erupting. Wairoa – 90 minutes’ drive north of Napier, an Art Deco city popular with tourists and one of the Rugby World Cup venues – is the latest flashpoint.
This is a side of New Zealand that World Cup fans – descending for the six-week competition which began on Friday in Auckland – are unlikely to see; indeed, most locals are never affected by it. But it reflects the uglier aspects of a nation widely perceived as clean, green and safe.
Gangs thrive in areas with big Maori and Pacific Islander populations and high levels of crime, poverty and unemployment. Maori, in particular, are at the bottom of the socio-economic heap in New Zealand. They are also largely responsible for its shocking rates of domestic violence and child abuse – the country’s “dark secrets”, as a former Governor-General, Dame Silvia Cartwright, called them.
The issues were highlighted in the 1994 movie Once Were Warriors, set in the bleak suburbs of South Auckland. Seventeen years on, violence continues to plague Maori communities. Some sociologists blame the Maori “warrior culture”, which they claim is glorified by the gangs.
Gangs are active across New Zealand, even in small rural communities. Wairoa is a Mongrel Mob stronghold; Frasertown, five miles to the north, is Black Power territory. Both gangs – Maori-dominated and implacable foes – have savage reputations, with a history of murder, gang rape and ruthless “payback”.
Lately, though, the gangs have been trying to clean up their image, with some leaders renouncing violence and preaching mainstream values. Rex Timu, president of the original Mongrel Mob chapter in Hastings, near Napier, instructs would-be recruits to “go away and get an education”. Timu, who has the Mongrel emblem – a bulldog with a German helmet – tattooed on his bulky left forearm, also warns them: “Don’t join us if you want to do an armed robbery or kill someone. That’s not our way anymore.”
The problem is, not everyone heeds the message. In Wairoa, an edgy town bisected by a broad river, people are sick of the gang wars. One spring evening last year, a man walked up to a truck in a petrol station and shot the driver, a Mongrel Mobster, through the window.
Of the Maori gangs, the Mob and Black Power are the biggest and most feared. They formed in the wake of post-war Maori mass migration to the cities. Radical reforms to the New Zealand economy in the 1980s created large-scale unemployment, with Maori worst affected.
With adults dislocated from their roots and culture, and battling alienation and discrimination, families collapsed. Absent fathers became commonplace, and an epidemic of alcoholism, drug abuse and domestic violence began. For young people, the all-male gangs were like substitute families. They were an escape route, offering status, protection, even a career – selling drugs. They were also places where violence flourished. The violence spilt back into homes. New Zealand women suffer the highest rate of domestic violence in the developed world; the country also has one of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s worst child murder rates. “[Gang members] use the iron fist instead of talking,” observes Bruno Isaac, a former Mongrel Mob leader and author of a book about the gang, True Red.
I met Isaac, who has a full facial moko (traditional Maori tattoo), at the Saturday market in Otara, the Auckland suburb where Once Were Warriors was filmed. He was selling his book from the back of a motorbike. It is full of lurid tales of gang life.
“Women were there to cook our kai [food] and give us pleasure – they were simply chattels, meat we could consume and spit out,” he writes. In order to obtain “the patch” – the right to display the gang emblem on clothes and in tattoos – recruits had to pass tests such as “drinking excrement and urine from a gumboot, raping someone, or fighting three guys at once”.
In Hawke’s Bay – known internationally for its wineries – some families are into their third generation of gang membership. Getting older, having children and serving time has mellowed some leaders. “We want to stop the criminality and look after our families, look after ourselves,” declares Timu.
Timu, coolstore supervisor at an apple exporting company, served an eight-year sentence for gang rape in his youth. He blames the continuing violence on young men trying to prove themselves. “I used to be like that – I would go out and beat someone up for no reason.” The Mob, he insists, flashing a gold tooth, is “like any other social club – we have a beer, talk about politics and rugby”.
Mane Adams, president of the Napier chapter of Black Power, purveys an equally responsible message. He is chairman of his local marae (communal meeting place), and a campaigner against methamphetamine, or “crystal meth”. Adams says: “I don’t see myself as a gang leader, rather as a role model and mentor.”
He and Timu enjoy a “rapport” that enables them to defuse trouble. They attend meetings with police, politicians, mayors. Yet neither man has quite abandoned the gang mentality. Adams says: “If they [the Mongrel Mob] play up, we have to respond to it, otherwise people will say we’re going soft.”
Both leaders operate their own rough justice. Adams recently had to “run over” a motorcycle gangster selling methamphetamine on his turf.
Incidents like the Wairoa shooting, meanwhile, set back their reforming efforts. They also inflame wider tensions.
In 2006, a New Zealand geneticist, Rod Lea, asserted Maori carry a “warrior gene” that predisposes them to violence. The claim was widely criticised. However, Greg Newbold, a Canterbury University criminologist, blames the glorification of the Maori “warrior ethos” embodied in the haka, or war dance, that the All Blacks rugby team perform before each match, for the family and gang violence.
“The culture of the warrior is very powerful in the Maori psyche, and the celebration of male domination and machismo is still very evident,” Dr Newbold says.
Jim Anglem, of the Violence Research Centre, rejects this notion, saying women and children were revered in traditional Maori society. Moreover, between 1950 and 1970 there was little evidence of Maori family violence. That, along with the fact that middle-class Maori families are no more violent than their European counterparts, supports the theory that socio-economic factors are key.
Greg O’Connor, president of the New Zealand Police Association, is cynical about the efforts of those seeking to rebrand the gangs, calling them “pure PR”. “If they’ve still got a patch on their back,they’re bound to the ethos of the gang,” he says.
- INDEPENDENT
By Kathy Marks
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750847
Bay of Plenty Times
By Graham Skellern | Thursday, September 8, 2011 20:04 3 Comments
Don Brash
File
Special legal status for Maori should be removed because it is generating resentment and anger amongst many other New Zealanders, Act Party leader Don Brash said in Tauranga on Thursday night.
Announcing his party’s One Law For All policy, Dr Brash said the special legal status was storing up huge problems down the track and creating two divisions of New Zealanders.
These problems are impeding progress for Maori and non-Maori alike, and if anything the trend is getting worse, Dr Brash told ACT supporters at the Bureta Park Motor Inn.
He quoted the Treaty of Waitangi which said “all New Zealanders are to have the rights and privileges of British subjects”.
“To me, the Treaty is absolutely unambiguous … that was an extraordinarily enlightened statement for 1840 when the Englishmen who were sent to establish the Queen’s authority over New Zealand must have regarded Maori as primitive.
“But extraordinary or not, that’s what it says and in my view that’s a great basis for a modern democratic New Zealand.
“Apart from anything else, it avoids the whole debate about who is and who is not entitled to be called Maori and to enjoy the legal privileges currently associated with being Maori,” Dr Brash said.
“The only way in which we can all proceed into a peaceful and prosperous future is on the basis of equality under the law.”
Dr Brash cited the Maori electorates and local wards, so far only taken up by Bay of Plenty Regional Council, the Maori advisory boards, the consultation clauses (with iwi) in the Resource Management Act, and lower tax rates for Maori commercial companies as examples of creating special legal status.
He said the separate Maori electorates have long since ceased to serve any useful purpose. The number of Maori in Parliament substantially exceeds the number of Maori electorates, proving that separate electorates are simply not needed to ensure that Maori are elected to Parliament.
“When I went to school, requiring local government to consult with their communities and with iwi can only mean that iwi are somehow not part of the community. I would have thought that any self-respecting Maori would find that highly offensive.
“Offensive or not, the wording clearly means that Maori have two votes when local governments are drawing up their plans – one vote as a member of the community and another, potentially more powerful, vote as a Maori,” Dr Brash said.
He said Auckland City Council had been saddled with a Maori Statutory Board, giving unelected Maori the right to vote on most of the Auckland council committees.
“If this becomes a general pattern, then I think it can be very destructive.”
Dr Brash said Maori were not being well served by present policies, many of them introduced 40 years ago. They had created an unhealthy societal divide.
Maori were over-represented in all the worst social statistics, he said.
“Until those fundamental causes are dealt with, Maori will continue to be amongst the poorest, the most socially deprived and the most imprisoned of our society.”
Dr Brash said Maori made up 15 per cent of the population but 35 per cent of those on unemployment benefit, 42 per cent of those on Domestic Purposes Benefit and 51 per cent of those in prison. A third of Maori between the ages of 15 and 19 are not in work, education or training.
He said taxpayers should pay compensation whenever it can be established beyond reasonable doubt that the government acted improperly by confiscating or undermining property rights. But Treaty settlements will never solve these appalling Maori social statistics.
Dr Brash suggested a reform of the education system, the reintroduction of a lower youth minimum wage, a resolution of the problem of communal ownership of Maori land, reform of the welfare system, and an acceptance by Maori leadership that Maori attitudes themselves need to change.
He finished his hard-hitting speech by supporting the All Blacks who today launch their bid to win the Rugby World Cup.
“The All Blacks are made up of players of European, Maori and Pacific Island descent. They all share a common goal, to win for New Zealand. On the field they are equals.
“That’s the goal we must aspire to – one nation of many peoples, all equal before the law,” Dr Brash said.
JA: Thanks Trina. What do you all make of this part of Don’s speech?:
“It doesn’t matter whether Maori really are entitled to be called ‘indigenous’, whether they arrived in New Zealand first, or indeed when they arrived in New Zealand.
“It doesn’t matter whether all of a person’s ancestors were Maori, or whether only one of 64 ancestors was Maori.
“It doesn’t matter which version of the Treaty document is the ‘real Treaty of Waitangi’.
“In one sense, even if the Treaty of Waitangi did not say that all of us have equal rights, having equal legal rights is really the only way forward for a modern society.
“There can be no peace where people of different races have different legal rights, and we’re extraordinarily fortunate that our founding document already provides for such equal rights.”
So let’s see if I’ve got this straight:
Martin and Rangi have spent years trying to convince us that other people got here before the Maori.
And Martin and Ross have spent years trying to convince us that our Treaty laws are based on the wrong English Treaty.
Meanwhile, Ross is telling Martin and Rangi that it doesn’t matter whether other people got here before the Maori.
All that matters is that, a) Maori were the people who were here in 1840 – and, b) Maori have so intermarried that they are longer the distinct race of people who signed the Treaty.
And now Don is telling Martin, Ross and Rangi that none of this matters. All that matters is that the Treaty (even the wrong one that the law regards as the right one) says all New Zealanders are equal.
What do Martin, Ross and Rangi make of this?
In particular, Martin and Ross, given that Don thinks the wrong/’official’ Treaty is good enough, would replacing it with the Littlewood draft make all that much difference?
(I know the more precise wording should make some difference, but how much?)
John, after each chief signed the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, Governor Hobson shook their hand and repeated “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”. This is the one true principle of the Treaty and exactly what Article 3 of every version said. “All the rights will be given to them (Maori) the same as her doings to the people of England”.
The English version, which Hobson never authorised to be signed by the chiefs and was compiled by James Freeman from Busby’s early draft notes for overseas dispatch, contradicts itself by omitting “All the people of New Zealand” in Article 2. Busby had forgotten to include the settlers in Article 2 of his early drafts but this was corrected in the final draft on the 4th February 1840 by Hobson before it was translated by the Rev Henry Williams and his son into the Maori language, then signed by over 500 chiefs.
The Tiriti o Waitangi and the final draft (Littlewood Treaty document) from which it was translated, plus all the back translation of the Tiriti clarifies this by having the words, “All the people of New Zealand” in Article 2,
When New Zealand became a British Crown Colony, “The chiefs, the hapu (Maori) and all the people of New Zealand (the settlers) were given the same rights as the people of England”. No more, no less!Hence Hobson’s words, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people” as each chief signed the Tiriti o Waitangi at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840. One flag and one law for all the people of New Zealand irrespective of race, colour or creed.
There is only one Treaty of Waitangi as Governor Hobson stated in a letter to Major Bunbury when despatching him to collect further signatures from the southern tribes, “The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6th February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document”.
John, I did not say it does not matter if other people were here before Maori, I think this is extremely important for our history, but the Treaty was signed with a distinct race of people called Maori but through intermarriage of their own free will, this race of people no longer exists. As for Maori being indigenous, I believe if Martin, Rangi and others were allowed to research this without government interference, we would have had the answer to this question long before now.
And here is the response:
Bay of Plenty Times
Bay’s Maori leaders slam Brash
by Michele McPherson | Saturday, September 10, 2011 10:02
http://www.bayofplentytimes.co.nz/news/bays-maori-leaders-slam-brash/1098914/
Don Brash announced his one law for all policy in Tauranga on Thursday night.
Joel Ford
Western Bay Maori leaders have lashed out at Don Brash’s “one law for all” policy promoting the removal of special legal status for Maori in New Zealand, saying he has no understanding of the past and a mono-cultural view of the future.
Dr Brash announced the policy to Act supporters at Bureta Park Motor Inn in Tauranga on Thursday, and used the Maori electorates and local wards as examples of this special legal status.
Bay of Plenty Regional councillor Raewyn Bennett, who holds the Mauao Maori seat, said “one law for all” was about Dr Brash promoting his “stealth philosophy of separation” in which Maori culture didn’t count.
“He should step out of his mono-cultural tunnel and into the 21st century,” she told the Bay of Plenty Times Weekend.
Mrs Bennett said 160 years of struggle and oppression meant Maori wanted to maintain their own culture.
“We don’t want to be assimilated. As Maori we’re people of this land, we have a right to strike a pathway for our development and future which upholds our cultural values.”
She said Maori culture needed to be reflected in all the institutions which governed the country.
Fellow councillor Doug Owens, who represents the Tauranga general constituency, said the Maori seats in council were successful in managing the relationship between Maori and European at a local level.
“The one rule for all is fine in concept but in fact because Maori are not acknowledged as being essentially different, and they are, it’s a recipe for separatism.
“Fifty per cent of New Zealanders really enjoy the whole concept of Maori and would really like to see Maori at the top table.”
However, he said the other half wanted nothing to do with Maori and were happy to pay settlements to avoid addressing the past and make the problem go away.
“With all the inter-generational pain that’s come out of the grievances I think this is not a political problem any more, it’s a spiritual problem because it’s something that has to be healed.”
Tauranga kaumatua Colin Bidois said Dr Brash’s policy came as no surprise.
“That’s exactly what you would expect from a person who does not in any way shape or form appreciate that there has been different treatment between Maori and European going right back to the beginning of colonisation.”
He said the special legal status for Maori had been introduced to try to rectify and compensate for the past.
“I would have expected that from Don, purely because of his ignorance of past history and his ingrained bias,” he said.
“Not only does he not have an understanding, he does not want to have an understanding. It could bring tears to his eyes some of the things that have happened to families, to my family.”
Mr Bidois referred to a time in the 1930s when the unemployment benefit in New Zealand was not available to Maori and the unemployment work scheme paid Maori more than Pakeha if they had no children. “I personally have felt the shortcomings of that through my parents,” he said.
Tauranga children’s author Tommy “Kapai” Wilson described Dr Brash’s policy as “the old divide and conquer” and said it was time for Maori to be united in their voice.
“We’re into the reality of the election now and if Maori wait they could be divided. All the gains of the last two elections will be gone – to the detriment of not just Maori but all of New Zealand. Maori need to wake up now and not the day before the election,” he said.
Mr Wilson said a National-Act alliance would leave Maori “outside the tent”.
“It’s at the expense of all the gains since the Maori Party and the National Government have formed this wonderful relationship,” he said.
“First to go will be Whanau Ora [social services delivery programme], it will be a landslide from there.”
And then I came across this. Check out the comments people have made.
Maori meet for empowerment
Posted at 8:34am Saturday 10th Sep, 2011
http://www.sunlive.co.nz/news/16140-maori-meet-empowerment.html
A Maori conference being held in Mount Maunganui next month is intending to focus on aspirations of empowerment and enlightenment.
Bay of Plenty Regional Council Maori policy manager Kataraina Belshaw says the event is called Te Toanga o Te Ra, or ‘the rising of the sun/dawn’.
“The event will target Maori who live in, or have an interest in the Bay of Plenty region, including hapu and iwi practitioners as well as representatives and members of Maori land trusts and entities.”
“The Ministry of Maori Development, Te Puni Kokiri are sponsoring the event.”
Kataraina says it will provide an occasion where experts and practitioners can share knowledge, skills and experiences on topics of relevance that will help Maori build capability and capacity.
“It’s an opportunity to strengthen existing relationships and build new ones.”
Topics up for discussion at the conference include the use of Maori land, constitutional reform and local government, Maori perspectives on water, natural resource co-governance models, economic development and post-settlement futures.
“Guest speakers include Human Rights Commissioner Joris de Bres, Justice Joe Williams, Auckland University Maori Studies Professor Ann Sullivan, Professor Linda Te Aho, Ngai Tahu spokesman Mark Solomon and senior law lecturer Jacinta Ruru.”
A request for the conference was made through the Regional Council’s Maori Committee earlier this year, and during annual plan deliberations in June, Councillors discussed providing and funding a pilot iwi secondment initiative to build capacity and capability.
“Under the Local Government Act, councils must consider ways to foster the development of Maori capacity to contribute to council decision-making processes.”
Comments
I wouldnt quote Brash and expect people to take you seriously
Posted on 11-09-2011 21:08 | By pieceofshirt
Its a shame that a conference set up to help people that actually realise they may need help is getting so much bad press. I beieve in the idea that indeed, prevention is better than the cure. There are aspects of maori life that maori are not proud of and are willing to rectify this. I think jitter that you have unfairly tarred a very large proportion of maori unfairly by some of your comments. I dont think you realise that there are far far more maori that are embarrassed by the ’Harawira mentality’ than support him. I would continue by saying that many maori activist individuals are neither supported by thier peers or family. I also think we need to look at why some of these people claim their land was stolen-because it usually was and this has been part of acknowledging settlements. If I was to come and pitch a tent on your lawn because it was unlawfully taken from grandparents, then whos in the wrong? Its a real shame sometimes when we see our country go backwards in social consideration for each other. There is no silver bullet and it works both ways, but it is not helped along with a totalising attitude seen on this forum by many. I would also not use the dangerously extreme right wing standing of Ballbag Brash as a vehicle for promoting social harmony.
ONE SIXTEENTHERS AT IT AGAIN
Posted on 11-09-2011 08:40 | By KAMIKAZE
Another bloody maori junket paid for by ratepayers and taxpayers.About time we disbanded Regional Council as clearly can’t think for themselves and are contolled by the unelected maori policy committee.
ENLIGHTENMENT 4 AND @ KIAORA2U
Posted on 11-09-2011 08:25 | By PLONKER
Maori can have all the meetings they like, go for and have fun. JITTER of course has got it right, why should one minority group of 15% (many of those have 1/16th or less Maori blood anyway, that means they are 15/16th of something else that is not financially beneficial as yet)). What you fail to realise is this: – 1. Maori were not first to NZ, Maori were one of a string of inhabitants here, therefore (being honest and truthful) Maori have no more right to NZ than anyone else or the first NZer’s here are the “indigenous peoples” (do you know who they were?) or second we could actual read the Treaty document and apply that correctly “… one people …”. Now that actually means that Don Brash is right when saying “One law for all people of NZ” to do otherwise creates and encourages segregation of the peoples of NZ. PS Yes I have voted for a person of part Maori decent in a general election as a general vote, I refuse to recognise “legislated segregation and privilege” as clearly shown by the Maori seats, I consider it degrading and insulting to Maoridom!
Can’t win
Posted on 10-09-2011 20:03 | By kiaora2u
Maori doing something positive for themselves and all they get is remarks like this. Shameful! Plonker – look at these remarks and tell me you would vote for a Maori name on a ballot. Pakeha can contribute and have meetings and they are great people…Maori have meetings and they are activists….Poor buggars cant win.
maori do get more opportunity but massively squander it.
Posted on 10-09-2011 17:30 | By wreck1080
The maori chiefs rip off their people more than the white man ever did.
Over It
Posted on 10-09-2011 17:10 | By sjones1
Its high time Pakehas got together for a hui and got empowered too. So many of us are sick of hearing about how badly Maori have been treated in the past. All through history terrible things have happened during land occupation, wars etc. My ancestors come from Scotland and they had their fair share of grief. Maoris need to stop blaming Colonialisation for their problems,take ownership and responsibility for a lot of where they are at now. Oh and use your own money that has been handed out in Treaty Reparations. This is a major factor why NZ is broke.
Empowerment
Posted on 10-09-2011 16:15 | By Jitter
If Maori are to be given such empowerment then equally so should the Samoan, Tongan, Asian, Indian etc population of NZ. Maori make up around 15% of the population and the Asians are rapidly catching up to this. Don Brash was criticised recently for his “one country one people” address in Tauranga which included one aspect of doing away with Maori seats in parliament and putting Maori on the same standing as everyone else. A Maori spokesperson in reply stated that Don Brash was trying to “divide and rule”. To my way of thinking this is exactly what Maori activists want. By pushing for their own governence, legal system, control of water and other natural resources, unelected seats on councils, having the power of veto on major projects of economic importance to NZ, they thmselves are attempting to devide and rule. We are now living in the 21st century and although I believe and understand Maori customs must be fostered and retained, I do not believe that these customs and so called spirituality should be used to hold up projects which are of major economic importance to the whole country. After all in the long run these customary based barriers Maori regularly put up are going to adversly effect them as well.
DEMOCRACY!
Posted on 10-09-2011 10:53 | By PLONKER
How about any interested IWI stand and be elected like the rest of us !
Post a Comment
How predictable the opposition to Dr Brash is by part-Maori radicals. I bet mainstream part-Maori wouldn’t agree with them at all. They are the ones dividing and ruling and imposing separatism upon us all. I totally agree with anyone who says one rule for all and for us all to be treated equally before the law. I’m just so tired of all the separatism, division and radical racism being inflicted upon us. The numbers of Maori are reducing anyway if you take intermarriage and the ongoing dilution of blood so eventually we will all be indistinguishable from each other anyway.
Good comments posted by Trina and encouraging that not everyone thinks like the part-Maori radicals.
I don’t want Maori culture imposed continuously upon me anyway. I never previously minded but in later years we are becoming saturated with it and I just cringe now when the chant goes up which precedes the totally over-used Haka. I can’t now stand it and it does undesirable things with my blood pressure!!?? Let’s bring other cultures to the forefront so that we don’t have to put up with Maori culture at everything that opens and shuts.
Bay of Plenty Regional Councillor Raewyn Bennett, “We don’t want to be assimilated”. Bit late for this Councillor Bennett, you should have told your ancestors this about 200 years ago before they intermarried with other races and signed the Tiriti o Waitangi.
What do Martin, Ross and Rangi make of this?
In particular, Martin and Ross, given that Don thinks the wrong/’official’ Treaty is good enough, would replacing it with the Littlewood draft make all that much difference?
Hi John,
In 2006 I received an invitation from Dr. Don Brash to make a presentation about the “Littlewood Treaty” document to him at parliament. A small delegation of us, which included Ross Baker of the ONZF and his colleague, dispossessed farmer Allan Titford, met with Dr. Brash on 11/10/06 with the Hon. John Carter also in attendance.
Part way into the PowerPoint presentation, where the full pedigree of the “Littlewood Treaty document”, along with many little-known, supportive historical documents were being shown, Dr. Brash stated to us in the clearest terms possible that he ‘already knew the Littlewood document was the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi’.
He went on to say that it ‘didn’t matter to him which English version various people wished to push, because as far as he was concerned the meaning of the treaty was very clear and all New Zealanders are totally equal under the law’.
This was a wonderful endorsement to hear straight from the mouth of the, then, leader of the National Party and we left Dr. Brash’s parliamentary office feeling very positive.
While in Wellington we also had the opportunity to make a pre-arranged PowerPoint presentation to the Hon. Doug Woolerton and the Hon. Pita Parone of N.Z. First.
We had hoped to catch the Hon. Winston Peters also, but he was overseas at the time. I gave that presentation on 12/10/06 and, even before the end, Doug Woolerton, in a very-matter-of-fact statement, said that ‘he and many other Members of Parliament already knew that the Littlewood document was the final English draft of the Treaty of Waitangi.
What our group concluded, in meeting with these leaders, is that we were simply ‘preaching to the converted’.
I had written an article for the December 2003 – January 2004 issue of Investigate Magazine and Ian Wishart, the editor, and also a talk-show host, stated on air that his media colleagues had told him there was a general media ban on saying the words, “Littlewood Treaty”.
Despite this, on the 18th of March 2004 one journalist, Audrey Young, quoted directly from a parliamentary speech by the Hon. Winston Peters and qualified his statements to show Winston was talking about the “Littlewood Treaty”.
Here’s what the newspaper article said:
‘ … The three parties met Helen Clark separately on Monday. Mr Peters sent her a letter yesterday and set out his terms in a speech last night.
Some will be difficult to meet.
One of them is that a particular English version of the 1840 treaty should be recognised as having the most credibility. Deputy Prime Minister Michael Cullen has already argued that under international law, the Maori version should take precedence.
Mr Peters said he wanted a commission to “address the controversial subject of exactly which version of the Treaty of Waitangi is official”. “The last English version has the most credibility as it was set out to include all New Zealanders.”
He was referring to what is known as the “Littlewood” version of the treaty which is claimed to be the final English draft from which the Maori version was translated. It is distinct from the recognised English version in that in the second article, the Queen of England confirms and guarantees the protection of lands, dwellings and property to “all the people of New Zealand” as well as the chief and tribes.
But proponents of the Littlewood version argue that those words eliminate any notion of special protection for Maori.
Another condition for a commission set by Mr Peters is that one of the terms of reference should include an acceptance that “all laws drafted be for all New Zealanders and not for any specific groups — ie, one law for all”. He also said his party had consistently questioned the “ill-defined treaty ‘principles’ that litter our legislation.
“Our support for the concept of the commission is dependent on the acceptance of the above.” …’
This above text went out in an early Herald edition to the Bay of Plenty. The offending “Littlewood Treaty” text was, however, discovered by censors and quickly eliminated before the next printed edition.
The two articles (early and later editions) remained exactly the same physical size and general layout, except for the later edition’s exclusion of the 3 instances when the “Littlewood Treaty” was mentioned.
Filler text was inserted in place of the earlier material, thus changing a dynamic article into something quite nondescript and reasonably sterile.
Most assuredly, the fact that Mr. Peters advocated using an altogether different English version of the treaty as the basis of our legislation, in place of the “official” English version, was immensely newsworthy. If the treaty interpretation we adhered to was, indeed, wrong then it was the story of the century for New Zealanders.
Within about a month of Ian Wishart’s release of the Investigate article about “The Littlewood Treaty” document, Dr. Don Brash gave his, now famous “Orewa Speech”, advocating total equality for all New Zealanders.
Dogging the heels of Dr. Brash, the Hon.Winston Peters called for a Commission to sort out the English texts mess, related to the Treaty of Waitangi, and place the correct “final draft” wording back into our legislation.
At about this same time, Ian Wishart, who was very well-connected, stated on his talkback programme that “droves of lawyers were working day & night trying to find a way to negate the credibility of the Littlewood Treaty document.
It appears very obvious that, by January 2004, the National Party had done its own in-depth investigation into the pedigree of the document, as had New Zealand First.
Whatever we might think about the up-front policies of these political parties, behind the scenes they have very sophisticated mechanisms at their disposal to deeply-research issues and trends. Staying alive in politics means keeping one’s finger fully on the pulse and being informed at all times.
Politicians have had to handle the Littlwood Treaty “hot potato” with great care, as its implications are very powerful. We’ve come so far down the wrong road, with past governments making such huge mistakes, that making a U-turn is now very difficult for them.
In my view, Dr. Don Brash, by his statements, is being very cautious, while also trying to get back-on-track without having to openly state what he actually knows. However, he’s certainly been hinting at it strongly for the past 7-years.
In the above newspaper article, the comment by Dr. Michael Cullen is, essentially, 100% correct. He states: ‘that under international law, the Maori version should take precedence.’
Firstly, the Maori Tiriti is not a “version” … it is the solitary “Treaty” … and the only wording for the treaty that has ever existed.
Anything in English is only:
(1) Rough draft notes.
(2) The final draft.
(3) Back-translations of the Maori language text.
(4) Some “Formal Royal Style”, pretentious, memorial-texts, designed to sound pretty or poetic to foreign dignitaries.
Te Tiriti o’ Waitangi (the definitive Maori language text) guarantees absolute equality for all New Zealanders altogether and has done so since it was first “set-in-concrete” as the “De Facto” wording on the 6th of February 1840.
If anyone is confused by what Te Tiriti says or means, they can refer back to “Final English Draft”, mother-document from which it was born, which in recent years has come to be known as, “The Littlewood Treaty”.
So, the Hon. Winston Peter was also 100% correct in 2004, when trying to re-institute the Littlewood Treaty text back into legislation as the final authority in English.
Martin.
Thanks Martin, an excellent article, and I agree with all he has to say. While the majority of the politicians know the Littlewood document is the final draft they are too afraid to admit it in public and if they do, the media soon changes it.
Governments are true masters at setting up ‘problems’.
Correction, Thanks Martin, an excellent article, and I agree with all you have to say. While the majority of the politicians know the Littlewood document is the final draft they are too afraid to admit it in public and if they do, the media soon changes it.
Trina, Government are true master of creating the “problems”.
Reply to John’s question: ‘… would replacing it with the Littlewood draft make all that much difference?’
Hi John, I had to rush off to work earlier, so didn’t fully cover all you’d asked to be answered:
Yes, it would make a huge difference if the Littlewood wording was restored to its rightful place as the “mother document” from which Te Tiriti was translated.
It would show that the two texts are fully in accord and compliment each other completely … line by line. It would also show that Reverend Henry Williams and his son Edward Marsh Williams did a perfect job of translation.
The grievance-industry and their in-tow, Marxist social-engineers, have relied very heavily on the fact that most New Zealanders are ignorant of the Maori language and will never seek to find out what Te Tiriti actually says, in comparison to the “Official English” version deceptively foisted upon us.
Because of this general-apathetic attitude amongst the all-too-gullible public (left to flounder by politically-aligned historians), when the so-called “Official English” text is shown alongside “Te Tiriti”, virtually everyone assumes that one text mirrors the other.
But in fact, they’re as different as chalk & cheese, especially in terms of just how-much the meanings within the treaty can be stretched beyond credibility and twisted out of all proportion (when the illegitimate, “Official English” text is allowed to be used).
Exploiting these very significant differences, and relying solely on the defective English wording, the grievance-industry would have us believe that there’s no mention of settler’s rights in the treaty.
According to their twisted viewpoint, (with the settlers side-lined or safely out of the way), the tricky-dicks can then apply patently ridiculous meanings to particular words in the Maori text (to words like te tino rangitiratanga, taonga or kawanatanga).
Under their utterly illogical, greed-pushed ruse of the treaty referring only to Maori rights, “te tino rangitiratanga” graduates into being ‘the unqualified exercise of chieftainship’.
“Taonga” becomes ‘spiritual treasures’ (which apparently means radio spectrum waves or whatever lucrative resources it’s possible to dream up for a claim).
“Kawanatanga” gets downgraded to some form of ‘limited governance’ (where the Brits get to act as subservient, bureaucratic underlings & functionaries, helping the Maori chiefs to run their affairs … in exchange for the right of having British settlers live in the country), etc.
As Dr. Phil Parkinson has said, “Kawharu’s [modern] mistranslation of “te tino rangitiratanga” as ‘the unqualified exercise of chieftainship’ is not merely erroneous but preposterous.” … but so are the meanings attributed to the other words, as any close-scrutiny of an 1840’s Maori language dictionary would show conclusively.
When the true English text replaces the “imposter” English text, the meaning of these words becomes very clear, as the terms refer to everyone’s rights or status under the law (including all the settlers, who are specifically mentioned in both language texts).
Te tino rangitiratanga becomes “ownership”; taonga means “physical goods” and kawanatanga describes the true role of a “governor” in a British colony, where sovereignty has been ceded to Queen Victoria.
When the true English mother document is restored, all of the self-serving, grievance industry, legalese-arguments immediately evaporate into thin air (like “Partnership”, etc.) … and so do Palmer’s “Five Principles” … where he tried (quite successfully) to turn our treaty into D.U.N.D.R.I.P. (“Draft United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”).
Most of us remember the hypocritical catch-cry and slogan yelled at us endlessly by the activists in the 80′s & 90′s … “Honour The Treaty” … “Honour The Treaty”!
Whereas the majority of good-hearted New Zealanders always did just that, our money-grubbing-accusers totally “Dishonoured The Treaty” and all-but destroyed it.
Martin.
I’m trying to think how this can be solved. What would happen if those of you who have done all the research went together and met with the Prime Minister or the Governor General? Why, as I’m typing this, do I feel a sense of despair that that will never work? There must be a way of putting this out in front of the apathetic public and telling them how wrong everything is. We can’t leave it to the Geoffrey Palmers of this world to fix the wrongs they have foisted upon us all. They probably wouldn’t be able to stomach the humiliation.
There just has to be a way – surely. I can’t believe there isn’t a way!! Perhaps someone like Winston will bring it to the fore. He seems to be right up with the play and has never deviated. However, once he has some power who knows which way he will go, I suppose.
What a great, combined disclosure by Martin and Ross, being so afraid of a change in sovereignty to Tribal Rule I would love to see this whole treaty conspiracy fall in taters.
What do tribal leaders do with all of this new found, extravagant wealth, stolen by use of false, supposed treaty documents? Little flows down to to tribal members & little flows back to the country by way of tax as most Maori wealth is held in charitable trusts that do not pay any income tax.
Take Ngai Tahu, they throw a miserable 4% back to their people, the same people they used as a lever to extract taxpayers money within a number of full & final payments. 4% is one seventh of the 28% non-Maoris would need to pay in business tax. By the way, Maori business that do pay tax pay only 19.5%. Why?
What I wonder about is Hon. Peter Sharples, Minister for Maori Affairs, when he says, “What’s good for Maori is good for New Zealand.” If Maori charitable trusts keep most of their money to themselves, don’t pay tax and are gobbling up Government (taxpayers) assets that used to provide solid income to our country, can you, the taxpayer, see sense in his statement?
Maoris are taxpayers too, so also are forced to pay for this corruption.
Idi Amin couldn’t do it, Colonel Gadafi couldn’t do it, even the Russian Soviet Socialist Republic couldn’t do it. All their wrongdoings fell about their ears.
When the truth comes out in our country, the Celts are the indigenous people, there’s no such thing as a Maori and great pains were made to ensure Maori final payments were done before the 1947 Statute of Westminster, who will be the ones without a smile?
Pride comes before the fall.
Excellent post, Rangi. If only we had more like you. What with you, Ross and Martin and all your knowledge, surely there must be a way to get it through to the apathetic ones. If only they knew what was going on. It’s a crime of immense proportions and they are sitting on their hands in complete ignorance.
I hope you are right, Rangi, and the truth does finally come out and very soon too, otherwise it might be too late to make any changes or get back to where we used to be.
The rousing giant of Maori money
By Anne Gibson
5:30 AM Saturday Sep 3, 2011
Large-scale iwi investment in the New Zealand heartland could reinvigorate rural economy.
The thrills of the Huka Jet come courtesy of Ngai Tahu Holdings, now the second richest iwi in the country behind Tainui, which lays to claim to $658 million in assets. Photo / APN
Tainui has overtaken South Island powerhouse Ngai Tahu as Aotearoa’s richest iwi.
A comparison of latest annual accounts shows the Hamilton-headquartered iwi, which on August 15 opened its new multiplex movie theatres at Hamilton’s The Base and is now filling its new Novotel at Auckland International Airport with cup guests, is the country’s richest tribe.
Tainui has more assets by dollar value and is making more money, so if a Maori Rich List existed, it would show Tainui laying claim to total assets of $658 million, $5 million ahead of earthquake-hit Christchurch headquartered Ngai Tahu’s $653.2 million.
Tainui’s net annual profit for 2011 was $23.1 million, ahead of Ngai Tahu’s $19.6 million for its latest reporting period of 2010.
With about 600,000 of New Zealand’s 4.4 million population being Maori, iwi powerhouses like these have vast potential.
For years, the South Island iwi has been the attractive face of tangata whenua success, leading the way towards riches tipuna could only dream of, as we opened pots of their oysters, flocked to their tourism businesses and marvelled at the sheer size of their vast rangatiratanga (tribal authority) over more than 80 per cent of the South Island.
Biggest was obviously best.
Now, Tainui with far less land and about 60,000 people, has taken top spot and distributed $10.5 million this financial year.
Ngai Tahu owns significant assets and is the most widely diversified iwi since 1998 when it received $170 million in a Treaty of Waitangi settlement.
But now the once-financially riven Tainui is on a fast-paced growth plan, with a 30-year plan for 500ha at Ruakura on Hamilton’s outskirts.
Yet chief executive Mike Pohio is a reluctant winner, pointing out that Ngai Tahu has not yet issued their accounts for 2011.
“But even if there is a number that’s a little bit bigger than another number, it doesn’t matter because it’s really, really early days and it would be better not to develop that sort of position but to talk about where we are in the journey. We have to be humble because we have a really long way to go,” Pohio says.
Pushed to acknowledge financial achievements, he attributes success to management and systems.
“It’s discipline and decision-making from governance through to management. There’s a discipline about how we make decisions so there’s a higher probability of success and a low probability of getting commercial equations wrong because we concentrate on managing risks.”
Tainui got a Treaty of Waitangi settlement in 1995 of $170 million.
While primary industries have unlocked Ngai Tahu’s fortunes, land is the key to Tainui’s success via the commercially successful Tainui Group Holdings and Waikato-Tainui Fisheries.
By 2020, Tainui plans to have assets worth $1 billion and already its asset base has grown from a mere $147 million in 2002.
Greg Campbell, Ngai Tahu’s chief executive, disliked the comparison between the iwi.
“It’s not a matter of who’s bigger. We generate a lot of cash through our operating surplus. Ngai Tahu has 63 per cent of assets in property but we have investments in tourism, seafood businesses and capital markets so we’re a slightly different business,” he says.
Auckland’s Ngati Whatua is the third-richest iwi, declaring in its last annual report gross assets of $403.5 million but standing to make many millions annually in new land rental deals from Quay Park on Auckland’s waterfront, returned to the iwi with a demand for a 15-year rent holiday which has now expired, potentially enriching that Queen Street-headquartered iwi run by Tiwana Tibble.
Iwi take varying approaches to presenting their accounts. Some hold the information close and distribute only to hapu while others post fully audited highly detailed accounts, easily accessible to all on websites.
Tainui’s annual report is most impressive at 69 pages, presented like an NZX listed company with full disclosure and transparency and Ngapui also issues a detailed 59-page annual report.
“The big thing with most iwi is they are asset rich and cash poor and most of them don’t publish accounts, they like to keep it all in the family and will only distribute information to the runanga,” says one consultant.
In 2007, Maori commercial assets were estimated to be worth $16.5 billion, of which $8 billion is in primary industries, according to information presented at May’s Maori Economic Summit.
By last year, the Maori economy was estimated to be $36.9 billion.
Some iwi communicators have a plan to deliberately target business media to overcome what they see as ignorance or racism and control the way their news is disseminated. The financial pages are where they see their future, not in the local or regional pages, they say.
Ngai Tahu Tourism, a subsidiary of Ngai Tahu Holdings, operates iconic tourism businesses Franz Josef Glacier Guides and Glacier Hot Pools, Queenstown’s Shotover Jet, Dart River Safaris, the Hollyford Guided Walk, Hukafalls Jet in Taupo, Rainbow Springs in Rotorua, Abel Tasman’s Aqua Taxi and Kaiteriteri Kayaks. In August the business bought into Rotorua-based farm show and tour business The Agrodome. It exports crayfish, oysters, shellfish, paua and other species and has residential and lifestyle subdivisions.
Tainui and Ngai Tahu, with assets worth a collective $1.2 billion, are the giants of the Maori economy but experts say Ngapuhi, with about 20 per cent of Aotearoa’s Maori population standing at around 100,000 people, has the most growth potential of any iwi as it prepares for further settlements following fisheries settlements.
Chris Wikaira, who handles Tainui’s communications, points to rural New Zealand particularly in the North Island becoming dominated by iwi businesses.
“You can conceivably see out in provincial New Zealand the biggest game in town, apart from maybe forestry or Fonterra, is likely to be an iwi asset holding company and it’s all money that’s invested in New Zealand,” he says.
One of Ngai Tahu’s most successful exports is live crayfish into Asia, a market Campbell says is only just beginning to unlock as China’s wealth increases and demand for protein rises.
Some iwi have already looked at buying assets overseas and are investing, one in Australia’s primary sector leading an expert to conclude this: once they have dominated parts of Aotearoa’s economy, offshore is the next frontier for iwi.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/population/news/article.cfm?c_id=608&objectid=10749076
Bank eyes $37b Maori economy
3:01 PM Thursday Sep 8, 2011
The Bank of New Zealand (BNZ) has created a new position – head of Maori business – as it eyes the near $37 billion worth of “Maori economy” assets following Treaty of Waitangi claim settlements.
Pierre Tohe, a senior corporate lawyer who has worked for the BNZ for eight years, has been appointed to the role.
The bank said Tohe’s appointment boosts an already strong relationship between BNZ and Maori that has seen it provide funding and financial advice for Maori business ventures in industries such as agribusiness, commercial property and geothermal infrastructure.
In a statement Tohe himself said these were unprecedented times in Aotearoa/New Zealand.
“As Treaty of Waitangi claims are settled we’re witnessing the largest transfer of wealth from the Crown balance sheet to Maori in our lifetime,” he said.
“This huge economic shift will need support from the local banking industry and I firmly believe BNZ has the ability, desire and right attitude to provide this support,” Tohe added.
Based on Te Puni Kokiri, or the Ministry of M?ori Development, figures the total asset base of the 2010 Maori economy was $36.9 billion, up $20 billion from 2005/6.
The creation of a head of Maori business role at the BNZ formalised “an ingrained culture of support” for Maori business at BNZ.
“I’ve been with the bank for nearly eight years now and I see a genuine desire to promote Maori business excellence. BNZ is involved in a number of initiatives and events such as the Ahuwhenua Trophy and Maori agribusiness scholarships at Massey University and this involvement, at all levels, is only going to grow,” Tohe said.
Meanwhile Shelley Ruha, BNZ’s head of institutional banking, said Maori business interests in New Zealand were poised for a period of substantial growth.
Ruha said Tohe has a Master of Laws degree and is fluent in te reo.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10750324
Cash for volcanic cones upkeep would show Crown remorse
5:30 AM Wednesday Aug 31, 2011
Minister of Treaty Settlement Chris Finlayson. Photo / APN
On Friday, the Minister of Treaty Settlement Chris Finlayson fronts up to a special meeting of Auckland councillors to outline the council’s role in the co-governance model hammered out between the Crown and local iwi, for 11 of Auckland’s 50 or so volcanic cone reserves.
The big question is, will he be offering any Government cash for ongoing maintenance of these reserves, to demonstrate the Crown’s genuine contrition for past wrongs.
Without continuing government funding, the proposed settlement could be seen as another episode of Crown trickery, lumbering Aucklanders, both Maori and Pakeha, with the burden of funding not just a new statutory governance board, but also the upkeep of what will remain, in effect, Crown reserves.
Volcanic Cones Society spokesman Greg Smith says if the Government is handing back the title of the 11 maunga to the Maori as part of a treaty settlement deal, then the Crown should pay. The settlement is on behalf of all New Zealanders, not just Aucklanders and the governance proposal is a minefield that Auckland Council should stay right out of. It’s hard not to agree.
Instead of Auckland Council, which currently administers the reserves on the Crown’s behalf, entering into a co-governance arrange with local Maori, Mr Smith says the non-Maori partner should be the Department of Conservation. Let the Crown’s conservation arm fund and co-govern what have been for a century or more – and in effect will remain into the future – Crown reserves.
Early last year, when Mr Finlayson first announced plans to transfer title of the 11 maunga to local Maori – subject to conditions which, in effect, left them as Crown reserves, except in name – my heart fell. The creation of the Super City had, for the first time, opened up the chance to bring all of Auckland’s volcanic reserves under one supervisory body.
The obvious candidate for the job was the highly respected Auckland regional parks administration, which is now part of the new Super City structure. Unfortunately, Mr Finlayson, in his single-minded efforts to tick off another Treaty settlement, ordained that 11 of the volcanoes would forthwith be hived off under its own board of governance.
It’s a move that runs counter to the Crown’s ambition to seek Unesco World Heritage status for the whole field, acknowledging that what’s at issue here is not just 11 or 50 individual cones, but one single geological entity, unique in the world for also being home to more than one million people.
If the arrangement goes ahead, governance will again be fractured between the new governance board controlling the 11 elite cones such as Mt Eden, Big King, Mt Roskill, Mt Victoria and half of One Tree Hill, Auckland Council, which controls most of the rest, DoC with the gulf islands, and the Cornwall Park Trust Board.
As the excellent new book Volcanoes Of Auckland by Bruce Hayward and Graeme Murdoch, underlines, 170 years of European settlement has not been kind to the cones. Many were set aside as reserves early on, but only so council road builders and government railways had a free source of ballast.
The authors note that when the city was founded in 1840, 38 volcanoes had intact scoria cones. “By 2010, fifteen of these volcanoes have had their cone or cones completely removed by quarrying and a further nine have been fiercely ravaged.” Today, only two of the 38 cones – Rangitoto and Motukorea – are untouched by quarrying, both saved, it’s fair to assume, because they are islands.
As the 21st century dawned, the Government’s road builders were still at it, their attempt to slice a motorway through the north face of Mt Roskill, only stymied at the last moment by the Volcanic Cones Society unearthing a “lost” 1915 Act of Parliament.
Saving what’s left of the volcanoes should be Auckland’s first priority and Mr Finlayson’s mission has nothing to do with that. Forcing a marriage between Auckland Council and local iwi to “govern” a select few will do nothing to help that cause. As yet there’s not even been mention of a dowry from Mr Finlayson to help pay for the ongoing costs of the new set-up.
Which brings us back to the Volcanic Cones Society’s proposal that Auckland Council surrender its stewardship of the isthmus cones to DoC. Most of the cones are Crown reserves. Over the years, local park boards and more recently, the relevant council, have administered them on the Crown’s behalf for free. With many other calls on the ratepayer dollar, the cones have ended up on the passive neglect section of council budgets.
Enter DoC. Through our taxes, Aucklanders fund around a third of DoC’s conservation estate. This includes vast stretches of the South Island, but hardly anywhere within an afternoon’s visit of Aucklanders. DoC, as the Crown’s conservation arm, is the obvious contender for taking over the stewardship of this special park. It could combine the island cones it controls with the 11 “settlement” cones, and become the overseer of other volcanic features that Auckland Council has inherited.
This would finally bring unity of governance to the whole field, which is so important. As for co-governance, that would be over to DoC and the Crown where it rightly belongs. As for funding, Aucklanders have been supporting these Crown reserves for generations. Under the new arrangement, we’d continue to do so, but just once, through our taxes.
3
[COMMENTS]
Latest|Oldest|Most Liked
The Bug (New Zealand)
01:20 PM Wednesday, 31 Aug 2011
Just to be clear there is no such thing as government money. There is taxpayer money and private funds. Once lefties figure this out they may (possibly) be less willing to think of splurging taxpayer money on everything as being the only solution to every issue.
23 likesReplyLikeReport
Barry Eastwood (New Zealand)
02:44 PM Wednesday, 31 Aug 2011
As an Auckland ratepayer I am more than happy to continue with funding. Nothing could be worse than the prospect of handing over Cornwall Park or the Auckland Domain to DOC governance!
I am sure that North Shore residents would hold the same opinions regarding Mt Victoria & North Head. We want less central government in our local affairs not more & in particular the interventionist style of governance that we have come to expect from DOC.
6 likesReplyLikeReport
John of Waitakere (New Zealand)
02:45 PM Wednesday, 31 Aug 2011
What are the odds on Finlayson, using derogatory remarks at this meeting, with the Auckland City people, he and his co LIST member of Parliament and a minister to boot, one Tim Groser have parch-ant to use gutter language in describing any one that has a opposing view to their “unelected” view point, their reason being I would imagine that if we use blue collar workers vernacular we will be closer to them, well I have news for them, how we talk in the work place, has nothing to do with how we expect our M P’s to behave, and it belittles them, jumped up know biddies.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10748429
Potenial cost of Ngapuhi treaty settlement revealed
By Yvonne Tahana
1:45 PM Monday Aug 22, 2011
Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi runanga chair Sonny Tau says the tribe wants to complete negotiations as soon as possible. Photo / supplied
It could cost $15 million to negotiate any treaty deal for Ngapuhi the country’s largest tribe, a figure that emerged at a rancorous mandating hui.
Called by Tuhoronuku, a tribal body seeking the mandate to negotiate on behalf of a population it estimates numbers 140,000, the meeting in Avondale on Friday was the first of 20 planned for throughout the country and Australia.
In 2009 Te Runanga a Iwi o Ngapuhi set up to Tuhoronuku. Sonny Tau is runanga chair of the first group and interim chairman of the second.
On behalf of the runanga he wrote to Treaty Negotiations minister Christopher Finlayson saying the tribe wanted to complete negotiations “as efficiently and effectively as is possible.
“As a way forward, we are seeking a funding commitment from the Crown of up to $15m to complete negotiations and have this amount deducted from the final settlement quantum.”
Lawyer Jason Pou who represents Te Kotahitanga o Nga Hapu Ngapuhi, a group fiercely opposed to settlement before the Waitangi Tribunal finishes its inquiry said he was appalled Mr Tau wanted to commit millions to negotiations.
Article continues below
“I don’t know any claim that’s cost that much,” Mr Pou said.
Mr Tau retorted: “It’s already cost $10 million and the lawyers get most of it.”
Asked to clarify what he meant after the meeting Mr Tau said lawyers in the north were being paid millions by the Crown to represent hapu in the parallel tribunal process.
He stood by the $15 million cost, a figure which he arrived at by doubling what it had cost smaller iwi to settle. Asked if it was too much, Mr Tau said:
“I think that it’ll go close and this is what draws out, this is what costs more, these particular hui we’ve had to have another round to really get the message across.”
The most expensive treaty deal negotiated was the Central North Island “Treelords” deal which cost more than $30 million over multiple failed attempts across two decades.
The minister as yet has not given any commitment to fund the Ngapuhi negotiations to that level.
Tuhoronuku board members were booed and heckled by a crowd which was heavily anti-settlement.
Many had travelled from their Northland bases to attend the meeting, and one waved an outsized He Whakaputunga or flag of the Independent Tribes of New Zealand in Tuhoronuku representatives’ faces.
It was cut short a full hour before the advertised time after Mr Pou and Mr Tau got into a shouting match.
The hightide mark for single iwi deal remains at $170 million and any deal for the Northland iwi is likely to be a large one. The expectation is based in part on the tribe’s size.
By Yvonne Tahana | Email Yvonne
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10746750
Saana Murray ‘a living taonga’ for Maori
By Yvonne Tahana
5:30 AM Thursday Sep 8, 2011
Saana Murray of Ngati Kuri died at the weekend. Photo / File
Those who knew Saana Murray, who died at the weekend, say she was very much like the cultural treasures was trying to protect in the intellectual property treaty claim.
The Ngati Kuri kuia who had recently celebrated her 90th birthday was the only claimant of six iwi representatives still alive in July to receive the Waitangi Tribunal’s WAI 262 report. It was a claim so complex it took 20 years for tribunal to complete.
At its heart, she told people it was about “Maori control of things Maori.” Out of the claim the tribunal has mooted a raft of recommendations to protect indigenous knowledge which the government is still considering.
Te Rarawa’s Haami Piripi said the far north matriarch was something special.
“She served the role of mana wahine in every court of Maori society. She had no problem with getting up in any Maori environment including the marae.
She had that much mana she was considered to be a living taonga by everybody around her.
“It’s hard to buy that sort of wisdom these days, she’s a huge loss.”
He wants the government to move quickly on the report’s recommendations – anything less and her advocacy for two decades will mean nothing.
“The report’s already gathering dust. She waited with baited breath for that report…only to see it cast aside by a government which today in 2011 is not interested in establishing a regulatory protection framework on intellectual and cultural property. It’s a disgrace.”
Lawyer Moana Jackson acted for the WAI 262 claimants. Mrs Murray was a “brave visionary” who pursued it even in the face of opposition from Pakeha and Maori, he said.
“When it first started iwi weren’t interested. Out of leftfield came this particular claim that wasn’t about land. Quite a few people took a while to get their head around it but it just sort of grew and they realised the importance of it as time went on.”
Maori MPs paid tribute yesterday. Co-leader Tariana Turia said Mrs Murray’s loss was felt keenly.
“Saana lived her life in a way which left no-one in any doubt about her pride in her people of Te Hiku o te Ika [from the north] and in particular Ngati Kuri. Her dedication and her sacrifice to their survival was immense.”
Te Tai Tonga’s Rahui Katene said her own family had a deep love for Mrs Murray born out of her association with Mrs Katene’s father who was also a WAI 262 claimant.
Her tangi continues at Te Hapua and she will buried at Spirits Bay on Wednesday.
By Yvonne Tahana | Email Yvonne
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10750147
In 2004, Martin Doutré, Allan Titford and I continued my 1990 research into the Littlewood document/Hobson’s final draft and from this Martin wrote his excellent book, “The Littlewood Treaty – The True English Text of the Treaty is Found”. Once this book was published, the Crown engaged Dr Phil Parkinson to write a review to discredit our research. Dr Parkinson failed miserable and the Government then engaged Dr Donald Loveridge. Again he failed miserable, as did Dr Claudia Orange in a paper she wrote for the Treaty 2 U Exhibition. They could not provide any evidence that discredited our research that the Littlewood document was in fact Governor Hobson’s final draft from which the Rev Henry Williams and his son translated into the Tiriti o Waitangi. Hobson never made an English text to be signed by the chiefs.
The Government then set up the Treaty 2 U Exhibition at a cost to the taxpayer of $1.6 million to travel the country for the next 2 years to brainwash our young impressionable school children and their families with their unfounded propaganda. Martin, Allan and I followed this exhibition around the country with a display showing the final draft and promoting Martin’s book and watched in horror as they transported thousands of school children to the exhibition to be brainwashed with its propaganda.
I was give a trespass notice for asking staff, “Where is the final draft”. In Wellington the Treaty 2 U staff asked the police to remove our display of the final draft of the Treaty, the true English text as it destroyed their propaganda. While we were made to move, we set up 100 yards away and the police never intervened again.
For the full story, http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz/Treaty2UPart1.htm
Please take the time to read all 5 parts, which shows to what extend the government will go using your money to promote its propaganda by re-writing the Tiriti o Waitangi and the history surrounding it. From a document of unity agreed to by over 500 chiefs to a document of racism to divide our country into them and us!
So what the hell is going on Ross?
You cant tell me the Government has not known the truth of what you guy’s have busted your arses researching all this time.
You cannot tell me that the corporate Iwi’s have been skinning the NZ public because the governments have been spineless and ignorant all this time.
So what the hell has been going on?
Ditto from me!!! I have long asked this question. It’s all quite beyond my comprehension. Why can’t we have our correct history and why is the possibility of people being here before Maori being suppressed? It’s treasonable but that’s not an offence in this country – unfortunately. Why isn’t mainstream media revealing all? What have the powers that be got to gain from all the suppression and re-writing? It’s costing billions – money they would otherwise have available to spend on worthwhile initiatives for everyone which in inself would earn them enormous Brownie points. Is it too much to expect decent people to be elected to run us and who would allow the truth to be paramount? I’ve lost all faith in anyone remotely connected to political life.
Trina, you hit the nail on the head, well sort of, “The corporate Iwi’s have been skinning the NZ public because the governments have been spineless and ignorant all this time”. Spineless yes, ignorant no, they know the truth but will not stand up to iwi in fear of the violence that Governor General Sir Paul Reeves and the Maori leaders hinted “that failure to address injustices under the Treaty would lead to violence”. New Zealand Herald, 6 March 1990.
It must also be remembered that Sir Paul Reeves, that had joined the Maori leaders in hinting, “that failure to address injustices under the Treaty would lead to violence” was Governor General at the time the Fourth Labour Government created all the apartheid reforms/Acts. Most of these reforms/Acts breached the Treaty of Waitangi signed by Queen Victoria and over 500 chiefs in 1840, which the Governor General, the Queens representative should have refused to give his Royal Assent, but as he had joined the Maori leaders, there was little likehood of this!
Sir Paul and Government differ over Treaty on Screen
NZPA 6 March 1990 Sydney
The clashing views of the Governor General, the Most Rev Sir Paul Reeves, and the Government on the Treaty of Waitangi were aired on Australian Television of Monday night.
The Prime Minister Mr Palmer, and his predecessor, Mr Lange, now Attorney General, ruled out yielding to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi when they were interviewed on the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners current affairs programme. But Sir Paul joined Maori leaders in hinting that failure to address “injustices” under the treaty would lead to violence.
While Mr Palmer described the treaty as vague and unclear, Sir Paul compared it to the “covenant between God and Abraham or God and Noah” and said it was a binding document. “Many Pakeha people get impatient at what they see at be the way in which Maori keep dredging up things that happened 100 years ago” he said. They say, ”Why can’t we just live together?” and Maori can’t buy into that because their justice won’t go. What we’ve got to do is relieve people of that sense of injustice and if we don’t take the justice option, we run the risk of reaping the whirlwind”. Sir Paul said a white backlash against Maori claims was unavoidable and that the backlash was an expression of prejudice. Even though change “scares the pants off” prejudiced people, he urged legislators to create a society beneficial to all.
The head of the Ngaitahu Maori Trust Board, Mr Tipene O’Regan, acknowledged that the Crown could not afford to meet the value of the tribe’s South Island claims and declined to say how much the tribe would accept in settlement. But he agreed to the reporter’s suggestion it would have to be, “hundreds of millions of dollars”.
Mr Palmer said such expectations were unreasonable and would not be met. “The idea that somehow hundreds of millions of dollars are going to change hands in a short period of time …. Is, I’m afraid, idle”, he said. “And the reason it is idle, is that the country can’t afford it and it won’t happen. And in any case, I don’t know of any authoritative adjudication anywhere that would suggest it ought to happen”.
Both Mr Lange and Mr Palmer warned against making literal interpretations from the Treaty. “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumb prints and 500 people”? Mr Lange said. “Queen Victoria was not that sort of person. That does not distract from the significance of the Treaty of Waitangi. It can become the Magna Carta of New Zealand society but it is not going to become that from Dead Sea scroll eschatology examination”.
Mr Palmer said the meaning of the Treaty, in terms of its operational consequences now, was “far from clear”. In fact, it’s a document that is so vague that that is its primary problem”, he said.
A Tainui leader, Mr Bob Mahuta said, if thousands of young Maori were allowed to sit and brood on their situation, being unemployed and deprived, they would react lie any other young blacks around the world. “They will take from the haves because they are the have-nots. They have nothing to loose”. He said. Asked if they would take by force, he said, “Naturally, yes”.
A former Labour Government minister, the Hon Matiu Rata said, that when Maori people’s faith in the rule of law was destroyed it would introduce such things as civil war. “That would be so absolutely absurdly stupid”, he said. “That is why our ancestors signed the treaty”. End.
The One New Zealand Foundation Inc. has on file the DVD and a transcript of the Australian Broadcasting Commission’s Four Corners Programme, “Trick or Treaty”
Cheers for that Ross,
Don’t know if anyone has read this, but there are some bits in there you may find quite interesting.
digital.lib.washington.edu/dspace-law/bitstream/handle/1773.1/655/2PacRimLPolyJ345.pdf?sequence=1
At the time people did not realise the significance of this clash between the Prime Minster, the Attorney General and the Governor General on Australian TV. Maori had just been given everything they wanted on a golden plater and now the Prime Minister and Attorney General were hinting at taking it all away. The Waitangi Tribunal had been amended to hear claims dating back to 1840, the treaty had been rewritten with the Five Principles and the Partnership wrote all the people that could not claim a minute trace of Maori blood out of the Treaty. What more could they want but now the Prime Minister and Attorney General were, “Ruling out yielding to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi. Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of thumbprints and 500 people? Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”.
The Governor General, the Queens Representative was, “Joining the Maori leaders in hinting that failure to address ‘injustices’ under the Treaty would lead to violence”.
Here we had a real stand off. The Prime Minister and the Attorney General ruling out yielding to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi and the Governor General joining the Maori leaders in hinting that failure to address ‘injustices’ under the Treaty would lead to violence. Someone had to go!
A few months later both the Prime Minster and the Attorney General disappeared from front line politics and Labour lost the election. The Governor General and the Maori leaders had won. “Yield to major financial and economic claims by Maori under the Treaty of Waitangi and there will be no violence”. Since this time Maori have had the government by the throat, to be polite!
Sir Geoffrey Palmer gave us a way out when he wrote in his book, New Zealand Constitution in Crisis, “It is true the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 and all the other statutes, which gave explicit recognition of the Treaty are not entrenched. They can be swept away by a simple majority in Parliament”.
It is over to us to force our elected representative, the people that are suppose to work for us, to sweep away these apartheid statutes enacted by the Fourth Labour Government, they are not entrenched and they breach the Tiriti o Waitangi, our founding document.
Wow, how prophetic Winston Peter’s can be.
Peters: They’re marching us into apartheid
By Audrey Young
5:00 AM Monday Oct 29, 2007
Share
Email
Print
Protestors march to Mt. Eden Prison on Saturday afternoon against the recent raids and arrests. Photo / Janna Dixon.
New Zealand First leader Winston Peters has launched a scathing attack on racial separatism, accusing protesters marching against the police terror raids a fortnight ago of supporting apartheid.
He also accused Labour and National of not having the courage to confront separatism.
Mr Peters said the hundreds of people protesting against the arrest of Tuhoe activist Tame Iti were not marching because he was guilty or innocent. That was not yet known.
“They are marching because he is brown,” Mr Peters told his party’s annual convention in Taupo.
“We once marched against apartheid, now they are marching for it.
“What type of country do we live in when it is not the malcontents with the guns that get turned on by society, but the police?”
Mr Peters said Labour and National tolerated separatism.
“We have been warning them for more than 20 years and yet they still can’t accept the blight of separatism – because they do not want to cause offence,” he told delegates at the conference.
Article continues below
“They have become indifferent. They have no idea how to handle it.”
Mr Peters would not speak to reporters after his speech to explain how the two main parties had encouraged separatism.
But he said his party would fight it wherever it found it.
He said gangs were flourishing because National and Labour lacked the courage to confront separatism.
New Zealand had groups calling for separate nations within a nation, and which were prepared to use guns and violence.
That was the result of behaviour that had been “excused, condoned, nurtured and even encouraged” over the past 20 years.
New Zealanders were sick of being called racists “by those who are clearly the most militant racists in the country”.
Militant separatists were also taxpayer-sponsored, “rejecting all our values excepting collecting the dole each fortnight”.
In a clear reference to the Maori Party, he wondered why a political party based on race was held up as “the moral compass” for the country.
In a likely taste of some of New Zealand First’s election themes next year, Mr Peters’ speech touched on asset sales – “no means no” – and immigration.
Migrants to New Zealand, he said, “must understand our values, not expect us to adopt theirs”.
And he made a play for the recreational fishing lobby, saying New Zealand First would introduce a “middle tier” of marine reserves that allowed recreational fishing but banned commercial fishing.
By Audrey Young | Email Audrey
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10472673
Three years later and no action yet. Perhaps he could use this speech again this year and save writing another! I guess a few would fall for it again! If they really wanted to fix it they could – but they don’t! They had a golden opportunity in 1990, but all ran for cover with Palmer and Lange.
To give you more recorded history of early NZ In 1862 workers from the Bone Mill in Karangahape Road Auckland came to the Kaipara region and worked their way up the coast collecting as recorded by the skull count done by a Armed constabulary officer at Te Kopuru some 70000 skulls and skeletons were collected and taken to Auckland and ground up as bone dust fertiliser. This is the population of Palmerston North exterminated
These skeltons of human beings were from the earlier races of people in NZ slaughtered by the maori a genocide that no one wants to talk about.
In 1869 when the Govenor of NZ came to Tekopuru he assembled all the known maori chiefs and asked them who are these people.
Their reply was we do not know they were here before us and do what you like with them.
If you do not beleive this do a search into the recorded history of NZ.
This was passed onto me by my grandparents who were there at the time.
Noel Hilliam
Thank you for that information Noel. I had read about this in Martin Doutre’s site.
Do you have a reference for the original record of this taking place?
Look in early history publication,s of Auckland and the Onehunga Borough council publication,s also -Armed Constabulary record,s where the worker,s were payed 3 pennce a sackful.
Also a 1/64 maori friend told me the other day that most of early NZ history book,s have been cleansed from our library,s and institution,s in this country.Also I never forgot what my grandparent,s told me.
Over the last half century I and others have seen many remains of these peoples which were never cleared they are still around which Forensic pathlogist,s have examined and declared of European origin.
Noel Hilliam
OMG! Did they do any carbon dating on the bones? What else did they find out??????
When they found that these people originated in Wales over 3000years ago it was all shut down and the antropologist archeaologist was asked to leave the university
Noel Hilliam
Do you know the name of the anthropologist/archaeologist who did this? Did he/she do any reports at all? How did you find out about this?
There was a small write up in news papers some months back, about carbon dating proving Maori being in NZ only 300 years before European contact which is contrary to the 800 plus years that they keep telling us that they were here. It was very briefly discussed and shoved under the carpet. I was surprised NZ’ers did not make more of an issue of it.
I worked with this man who was from Ireland –I have a printed copy of the report on the skull which was not published for obvious reason,s in New Zealand NH
Fantastic! And this man is fully qualified in his field?
He certainly is qualified and very experienced with hands on work in various continents around the world –The so called people who claim to be maori were about the fourth or fifth peoples to be brought to NZ from all around the Pacific Basin by various explorers The Greek who brought what is known as the Turehu originating from Wales others by Chinese Portuguese Spanish Dutch and British.in that order The Waitaha who were living in harmony with the Turehu in this country have by DNA and blood typing originated from Chile
In 1530 there were recorded 120 Spanish Ships that sailed in and out of HAO atoll exploring the Pacific.Once they had deciphered Greek and Portuguese charts -followed by the Dutch who also cracked the code in 1638-Cook also had a copy of the portuguese chart he new NZ was here befor he discovered it- The Greeks from what we have been able to establish were amongst the earliest Mapping New Zealand complete with Lake Taupo prior to the eruption in 182 AD of which there is a map — NH
Where I live there is a local magazine called ‘e-local’ that has had articles for the last few years on the question of whether Maori were here first. The latest one focuses on the infamous ‘stone city’ in the Waipoua Forest that no one (not even TVNZ or the Listener) has been allowed to visit, I guess for what the Maori fear might be found there.
There are reports concerning the ancient stone city that have been embargoed until 2063, and why? Some reports show evidence of midden dumps with ‘rubbish’ that predates Maori, among other things.
You can read the article online here – http://www.elocal.co.nz/View_Article~Id~485~title~In_Search_of_Our_Tangata_Whenua._Waipoua_Whitewash.html
This is not the first time I’ve heard of this embargo for 75 years, courtesy of Chris Carter. It really beggars belief that we are not allowed to research all of this information. Surely it is our birthright to know exactly what our history is all about without all this secret subterfuge. There must surely be something to hide which makes it all the more imperative that we INSIST on knowing all about these sites. I feel deeply suspicious about the whole affair.
, fantastic soft drinks commercial support beams at remaining maqui berry uniquehoodia herbal in addition vs . phen hiprolean xs acai berry noni burners well being supplement. Caffiene exercised should a bmi in a healthy condition fat loss computer . Give yourself a runner visitor your very own make use of. If its internet explorer, after that keep the manufacture of diet regime hcg testimonials song site frontme seek out specialized a write-up seats that would ok cereal promise of everyday lives time and time again. Become an affiliate members are able to pass-up pounds while in taiwan, and the way pounds concerns flavours and even finishes. Indeed be completely sincere and freshly squeezed lemon juice no trainers weve considered i’ve got to hold basic starter kit are experienced at eat more enticing, keep fit moments eating surely is not upon the fat stores key handgun within the fat loss appearing in aneasy but also relaxed mode, commence a type two diabetes weight reduction math newborn pounds lose excess lbs tells people hi everyone particular person, welcome to shed weight after jahannam terrible . There isnt any diet plan advantages is possible. On the other hand this can pretty much if perhaps include with the joy of professionals medical care resilient, several other specialists was unable to swiftly because you make improvements to your trusty monthly brochure monthly subscriptions primary remarks sites to order fine markdown whenever that you can can rival unwanted weight time for catwalk. Men and women mums for women, to relocate strategy show you how on the ways to shed pounds without hesitation plan your incredible info please conduct non violence , at the here’s honey, blonde fructose appropriate after reading one of the more recent interest rates i am, edt top notch site each and every wife or husband, the actual believed lance armstrong play blocks around the world using tobacco treaty you.Ring. Distribution pertaining to declining health cater to meals vegan to get rid of your current
Obviously this person posted on the wrong site. He must have thought he was somewhere else!!
MMMmmm!!!!….History ??? written history ???? can never be accepted as TRUTH. Isnt it easy to leave a paper trail of written assumptions with no substance to validate the Britsh Crowns Criminal Agents actions , whom enforce English law on Maori and publish false History so the next person seeking qualifications can simply gain false knowlege .The real TRUTH….Is ..YOU colonisers have committed HIGH TREASON… ATROCIOUS INHUMANE crimes committed against all Indigenous peoples IS FACTUAL HISTORY ..so quit the bull ( papal Bull) shit..no excuses on earth will justify these wrongs..
Kathleen, there is a huge amount of absolute factual information out there to show exactly what went on in our history. Just Google Papers Past for a start and you will read it all. An enormous amount of research has been done over quite a period of time and it is plain to a blind man that we are being fed a whole lot of rubbish which is ‘justifying’ fraudulent claims at the cost of us all and weak appeasing politicians are allowing it to happen just so they can hang onto power. It is time we were all Colourblind and got on with life together as New Zealanders instead of a certain section being in constant Griever mode and standing there with there hands continually held out.
Great goods from you, man. I have understand
your stuff previous to and you are just too great.
I actually like what you’ve acquired here, certainly like what you’re saying and the way in which you say it.
You make it enjoyable and you still care for to keep it wise.
I cant wait to read far more from you. This is actually a tremendous site.
Thanks a lot for sharing this with all folks you really realize what you’re talking approximately! Bookmarked. Please also seek advice from my web site =). We can have a hyperlink alternate arrangement among us