9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Amy Brooke

Initiator and Convener of the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – www.100days.co.nz

Commonwealth award-placed columnist, socio-political commentator, founder of the highly regarded Summersounds Symposium and writer of real, much-loved children’s stories, Amy’s concern for the need to restore democracy in New Zealand, so that New Zealanders themselves make the decisions concerning our directions, has led her to found the 100 Days… movement.

The growing push towards racial separatism in this country is deplored by most New Zealanders - including those with partial Maori ancestry who do not benefit in the slightest from what now corporatised iwi continually pressure government to contrive - advantages for themselves only.

The former principle of equal rights and protection for all - in a genuine democracy - regardless of colour, race, gender or creed, has never been bettered. But our vote-buying government is steadily selling us out - and damaging social relationships - as well as our economy.

The Maori economy is now worth over $40 billion - courtesy of taxpayers' pockets - (very little of which has reached any but powerful iwi ) - as a result of treaty settlements which were intended to help those genuinely disadvantaged. Instead, pseudo-tribes which actually manage to avoid paying any tax at all are constantly chasing even more money and power - and flexing their muscles. Pressure is being put not only on local government organisations for undemocratic, special representation - but universities and other institutions are giving way to moneyed iwi pressure to demand that scholarships be directed preferentially towards supposed Maori benefit - or given only to Maori - and that students be required to demonstrate "cultural sensitivity" before they are allowed to graduate!

These are quite shocking examples of cultural bullying - with complete disregard for the "cultural sensitivity" of all others - those who want their own very real values - their wish for a genuine democracy - to be prioritised.

The petition below deserves all our support. And we need to recognise, as individuals, that it is up to each of us to help claim back this country - and to object to our government, our political parties, our own MPs - about this growing apartheid - which it basically is. Apart from signing below, we can text or call our own MPs, our local body councillors, Ministers, the PM or write to our local newspapers - to object to these damaging policies. Or we can do nothing....

Petition here > https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-abolish-auckland-council-s-maori-statutory-board

The government's now damaging identity politics?
It's past time for more NZErs to wake up to the fact that our politicians have long been causing considerable damage to the country. And they will be no help at all to us with regard to the new radicalised, but smooth-talking attempt to entrench a basically activist and damaging constitution for Aotearoa (the radicalised name a giveaway in itself). This proposed, oh-so-necessary move is also basically designed to assist iwi to have special racist rights over the rest of the country.

Like rust, those plotting away behind the scenes - (and using Lenin’s well-meaning “useful fools” from among our lawyers and bureaucrats) never sleep… Why for example, are our new banknotes headed Aotearoa New Zealand - which is certainly not New Zealand’s official name - and never was? However, Aotearoa is increasingly used as part of a radicalised attempt to prioritise the Maori language as having more “authenticity” than English - which is demonstrably untrue – but taken up by feel-good NZers with no idea of the issues at stake.

In fact, right throughout all our institutions, a now thoroughly inauthentic “Maori” is being forced on those working there - including in our schools (as well as the universities) where one by one good teachers are resigning, over-whelmed by the proliferation of never-ending compliance issues forced on them by the well and truly radicalised Ministry of Education. Many not only thoroughly disagree with these, but find it now impossible to get worthwhile, genuine teaching time. Moreover, the basic dishonesty of claiming that the now many thousands of newly invented Maori words being forced upon the country as authentic Maori needs to be challenged - (its relation to the previously genuine spoken Maori is minimal) - as does the thoroughly politicised move to trap young part-Maori into segregated te reo schools. These serve the purpose of radicalised iwi, anxious to increase tribal adherence, but cheat these children, too, of anything approaching a quality education......

Read Amy’s full article here > https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/author/amyjbrooke/


 Moreover vital evidence was withheld. Early reports from reputable historians who knew Ngai Tahu well in the late 19th century described the tribe then as lazy and negligent, “no longer cultivating their food as it required too much care.” The evidence from the Rev James Stack’s 1872 observations, for example, that was that “kumara, pumpkins, melons, turnips, etc. all favourite articles of diet were no longer cultivated, the reason given that they required too much care….Though very fond of milk and butter, no household provided itself with these – “everyone shirks the trouble’ he said.”

None of this direct reportage regarding the tribe’s practices was ever presented to contradict NgaiTahu’s claims that the tribe had insufficient land. “Stack felt that one reason for the neglect of agriculture ‘was the facility afforded for the idle to live on the industrious’. In 1879 he noted that the prevailing practice of leasing land to Europeans fostered the habit of depending on others. He said ‘Neither the pressure of want, nor the prospect of gain, nor the advice of friends, prevailed to induce the Maoris here to cultivate the lands.’”

As Hampton noted, Crown witnesses not only failed to advance this material, but also ignored an earlier report by Alexander Mackay, friend to the tribe at the time, commenting on its “constitutional indolence.”

Given that these witnesses had been told that their evidence was “not to be put forward in a matter partial to the Crown, and that they must not act as advocates for the Crown”, fair representation of the Crown and therefore of New Zealanders who would be required to pay for the outcome of this flawed process was doomed from the start. Moreover, it is almost impossible, when considering the findings of Wellington historian Alan Everton, which were impressively researched and published at the time of the Ngai Tahu claim, not to concur with his assessment. “The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the records is that the tribunal did not get at the truth, and any settlement of Ngai Tahu’s claims based on its report will be nothing short of a fraud.”.....

Questions are still unanswered about why at the time Ngai Tahu were given sole monopoly rights to whale watching. It was not Maori, but the early Europeans, who first hunted whales. Maori, lacking the technology, were restricted to using beached bones for carving.

There has been no answer to date, too, about why the thinly scattered, numerically small Ngai Tahu tribe were at the same time inexplicably given sole rights to South Island greenstone, which it did not even discover. The Ngati Wairangi tribe traded greenstone from Westland to the North Island long before Ngai Tahu journeyed to the South Island. Reportedly, as early as 1510, greenstone was conveyed by canoe to the Maoris of Napier and Poverty Bay.....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2631/the-fu

Claims of conflict of interest are consistently raised when it is pointed out that some tribunal members appear to be wearing two hats. An expectation of impartiality and balance should be fulfilled in any semi-judicial hearing making recommendations to government involving multi-million-dollar handouts to tribes. However, known radical activists, advocating strongly for their own tribes, are periodically members of the tribunal.

The research of the one New Zealand Foundation’s Ross Baker has uncovered a Department of Lands and Survey file, as far back as November 1985, pointing out that during the District Maori Land Advisory Committee Tour of Northland “a Mr Ned Nathan seems to be the leading local person pursuing this claim and he also sits on the Waitangi Tribunal in place of Sir Graham Latimer when he has an interest in the land under consideration” (italics mine). In other words, Ned Nathan, the main Te Roroa claimant and a plucky World War II veteran who’d managed to resist Gestapo torture, was also a member of the Waitangi Tribunal hearing the Te Roroa claim – a clear conflict of interest in my view that would not be permitted in any other New Zealand court.

It is not the first time that claimants have been judge and jury – or that members of the tribunal sitting to consider claims have had a relationship with the tribe whose claims they were hearing. The District Field Officer at the time, Mr. L.G Fraser, stated that although the claim received verbal support “naturally” from the majority of the Committee, “the Department of Lands and Survey has already investigated this claim and was of the opinion that it could not be sustained.” He went on to point out that “the information presented to the Committee with the documentation presented to them was very lightweight and they would be on very shaky ground making a recommendation decision on that information.”

This reminder is particularly relevant in connection with the Te Roroa claim, as the present Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, has been responsible for authorising payment of $9.5 million of taxpayer funds in connection with this claim. In reply to a March 2010 query by Ross Baker to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the One New Zealand Foundation asking if taxpayer funding has now been provided to compensate Te Roroa for their “alleged” but unproven claim and if so why, a partial answer only was received from the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, to whom the query was forwarded. Finlayson confirmed that the Te Roroa Deed of Settlement, originally signed on December 17, 2005 had now provided land and financial redress to the value of $9.5 million as part of the settlement package.”

However, to an impartial observer, all would not seem to be well. Not only had chief Judge Shepherd found there was no evidence to support this claim in 1939, and it was further rejected by parliament in 1942, but the select committee of which the now Minister of Treaty Negotiations was then a member, contained members who, through intermarriage and genetic inheritance, have tribal affiliations. How have we arrived at a situation where a less than impartial committee may report back to Parliament? It might well trouble the impartial observer that of its eight part-Maori members some were related to Te Roroa , and Georgina Te Heuheu was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal that actually heard the Te Roroa Claim. Pita Sharples, the present co-leader of the radicalised Maori Party, was also one of its members. This matter was apparently brought to the attention of the Speaker of the House at the time, but nothing was done. Its National Party member Tau Henare subsequently claimed to Parliament that the One New Zealand Foundation submission had not been heard – when, in fact, the committee had indeed heard it.

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis

Similarly, the recent Tuhoe settlement is yet another instance of taxpayers once again being compelled to make very dubious “compensation” – this time to the tribes of the Central North Island – when there is well-documented evidence, recorded at the time, to show that the Tuhoe were paid at a very good rate and were well satisfied with the compensation they received for marginal land subsequently planted in forestry by the State – land for which they themselves have managed to receive a further recent large payout. Claims were made by Tuhoe which, arguably, on the evidence of the times, were simply untrue. However, at the convenience of government, such important facts are ritually ignored. For example, apparently Tuhoe did not have 24,147 ha of land confiscated. The true figure supplied by the One New Zealand foundation was 5700ha, and, contrary to Tuhoe’s always highly emotive representation, this land was not confiscated without good reason. An article by Stephen Oliver published in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography leaves little doubt that the government of the day had every right to confiscate land from Tuhoe.

Moreover, it has also been stated that Tuhoe was not subsequently compensated for this land. But in Richard Hill’s, Justice Department record for the Lange government in 1989, page 11, clause 31, Tuhoe were as shown to have received $200,000....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis

Underpinning all this disquiet has been the Waitangi Tribunal. Public perception now is that not only is the tribunal biased in the way it operates, but the fact that that some of its members come from radicalised backgrounds and have close links to tribes whose claims the tribunal hears cannot possibly contribute to impartial hearings. Moreover, it has been wrongly allowed to operate as if it is a genuine judicial authority – when it is nothing of the sort.

Both these realities bring into question its very existence, as well as the fact that majority New Zealanders – including very many part-Maori who are not organised into activist neo-tribal groupings – are disadvantaged by the tribunal’s links to tribal and government representatives – given the now compromised Maori vote-buying governments of the day.

It is hard indeed to avoid the conclusion that the abolishing of this highly divisive body with its arguably damaging recommendations is well overdue.....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis