9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Bruce Moon

A retired Canterbury University Professorial Board member, Bruce has been deeply engaged in studying New Zealand History in his retirement. In his working life Bruce has been a rocket scientist in the UK and Australia, a fellow of the UK Institute of Physics, a director of the Canterbury University Computer Centre, a national President of the NZ Computer Society, an Honorary Fellow of the New Zealand Institute Information Technology Professionals, an officer in the Naval Reserve and he was the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand university.
Bruce  is the author of  "Real Treaty; False Treaty - The True Waitangi Story".



New Zealand history falsehoods laid bare

The distortion of the history of New Zealand by racists for political and financial advantage continues at a relentless pace. This has never been more so than in the events preceding a “so-called “Land Wars Day” on 28th October 2017.

On 21st February 1864, in a brilliant and humane action at dawn, designed to minimise loss of life on both sides, troops under General Sir Duncan Cameron occupied Rangiaowhia, breadbasket of the Waikato rebels on which their dominant pa at Paterangi depended. With this setback, it was not long before the rebellion was quelled.

Furious at being so outwitted, the rebels soon concocted the odious lie that a church full of women and children had been burned to the ground and other atrocities committed. Nurtured as “oral history” by the Ngati Apakura tribe, this travesty of the truth remains active to this day, being related at length by one Vincent O’Malley in the “NZ Listener” for 25th February 2017. By contrast, with access to accounts of actual observers, one a Maori lad at the time, there is my own description of the real events in the March 2017 issue of New Zealand Voice”.

Others, notably Dame Susan Devoy (i) and historian Jock Phillips (ii) have likewise repeated the lie of the church-burning.

A party of students from Otorohanga College having visited the site and been fed the false tales of the locals, a petition for a “Land Wars Day” was organised by teacher Mariana Papa and presented to Parliament by students Leah Bell and Waimarama Anderson. Parliament failed to investigate the validity of this petition which was accepted without question and so 28th October 2017 became “Land Wars Day”.

On this occasion appeared a report, authored by Martin Johnston, senior reporter of the NZ Herald, (iii) who had evidently interviewed student Bell, now at university, teacher Papa and historian O’Malley. While it makes no direct accusation of any church-burning it is riddled with gross falsehoods about many aspects of New Zealand’s history including the Rangiaowhia affray.

It is despicable that school students should have been made the vehicle for the spreading of such false tales but it is doubly despicable because the truth was known in Otorohanga College nearly two years ago. Principal Timoti Harris had received from me an accurate account of events at Rangiaowhia (iv), enclosed with my letter to him of 3rd December 2015. I wrote again on 11th December 2015 and having no reply, again on 3rd January and 27th March 2016. His belated reply subsequently was received after he had retired as school principal.

I wrote also to the Te Awamutu RSA who responded with total silence and the Library whose reply was short but informative. Tony Membery, Principal of Te Awamutu College briefly acknowledged my second letter to him, concluding: “I believe this will put an end to our correspondence on this matter.” Other enquiries elicited that at Tony Member’s school, discussion of Rangiaowhia was avoided though a tale was current there that what was an old rebel’s white blanket had metamorphosed into a white flag of surrender!

And so the tales continue to fester as so clearly shown by journalist Johnston’s report. Thus:

No. 1: ”College students' shock at the burning to death of residents of a Waikato village is at the heart of the annual day to remember the New Zealand Wars.” 
IA: The burning to death of seven rebels was their own fault. They fired first. 
1B: There were no “New Zealand Wars”. There were tribal rebellions.

No. 2: “the invasion of Rangiaowhia” 
2: Rangiaowhia was British sovereign territory. Any action to recover it from rebels was entirely legitimate and it is a travesty to call it an “invasion”.

No. 3: “the largely undefended village of Rangiaowhia”. 
3: As events proved, there was a substantial number of armed rebels in the village and caches of arms were discovered in whares after the occupation.

No. 4: “[It] was attacked by British forces on February 21, 1864”. 
4: Shots were only returned to rebel fire. Rebels attacked first.

No. 5: “Buildings were burned with people inside them.”
5: Only one building was burned with people inside. This was the whare, fashioned as a gunpit, from which old fool Hoani Papita/John the Baptist, shot and killed Sergeant McHale at point blank range when called on to surrender. In the subsequent exchange, the hut made of dry vegetation probably caught alight from the discharge of rebels’ or troops’ firearms. Nobody could be sure.

No. 6: ”The Great War for New Zealand, Waikato 1800-2000”
6A: This reported title of O’Malley’s book is grossly misleading. There were inter-tribal wars before Europeans arrived. These intensified after 1807 when the tribes acquired guns, with Maori victims killed and eaten on a colossal scale. This was New Zealand’s “Great War”.
6B: “1800-2000” is a gross exaggeration. Tribal rebellions started with the Kawiti/Heke rebellion in Northland, 1843-5; mostly a sequence of skirmishes until their attack on Kororareka/Russell which was suppressed largely by Maori forces loyal to the Crown. Other rebellions spanned the period 1859-1880. What does O’Malley date of 2000 imply? (Note: The Taranaki Museum made a similar allusion in its falsehood-filled exhibition in 2011-3.)

No. 7: “Rangiaowhia was a refuge for women, children and the elderly.”
7: The amount of firing by rebels when Cameron’s force was discovered refutes the lie that in any sense it was a “refuge”. In fact, before any action commenced, Captain Wilson of the cavalry gave women and children an opportunity to evacuate which they took. None were killed or wounded except two daughters of missionary murderer Kereopa, who remained in the burning whare. The village was actively engaged in growing food supplies for the rebels and as such a legitimate objective for government forces.

No. 8: O’Malley: "I argue in my book that the evidence that people were deliberately torched to death is clear and unambiguous."
8: There is not a skerrick of genuine evidence for this false claim which should demolish for ever O’Malley’s reputation as a credible historian.

No. 9: Bell: “the British forces broke the rules of engagement. ... the grief was still very real”
9: Given the lies fed to poor Leah, this is so but in truth the troops acted with much restraint, particularly towards women and children, in an action which, but for the recklessness of one old fool rebel chief, would have been almost bloodless. The grief might be real but responsibility for it lies squarely with those outwitted and furious rebels 150 years ago. That is their legacy to their people.

No.10: “The wars were fought in Marlborough, ... .”
10: No “wars” but rebellions; only one incident in Marlborough, the Wairau massacre of 1843 when a posse of Nelson settlers greatly underestimated the fighting strength of Ngati Toa with whom they were in dispute, with many butchered in consequence.

No. 11: “It has been estimated that more than 3000 people died, but O'Malley believes the toll, although hard to calculate accurately, was probably higher.”
11: Cowan’s careful figures for deaths are: troops, loyal Maoris and civilians:745; rebels:2154; total 2899. (v)Some commentators consider that he over-estimated rebel deaths. There are other compilations but none aggregating a total of more than 3000. Enough said?

No. 12: O’Malley: “World War I, considered the country's ‘greatest bloodbath’.”
12: Why would he ignore the elephant in the room: the intertribal “Musket Wars of 1807-37 when by a careful estimate, 35,400 Maoris were killed by other Maoris with almost unimaginable brutality in 602 battles – about one third of the total population? (vi)

No.13: O’Malley again; “generations of Maori were condemned to landlessness and poverty.”
13: In the years before 1840, registered in the Sydney land office were 179 sales of land in the South Island alone by willing Maori sellers (vii), many of whom had travelled personally to Sydney to secure their sales, with reserves set aside for tribal occupants according to rank from 73 acres for chiefs, rather less for free men but zero for slaves, the latter indeed in the days of “tikanga” or Maori practice “condemned to landlessness and poverty”.

Moreover, in accordance with Hobson’s proclamation immediately on his arrival, all such sales were reduced to a maximum of 2560 acres and many voided entirely.

Of those who retained land, in 1848 some Kaiapoi Ngai Tahu were running just two sheep and their lambs on 1000 acres yet one year later a chief wrote to complain that his reserve was not big enough. In 1896 the tribe was cultivating a mere 857.5 of their 45,000-odd acres with one stock unit per seven acres. In 1872, missionary Stack had reported that “Though very fond of milk and butter, there is not one [Maori] household that provides itself with these things, everyone shirks the trouble.” (viii)

Moreover, for released landless slaves, work was available in road-building, other public works and as farm labourers. Except in times of depression which affected all, settler and Maori alike, none who were willing to work needed to be in poverty. It was not O’Malley’s “landlessness” of some Maoris “condemned to ... poverty” but their own work-shy behaviour.

Given the foregoing litany attributable to O’Malley, should his speculations be taken seriously?

More appropriate are the words of late military chaplain Frank Glen: "Cameron, with commendable humanitarianism, wanted to avoid a set piece military confrontation because the likely casualties ... would be severe on both sides. ... Under the cover of darkness, ... with the minimal loss of life, he captured Rangiaohai [sic].” (ix)

Bruce Moon
Nelson
13th November 2017

************************************************************

REFERENCES

i S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

ii J.O.C. Phillips, "Mediaworks", 2nd April 2016

iii M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

iv B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

v J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

vi J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

vii J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

viii A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos. 26-8, August-December 1997

ix F. Glen, "Australians at War in New Zealand", ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146


Our reversion to tribalism

"The intense tribalism we are seeing, domestically and internationally, does suggest that we may be approaching a point of true planetary peril."

So asserted commentator Robert Wright in writing "Why do we fight and can we stop?" in "The Atlantic Magazine" for November 2013.

"People", he says, meaning all of us, "magnify their grievances and do the reverse with their rivals ... you forget your sins and remember your grievances. ... We're not aware of the information [our] biases exclude. ... The world's gravest conflicts are not over ethical principles or disputed values but over disputed facts. … We seem designed to twist moral discourse to selfish or tribal ends."

A challenging insight, is it not?

And does it ring true in New Zealand today, where false accounts of our history keep appearing in our news media almost every day and expression of fraudulent tribal grievances is actively and continually fostered by the corrupt Waitangi Tribunal?……



Before 1840
By Bruce Moon (Published in the Northland Age 26/2/15)

It is a curious fact that there are many part-Maoris today (though certainly not all) who have remarkably good memories about their alleged sufferings since 1840 but completely blank minds about what happened to them any earlier. It is not hard to work out why this should be but more helpful perhaps to assist them in remembering a bit more about their earlier days.

When Europeans first arrived in New Zealand, Maoris were an aggressive warrior race, ready to attack for the slightest reason, as Tasman found out quickly to his cost.1

This happened again when, just over a couple of years after Captain Cook, Marion du Fresne arrived off our shores. While fishing innocently in calm waters, as he thought, he broke a tapu unknown to him and his fate was sealed. He and 26 of his crew were massacred and eaten forthwith.2 As Lieutenant Roux, one of Marion's officers, noted in his diary, the chiefs "declare war upon the slightest pretext, which wars are very bloody; they generally kill any prisoners they may capture".

Not content with dispatching Marion, about 1500 tribesmen assembled to attack the hospital the French had set up on Moturua Island. Greatly out-numbered, the French defended themselves valiantly, using their firearms of course, and, with no further losses, killed about 250 of the attackers including many chiefs who were very conspicuous amongst them.

From this episode, the tribes quickly learnt two lessons. The first was an enduring mortal fear of the "tribe of Marion", confirmed ninety years later by Rev. John Warren.3 It was one reason of many chiefs for signing the Treaty of Waitangi though to terminate the carnage of the Musket Wars which followed was another.

The second lesson was of the vast superiority of European firearms over their traditional weapons, so that bargaining for firearms with visiting ships became a highly important activity. The culmination was Hongi Hika's return from a visit to England with several hundred muskets, many exchanged in Sydney for gifts he had received, and soon followed by the most intense slaughter of the so-called Musket Wars amongst the tribes.

Hongi's party returning from England reached the Bay of Islands on 11 July 1821 and, shortly afterwards, he began to prepare for his campaign. On 5 September, 2000 Ngapuhi, armed with 1000 muskets, laid siege to Mauinaina pa at Tamaki. It was taken with great slaughter – Te Hinaki and 2000 of his men, as well as many women and children, being killed. The victorious force remained on the battlefield eating the vanquished until they were driven off by the smell of decaying bodies. It has been noted that "deaths in this one action during the inter-tribal Musket Wars outnumber all deaths in 25 years of the sporadic New Zealand Wars."4 (Our emphasis)

In December 1921 Hongi attacked but failed to take the Ngati-Maru pa Te Totara. Upon an idea said to be from his blind and bloodthirsty wife, Turi, he decided upon treachery. A large party of Ngapuhi chiefs went to the pa to offer peace which was accepted and they received two meres from the Ngati-Maru to seal the deal. In the night, Ngapuhi returned to the unguarded pa, slew those within except the sons of the senior chiefs who were taken prisoners, Hongi drinking the blood of one while he was still alive.

Proceeding thence to the Waikato pa of Matakitaki, Ngapuhi attacked it with withering musket fire. Even though led by chief Te Whero Whero, with only four muskets the Waikato were virtually defenceless. Trying to escape, many hundreds were trampled to death in the deep ditch surrounding the pa or by Ngapuhi firing down upon them until tired of reloading.

Hongi's opponent, Te Waharoa of Ngatihaua, was equally bloodthirsty. He is reputed to have been the equal of Hongi, to have terrified Te Rauparaha and even Te Whero Whero. Concluding an uneasy peace with the Ngati-Maru chief, Takurua, Te Waharoa and his tribe arose at midnight and massacred in cold blood the too-confiding Takurua and nearly every man of his tribe. Their bodies were devoured, and their wives and property were shared by the ruthless Ngatihauas.

Te Whero Whero for his part deciding to make war in Taranaki, attacked the formidable pa of Pukerangiora. When the starving defenders broke and ran Waikato attacked It is said at least 200 escapees died immediately, with Te Whero Whero killing 150 single-handedly with blows to the head. It was only when his arm grew tired and swollen he was forced to stop. Those captives with finely tattooed faces were beheaded carefully on a wooden block so their heads could be preserved. Later, dozens of slaves were dragged away, carrying the heads of their relatives to be hung as war trophies in the Waikato villages in the north. It is thought that as many as 1200 Te Ati Awa people lost their lives at Pukerangiora.

Those that stayed behind in the pa watched the awful fate of their whanau unfold before them.

The scene that followed was terrible, with huge numbers of the dead gutted and spit-roasted over fires. Some Waikato warriors indulged in a feast of such gluttony that they died.

Te Rauparaha, sometimes called the "Maori Napoleon" but more accurately perhaps the "Maori Genghiz Khan" perceived that the Waikato were probably too strong for his Ngatitoa tribe so commenced a long migration south inflicting heavy slaughter upon Rangitane on the way. Establishing himself on Kapiti Island, Te Rauparaha commenced an invasion of the South Island, almost exterminating the northern tribes and then falling upon the Ngai Tahu, first at Kaikoura, then Kaiapohia and in 1832 upon Onawe with bloody massacres, cannibalism and slavery in each. The Ngai Tahu had already been weakened by their own "Kai Huaka' or "eat relation" feud.

These are but a sample of incidents from almost continuous warfare amongst Maori tribes in the decades before 1840. By John Robinson's careful estimates, 35,400 were killed in a population numbering around 127,000 in 1800 with more dying from wounds.5 The social impact must have been profound. Paul Moon refers to the "pervasive sense that communities faced the threat of destruction at the hands of their foes", the "heightened state of fear that dominated most if not all Maori communities" and the "relentless and intense social stresses" and suggests that the consequences may still be felt today.6

It becomes clear that it is high time that this important part of our history should be recognized, faced squarely, and borne in mind when facing the substantial social problems which confront New Zealand society today.

Perhaps, for a start, a substantial part of the massive "treaty settlement" which Ngapuhi will undoubtedly be expecting could be allocated instead to those other tribes which they harmed so grievously?

1 Tu-mata-kokiri who confronted Tasman in turn got their comeuppance, being exterminated by Ngai Tahu and Ngatiapa, the last battle being in the Paparoas about 1800.

2 For a good account of this episode, read Ian Wishart's "The Great Divide", 2012, ISBN 978-0-9876573-6-7.

3 See T.L.Buick, "The Treaty of Waitangi", 1914

4 Many of the details in this account are taken from "The Encyclopedia of New Zealand" and other sources, easily obtained by "googling". Much is summarised by Pember Reeves in "The Long White Cloud, 1898, republished as ISBN 0-85558-293-6

5 "When Two Cultures Meet", 2012, pp64-65, ISBN1-872970-31-1

6 "This Horrid Practice", 2008, pp151-3, ISBN 978-0-14-300671-8


No more fantasies please - it is time to tell the truth.

There are far too many fantasies floating around in the New Zealand air today, based mostly on false interpretations of the Treaty of Waitangi and the pretence that supposed modern meanings of words were what they meant in 1840.

The essence of the Treaty is that by this document in the Ngapuhi dialect, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to the Queen completely and for ever. In return, all Maoris, including the many slaves of other Maoris, became British subjects with their full rights and privileges - a magnificent gift. It was a done deal - that was that. Whatever perceived wrongs the Maoris have experienced since have been far outweighed by the benefits British civilization brought to them - cessation of brutal tribal conflict, better food, better housing, better clothing, better transport, a written language and so on.

Claims today that the chiefs never ceded sovereignty to the Queen show contempt for the truth. It was accepted at Waitangi by numerous English-speaking chiefs that the word "kawanatanga" used for "sovereignty" in the Treaty meant exactly that. Claims to the contrary today are based on the false idea that translation is the same as derivation. It is not.

Hobson's brief was "to treat with the aborigines of New Zealand in the recognition of Her Majesty's sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands which they may be willing to place under Her Majesty's dominion" but only with "the free intelligent consent of the natives"(1). Without it, he would have sailed away and who knows what the outcome would have been?

The written record of events at Waitangi on 6th February 1840 is totally clear. The chiefs ceded sovereignty completely and for ever to the Queen and knew that they were doing so(2). This was confirmed fully by the chiefs' own words at the Kohimarama Conference in 1860(3) and corroborated by missionary Samuel Warren who worked subsequently amongst the northern tribes for fifteen years(4). It was confirmed yet again by outstanding Maori scholar, Sir Apirana Ngata on 1920(5).

It is an appalling fact that the taxpayer-funded Waitangi Tribunal ignores all this evidence and states that the northern tribes never ceded sovereignty. By rights it should be abolished forthwith.

By Article third of the Treaty, all Maoris - "tangata Maori, katoa o Nu Tirani" - received full citizen's rights and this included the many slaves of other Maoris, most being held in abject conditions and often the victims of cannibal feasts. Descendants of those slaves today should be singing the praises of the British for their liberation but we never hear a word. Many chiefs dishonoured the Treaty of Waitangi by being very slow to release their slaves, often taking years.

It is Article second of the Treaty which perhaps has been most twisted in recent times by racists and revisionists. Yet in essence this article is redundant since all it does is guarantee the right of citizens to own private property - land, dwellings and chattels - and British subjects have these rights anyway. Looking more closely at it, some things stand out. First, the guarantee is made to all the people of New Zealand - "tangata katoa o Nu Tirani" - in clear distinction to Article third which applied only to Maoris - and "all" means "all".

The vital point to note before we even look at the meanings of words such as "rangatiratanga" and "taonga" is that rights of ownership were guaranteed to all - equality of rights is a fundamental aspect of the Treaty in which we should all rejoice, not make spurious claims based on ancestry or sometimes a very small part of it. Since, in pre-Treaty days, Maori property was only what could be held by force of arms and then only by few people except chiefs, for Maori citizens to own property in their own right, with assurances of permanence and inheritance, was a considerable boon.

Nevertheless, "tino rangatiratanga" propaganda continues unabated with the flagrantly false idea that it applies only to those with some Maori blood. The words were hardly ever used by anybody for decades after 1840, Parkinson(6) noting "a single late and remarkable exception" being "tino rangatira" as one title amongst many by which Queen Victoria was addressed in a petition by some Rotorua Maori residents. As Parkinson has also said, "Kawharu's mistranslation of 'tino rangatiratanga' as 'the unqualified exercise of chieftainship' is not merely erroneous but preposterous".

Two things are certain: Article first of the Treaty stating that the chiefs ceded sovereignty, neither Hobson nor anybody else would have imagined that it was contradicted a few lines later in Article second, so whatever the meaning of "tino rangatiratanga", it was nothing like "sovereignty". "Full possession" is the only meaning which makes sense in context.

So Maori "aspirations for tino rangatiratanga" which Gareth Morgan says(7) will never be over, are all modern day-dreaming about fantasies of the past with no existence except in their imagination.

Even more abused than this is the meaning of "taonga". In 1820, Hongi Hika asserted that it meant "property procured by the spear".(8) When 13 Ngapuh chiefs wrote to King William in 1831, they stated that their only possessions were "timber, flax, pork and potatoes" and the word used for "possessions" was "taonga". With the range of European material goods such as iron cooking pots, steel knives and so on becoming available to the tribes, it was natural that the meaning of "taonga" be extended to include them but it still only meant "property" in William Williams' 1844 dictionary, i.e. after the Treaty was signed.

Given that some ten years later its meaning was again extended to include "treasure" it is as equally preposterous as misuse of the meaning of "tino rangatiratanga" to claim that that was its meaning in 1840. Yet, ignoring the genuine meaning of Article second today, the claims are rampart that part- Maoris are somehow entitled to natural water, the electromagnetic spectrum, special treatment by health authorities, and indeed special fishing quotas (which are not mentioned in the Treaty) and almost anything else that greedy eyes alight on.

More and more are compliant government departments, local bodies, educational institutes and hospital boards kowtowing before this onslaught, the rights of most New Zealanders being swamped in a sea of political correctness.

And, finally, let us note that New Zealand was never called "Aotearoa" in the Treaty of Waitangi. or by anybody else at the time. This was only a fantasy of a couple of English writers in the 1890s. As an unfounded upstart all references to it should be struck out decisively today.

It is high time that all New Zealanders of whatever ethnic origin or mixed race put the Treaty back in 1840 where it belongs as one step in our progress towards nationhood, and moved forward in harmony as equals in a democratic state with no racist privileges of any kind for anybody.

1  Hobson's brief from Lord Normanby, 14th August 1839
2  W Colenso, "The authentic and genuine history of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi". He was there!
3  Proceedings of the Kohimarama Conference, available from Victoria University of Wellington.
4  TL Buick, "The Treaty of Waitangi", 1914, pp281-2
5  A. Ngata, "The Treaty of Waitangi, an Explanation", 1922
6  P. Parkinson, "Preserved in the Archives of the Colony"
7  NZ Herald, 8th January 2015
8  Kendall and Lee, "A Grammer and Vocabulary of the language of New Zealand" 1820


Ngapuhi did cede sovereignty


The “Declaration of Independence” which Harawira and other Ngapuhi refer to frequently was concocted by James Busby as was his “Confederation of Tribes”. This fell apart within two years of the “Declaration” being signed – Ngapuhi began fighting among themselves and Chief Titore was killed. The “Declaration” was a short-lived and long-dead paper tiger. It is absurd that Ngapuhi should try to resurrect it now.....

The full informative blog HERE


Treaty gurus teach guilt

A certain class of gurus has grown up in New Zealand in recent years who, somewhat like the soothsayers of old, seem to feel that they are especially qualified to teach us about what the Treaty of Waitangi really means. This is the first part of a two-part series on these merchants of guilt who target somewhat naïve, well-meaning people to tell them how their wicked white coloniser forebears wronged noble-savage Maori.

In reality, the treaty is a simple and succinct document whose actual meaning can be explained in about five minutes to anybody who wants to know. I take a few minutes of your time to do just that here and now, noting as I do that there is only one treaty, a document in the Ngapuhi dialect of the Maori language of 1840.....

Read the full blog of part one HERE
Second part "Gross errors in 'guilt guru' claims" HERE


Ngai Tahu as they were

The sheer effrontery of Sacha McMeeking’s statement, that Ngai Tahu settled cheaply by accepting $170-million for “dispossessed lands” valued between $12 and $15 billion, is astonishing. Note the use of the emotional term "dispossessed lands" for most of which they had only the slenderest of rights to claim as their own in the first place and for which they were paid in most cases twice over.

Even more barefaced is the implication that the present value of that land is somehow relevant when this is not even remotely the case ─ that $12-billion to $15-billion is due almost in its entirety to the capital, blood, sweat and tears invested in it over the years by the early settlers and their descendants.

This article is the first of a three-part series. Part 2, titled "Ngai Tahu’s river of cash" will be published here next week.

Read the full blog of part one HERE
Second part "Ngai Tahu’s river of cash" HERE
Third part "Ngai Tahu claim not questioned" HERE


Finlayson's 'father' a tribesman!

Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson said Ngati Porou chairman Apirana Mahuika is one of his “fathers” in the settlement field and someone he could always talk to. "One of the great heroes of the treaty settlement era" was how Mr Finlayson described Dr Mahuika at the signing of an accord in Gisborne on April 24, 2014.

The accord provides for an annual summit between Ngati Porou and the Crown "to create an enduring relationship between the two".

Before his political career unfolded, Mr Finlayson spent years fighting for super-rich South Island tribe Ngai Tahu against the Government, pursuing its treaty claims through a series of high-profile court battles.

"I used to love going to the office in the morning when we were suing the Crown", Finlayson said in a speech in 2009. "Ngai Tahu mastered the art of aggressive litigation. . . It was 'take no prisoners' and it resulted in a good settlement" (for Ngai Tahu).....

Read the full blog HERE