9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Mike Butler

Mike Butler is an NZCPR Research Associate, a property investor and manager, author of The First Colonist -- The life and times of Samuel Deighton 1821-1900, also - Tribes treaty Money power (see Great books on this site). Mike was a contract writer for the New World Encyclopedia, and chief sub-editor of the Hawke’s Bay Herald-Tribune (1986-1999).


PARIHAKA, THE GREEN PARTY, AND RAPE

For a few years there has been a call to replace Guy Fawke’s Day with a Parihaka Day to commemorate November 5, 1881, when government troops evicted 1600 people from a village built on confiscated land between Mount Taranaki and the Tasman Sea.

This year the Green Party announced that Marama Davidson will re-enter the Maori Party’s Te ra o Parihaka Bill into Parliament’s Member’s Bill Ballot to establish a further grievance day following Land Wars Day (aka Tribal Rebellions Day) on October 28, and of course Waitangi Day on February 6. (1)

Davidson, who is the Green Party’s Maori Development spokesperson, went on to say that “earlier this year, in a truly historic reconciliation ceremony, the Crown apologised to the people of Parihaka for the first time, including for the rape of women and children.

Note, she alleged the rape of women and children

The apology, by former Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson in June of this year, detailed the Crown's failings which included the imprisonment without trial of residents, the depravation of the prisoners' basic human rights, the invasion and forced eviction of residents, the sacking of the pa, for the rapes committed by Crown troops and the arrests of Te Whiti o Rongomai and Tohu Kakahi.(2)

Curious about the allegations of rape, I sent to Mr Finlayson a request under the Official Information Act asking: .......

Continue reading Mike Butler’s revealing article here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2017/11/mike-butler-parihaka-green-party-and.html


Poles apart on Waikato conflict

Two books published recently on the armed conflict in Waikato from 1863 to 1864 are poles apart in their viewpoint, with one trying to analyse events within the context of their time and the other seeking to reconcile you and I with “terrible” events that took place close to where we live.

The Kingite Rebellion by John Robinson looks at the “complex and messy way” in which settler and Maori culture collided from 1800 through the 1860s wars. Robinson views the emergence of the Kingitanga as a response to excessive caution by the British government which left Maori communities alone when many Maori were calling for governance, law and order.

The Great War for New Zealand -- Waikato 1800-2000 by Vincent O’Malley asserts that the Waikato fighting was the defining conflict of the history of “Aotearoa New Zealand.”

He aimed to provide “meaningful analysis”, add detail lacking in earlier works, and add hitherto unaddressed topics including the socio-economic consequences of the war, the history of the Waikato confiscations, and “the long search for justice that followed”.

The academic backgrounds, work history, and personal lives of the two authors may partly explain the opposing viewpoints. .....



Race appointees ammo for Winston

The Taranaki Iwi Claims Settlement Bill, that legislates for six race-based appointees on the Taranaki Regional Council, provided new ammunition for New Zealand First Leader Winston Peters this week.

This is the second time Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson has written into law the requirement for tribal appointees on a local body, with the first being the regional planning committee on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council set up in 2012.

Subpart five of the bill defines how the Taranaki Regional Council would be required to appoint six iwi members, three on the policy and planning committee, and three on the regulatory functions committee.

These six iwi members will not be elected, but nominated by iwi, need not be subject to an iwi vote, and they will be paid for by the ratepayers.

Clause 99 says the iwi members would have the same status as members appointed by the Council, and are entitled to the same remuneration and expenses.

The council may change a committee or discontinue it but this is subject to consultation with iwi, must not diminish the nature of iwi representation.....

Continue reading Mike Butlers great article HERE


How treatyist avoids scrutiny
 

Sir Geoffrey is an aging white liberal who has spent his entire working life cocooned in a privileged environment, and whose conscience appears to drive him to improve the lot of those he deems less fortunate. But his cocoon means he does not really know much about those he purports to help.

Maori “were subjected to rank injustice in colonial times”, Sir Geoffrey writes without saying what those injustices were, adding “it has taken a long time to remedy those injustices, and the process is not yet complete”.

Sir Geoffrey was Justice Minister in the 1980s Lange Labour government. Since his speciality is law and politics, it is possible he does not know too much about history. But New Zealand has a short history, with the history of white settlement very short. This means you don’t have to go far to find out all there is to know.....
Read Mike Butler's full revealing article on Mr Palmer HERE 


LITTLEWOOD TREATY TO DISAPPEAR

The document that is most likely the final English draft from which the Treaty of Waitangi was translated into Maori will quietly be buried in archives when a new exhibition of “iconic constitutional documents” opens next year at the National Library opposite Parliament Buildings.

New Zealand First MP Clayton Mitchell is taking Internal Affairs Minister Peter Dunne to task over the exclusion of the Busby February 4 document from the treaty display.

The “iconic documents” for display in the He Tohu - A declaration. A treaty. A petition exhibition include:

* The 1835 Declaration of Independence of the United Tribes of New Zealand written by James Busby.

* All nine signed sheets of the Treaty of Waitangi / Te Tiriti o Waitangi will be displayed in the new exhibition, including the sheet in the English language.

* The 1893 Women’s Suffrage Petition.

The display aims to provide “accurate and up-to-date information on the three documents”, according a profile document on the exhibition.

A key focus of the exhibition is educating young New Zealanders – with a focus on 10-15 year olds – about the history and on-going significance of these three documents to our national story. A guiding principle of the exhibition is that by better understanding our past, we create a brighter future.

The treaty is described as:

a written agreement between the British Crown (Queen Victoria) and representatives of iwi and hapū. After signing, New Zealand became a colony of Britain and Maori became British subjects. However, Maori and the British colonists had different understandings and expectations of Te Tiriti o Waitangi. Many Maori saw it as a creating a balance of authority, a confirmation of rangatiratanga. They understood the mana of the land would be retained, and kawanatanga (government) would sort out those Europeans who had proved to be troublesome.

As always, the devil is in the detail. Here are a few points to consider when pondering the significance of the exclusion of the Busby February 4 from a display of New Zealand’s “iconic constitutional documents”.....

Continue reading Mike Butler’s interesting article here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/08/mike-butler-littlewood-treaty-to.html


GOVT TO BLAME FOR MAORI REOFFENDING?

The government is to blame for the high numbers of Maori in jail, according to a Treaty of Waitangi claim filed by retired probation officer Tom Hemopo.

An urgent Waitangi Tribunal hearing was held in Wellington through the last week of July, to investigate Hemopo’s claim, specifically, that the Crown failed, including through its Department of Corrections, to reduce the number of Maori who reoffend as a part of reducing the disproportionate number of Maori serving sentences.

Maori make up 55 per cent of the male prisoner population and 63 per cent for women, according to 2014 statistics cited by Hemopo in his affidavit. Maori represented 53.9 percent of all 2014 convictions. There are close to 10,000 people in New Zealand prisons.

Around 77 percent of Maori offenders were reconvicted within five years of release with 58 percent returning to prison.

At first sight, any reasonable person would dismiss the claim because:

1 Prisons are populated by people convicted for offending.

2 A person with a tiny percentage of Maori ancestry should not be identified as exclusively Maori. If a Maori was defined as a person with at least 50 percent Maori ancestry, the Maori prison population would shrink dramatically and instantly.

3 Offenders are or should be responsible for their offending.

Having said that, a closer look at the claim shows that:

1 Tom Hemopo and his supporters have provided little useful information other than a claim that rehabilitation is not working and the government is to blame.

2 A strategy of reducing Maori offending by immersing Maori inmates in their Maoriness has not been successful.

3 The affidavits and accompanying exhibits provide a valuable resource on the current array of Corrections programmes to reduce recidivism.

This is Hemopo’s second tribunal foray on behalf of Maori recidivists......

Continue reading Mike Butler’s NZCPR guest commentary here > http://www.nzcpr.com/govt-to-blame-for-maori-reoffending/#more-19260


PROBING WHANAU ORA TROUGH

Why did it take Labour MPs Nanaia Mahuta and Kelvin Davis so long to question the Whanau Ora one-stop welfare scheme? Both MPs this week said it was not good enough that, six years after its launch, there has been no detailed public progress report.(1)

However, John Tamihere , the chief executive of Whanau Ora commissioning agency Te Pou Matakana, which hands out the money, disagrees.

He said he and Te Pou Matakana chair Merepeka Raukawa-Tait had provided a full briefing to the Labour caucus last year.

The best that Maori Development Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell, could say was that he had talked to families who told him Whanau Ora had made a real difference in their lives.

Last year, Auditor General Lyn Provost said it was difficult to work out what the scheme has achieved while noting that in the first four years $40-million was swallowed up in administration.

Earlier, New Zealand First leader Winston Peters found evidence of how the trough has been accessed.

He said that Otaki’s Rahui Rugby and Sports Club received $60,000 in 2011 to “undertake whanau development research” on resilience, “whanau connectedness” and community leadership in a scheme that Peters said was proof that the Whanau Ora scheme was a “bro-ocracy”. (2).

The Dominion Post newspaper revealed how whanau contracts operated.

One $5000 contract between Te Puni Kokiri and an unnamed Hawke’s Bay whanau of 20 members said that a hui to finalise “spiritual balance” and “family development” would pay $500 each for two facilitators, $400 for a venue, $1000 for a hangi, $600 for a chef, a $500 administration fee, $300 for travel, and $1200 for resources. The agreement was signed on January 12, 2012, with $4000 paid up front in April. The final $1000 would be paid when the whanau plans were completed at the end of June. (3)

The criminal underbelly spotted an opportunity in Whanau Ora.

Dunedin Mongrel Mob members posing as the We Against Violence charitable trust were among 10 arrested in May 2012 after $100,000 worth of cannabis was seized, and misuse of government funding was alleged.

Intercepted phone calls showed that gangs regarded Whanau Ora as a model to access funding. One Dunedin person jailed for four years for dishonestly converting $20,000 of trust money, conspiring to sell cannabis and possessing cannabis for supply. (4)

These three examples give an indication of where nearly $300-million has gone since 2010. Here are the appropriations over seven years:

Budget 2010 - $29m

Budget 2011 – $43m

Budget 2012 – $49m

Budget 2013 – $53m

Budget 2014 – $52m

Budget 2015 – $54m

Budget 2016 – $73m

Whanau Ora was intended to help welfare recipients navigate their way around a fragmented social services set-up.

The latest benefit data sheets show that Maori demand for jobseeker support has increased every year since 2011 and is ahead of increases by Pacific Island and other ethnicities while such demand from all others has decreased. (5)

Maori demand for sole-parent support has decreased but not as much as decreases in such demand from all others. Demand by Pacific Island and other ethnicities show small increases. (6)

However, in the absence of any public report, the effect of the Whanau Ora scheme remains unknown, with remaining suspicion that it is the biggest trough in living memory.

One would expect a prudent Minister of Finance to expect some sort of accountability for this massive outflow of funds.

Surely Bill English would question the apparent doling out of funds for Maori families to get together – at $5000 a party.
http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2016/07/mike-butler-probing-whanau-ora-trough.html#more


Tribal rebellions day indoctrination not wanted

The government is considering setting aside a special holiday every year to indoctrinate us about “land wars” grievances. If you don’t speak out it will probably be set up.

Over 12,000 people signed a petition launched by Otorohanga College pupils Waimarama Anderson and Leah Bell requesting “a national day to commemorate those who lost their lives in the land wars, both Maori and colonial”.

Submissions must be in by April 21, 2016.

The aims of the grievance day petition as recorded on Parliament’s website were:

1. To raise awareness of the land wars and how they relate to local history for schools and communities.

2. Introduce these local histories into the New Zealand Curriculum as a course of study for all New Zealanders

3. To memorialise those who gave their lives on New Zealand soil with a statutory day of recognition.

The initiative is presented as the spontaneous idea sparked by visiting the battle sites at Orakau and Rangiaowhia. However, the commemoration idea appeared in 2013, on the 150th anniversary of the start of armed conflict in Waikato.

At that time, Tom Roa of Waikato-Tainui compared the Waikato conflict with the Battle of Gettysburg that was fought during the American Civil War.

The only similarities appear in the date of the two conflicts.

The Battle of Gettysburg was fought in Pennsylvania from July 1 to 3, 1863, and government troops crossed the Mangatawhiri River on July 12 of that year.

The scale of casualties is vastly different – around 51,000 were killed at Gettysburg while 781 were killed over one year in Waikato.

There is no Gettysburg Day statutory holiday in the United States.

A “land wars day” would be a misnomer.

The sporadic armed conflict that accompanied the settlement of New Zealand from 1840 should be regarded as tribal rebellions instead of land wars. Therefore we should use the term “tribal rebellions day”.

The three aims of a tribal rebellions day, as detailed above, indicate a strategy to teach a tribal rebellion history to schools and local communities. This is a problem because there are two contradictory views of our history, and a tribal rebellions day would almost certainly teach the griever version of history.

Recorded history appears in national archives, Acts of Parliament, newspapers, letters, diaries, and histories, all written since 1840. Griever history appeared after 1985, when compensation claims back to 18 40 were allowed, in oral testimony by claimants.

Our recorded history says:

1. The Treaty of Waitangi was a simple agreement through which chiefs ceded sovereignty in return for the rights as British subjects, which included the right to possess property and sell if they wished.

2. In little over 100 years, New Zealand went from the Stone Age to the Space Age by incorporating the accumulation of thousands of years of Western tradition.

3. Most chiefly land owners joined in the new economy by selling land and working for the new government and settler employers with a number of chiefs setting up business enterprises.

4. When some tribes in the North, Taranaki, Waikato, and the East Coast rebelled, government forces suppressed these rebellions using military force. Land was confiscated as a consequence

The revised history says:

1. The Treaty of Waitangi was to allow a British governor to keep control of British settlers only. The treaty is difficult to understand and the only people qualified to interpret it are members of the Waitangi Tribunal.

2. Colonisation has ruined a noble and peaceful Maori culture. Maori people should be helped to speak Maori and restore Maori culture to remove all trappings of colonisation.

3. Chiefs lost all their land through dubious means and are entitled to have it all given back.

4. Colonisers decimated the Maori population with war and disease and Maori continue to languish in deprivation.

Our recorded history remained uncontroversial until the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1985 sparked a new process of spinning history into a tale of woe to justify compensation….

Continue reading Mike Butler's alarming NZCPR guest commentary here > http://www.nzcpr.com/tribal-rebellions-day-indoctrination-not-wanted/#more-17910

.
Be sure to send in a SUBMISSION by April 21, 2016, > http://tinyurl.com/go5gj6n (Scroll down the page for Submission button)
.
And please sign the NZCPR PETITION > http://www.nzcpr.com/land-war-petition/


Govt Maorification Push Resisted

Political parties and government bureaucracies could not persist with an unpopular and divisive programme such as treaty settlements and race-based affirmative action without help. Pressure groups, churches, schools, and universities contribute to the steady Maorification of New Zealand.

The Waitangi Tribunal is the pre-eminent pressure group that advocates for claimants under the guise of a permanent commission of inquiry. The tribunal has been given the status as the sole authority on treaty matters.

The tribunal reinterpreted the Treaty of Waitangi to allege that the chiefly signatories thought they were agreeing to allow the British governor to govern British settlers and chiefs could carry on being chiefs.

Tribunal reports created a new history in which the white colonizers wickedly caused land loss, population decline, and every social problem imaginable. This new official history of grievance is posted on the Waitangi Tribunal website.

Claimants routinely take tribunal reports to the High Court and higher as evidence to obtain judgments that can be used as further evidence in high-level negotiations with senior Ministers to obtain lucrative settlements.

Tribunal reports, judgments, and settlements are recorded in the Encyclopaedia of New Zealand and distributed in textbooks. The new history of grievance is taught in schools and universities. The next generation knows nothing else and are never encouraged to critically assess this history in any different light..

Employees of government departments, most notably health, education, and welfare, must answer “cultural competency” questions correctly or they either won’t be employed or could lose their jobs. These people are required to implement policies based on the new history of grievance.

A group named Network Waitangi runs workshops to ‘train’ government employees. This group is one of many available but tends to err on the side of extremism as it uses psychodrama in which attendees use role-playing to teach how wicked and racist the white coloniser has been. Anti-cult groups call this brainwashing.

There is yet another part to this process and that is the way in which New Zealand culture has become framed with the trappings of Maori culture.

A “frame”, which is a term used in media studies, sociology, and psychology, defines the packaging of an element of rhetoric to encourage certain interpretations and to discourage others. Rhetoric is the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing.

Framing provides a mental shortcut. Since people ordinarily prefer to do as little thinking as possible, frames provide people a quick and easy way to process information. Therefore, people will use frames to make sense of incoming messages.

Therefore, framing functions as a form of mass indoctrination because you are being persuaded to a viewpoint while you think you are being informed. Here are some examples of framing:

* The name “Aotearoa New Zealand” has displaced the nation’s legal name “New Zealand” such as on the new bank notes.

* Landmarks and towns have been renamed or re-spelled -- Aoraki Mount Cook, Taranaki Mount Egmont, Te Ika a Maui (North Island), Te Wai Pounamu (South Island), and Whanganui.

* The Tino Rangatiratanga separatist flag is flown alongside the red, white, and blue New Zealand national symbol on Waitangi Day.

* The national anthem is now sung with the Maori first, then the English.

* Maori-culture welcoming ceremonies and choreographed war dances appear at official functions, school prizegivings, at the opening of government buildings.

* The never-ending push to speak Maori -- only three percent of the total population and 21 percent of Maori speak it.

* Maori branded TV stations, bumper stickers, sports teams, T shirts.

The tribal claim for water takes place within an environment in which appeasing grievances has become the norm. Tribes have worked out a strategy to obtain ownership of freshwater and posted on the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group website. The plan is for the Crown to:…….

Read the full Elocal article by Mike Butler HERE


RMA adds first dibs for tribes

“Iwi consultation” sounds like harmless window-dressing but does bring actual delays while creating an opportunity to withhold consent unless benefits are conferred. This has the effect of quietly entrenching stand-over tactics into local governance.

And because literate iwi members are thin on the ground in the regions, tribal involvement in council decision-making has brought a new demand for extra funding to teach people how to function in local governance and pay them to be trained.

The new buzzword this new form of adult education is “capacity building”....

Read Mike Butler's full article HERE 


Tribes plan for $1b plus water ownership


However, it is clear that the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group has mapped out a strategy to gain ownership, as well as key roles in decision-making, water quality control, and economic development.

In summary, the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group wants:

* Transfer of title to all Crown owned river and lake beds and title to the water column above to regional tribal groups.

* Title in fresh water consistent with Waitangi Tribunal rulings.

* Guaranteed of allocation of fresh water for all marae and marae housing.

* Free water infrastructure for maraes and marae housing.

* Tribal participation at all levels of fresh water decision-making that may include tribal representation on councils, joint management agreements, and co-management of waterways.

* A $1-billion fund of public money to build the capacity of tribes to implement fresh water management and control.

* Tribal involvement in resource consents or an allocation of tradable water rights.

Regional ratification for the strategy should finish by around now with confirmation of the position of all tribes on water by the middle of next month.

Are you ready to give up water? I don’t think so.....

Read Mike Butler's full informative NZCPR guest commentary HERE


End tribunal’s permanent lobbying

The Waitangi Tribunal pretends to be an impartial tribunal but is in fact one of four main lobby groups pushing tribal interests at the expense of everyone else.

The other three such lobby groups are the New Zealand Maori Council, the Maori Party, and the Iwi Leaders Group -- in its various incarnations.

Instead of complaining and warning the tribunal to sort its priorities, Mr Finlayson could simply draft a bill and put it before parliament. He would have the numbers for it to pass....

Read Mike Butler's full article HERE 


Domestic terrorism at Kaitaia


No land was confiscated in the Far North. Land that changed hands was sold – before the treaty was signed, in the period from 1840 to 1862, through the Native Land Court from 1862, and so on.

Mutu said most of the occupiers were members of the Patukoraha and Ngai Tohianga hapu repossessing land that was taken from them by the government in the 1940s.(4)

However, a land claims report for October 2009 posted on the Ngati Kahu website recorded an assertion of “mana whenua” status by Te Paatu and Ngai Tohianga in Kaitaia and the surrounding areas without reference to the Kaitaia airport or any alleged events in the 1940s.(5)

Mutu, who is a Maori studies professor at Auckland University, appears to be making this up as she goes along. Her phrase “repossessed their land” appears to mean “attempted to take by force land sold by forebears”.....
Read Mike's full article HERE

Nick Smith’s RFR cave-in

Housing Minister Nick Smith appears to have caved in to threats of legal action from Auckland tribe Ngati Whatua in a dispute over plans to develop Crown land in Auckland for housing.

Under an agreement announced on Thursday, Auckland tribes will have right of first refusal to develop houses on Crown land, with 40 per cent of construction to be social or affordable housing.

Surplus land earmarked for housing development will not be offered to tribes for purchase - the right of first refusal will relate to the first opportunity to be the developer.

The Government says it will likely still maintain ownership of the land until it is sold as completed houses, and it can put requirements around the pace and type of development.

Ngati Whatua sought legal advice back in June when it looked like the Housing Minister might cut them out of the process by using Section 136 of the tribe’s settlement legislation that says:

An RFR landowner may dispose of RFR land that is held for State housing purposes if the Minister of Housing has given notice to the Limited Partnership that, in the Minister's opinion, the disposal is to achieve, or to assist in achieving, the Crown's social objectives in relation to housing or services related to housing.

Such rights of first refusal have been included in treaty settlements for 20 years, starting as rights limited to specific properties and widening to a long-term RFR over 175 years to surplus property.

Ngati Whatua and Waikato-Tainui were expected to file papers with the court to clarify their right of first refusal on up to 500ha slated for development.

Dr Smith said that the new agreement recognised that a right of first refusal over development of Crown land for state housing purposes was part of the Tamaki Collective Deed of Settlement, signedin 2012 between the Crown and Nga Mana Whenua o Tamaki Makaurau.

For those who have not noticed, this is the basic strategy of claimant groups.

Step 1. Government announces a policy initiative.

Step 2. Tribal entity announces a claim for involvement in that policy to attain a financial benefit.

Step 3. Government cites existing rules that show tribe is not involved.

Step 4. Tribe issues legal threat.

Step 5. Government confers some benefit to the tribe.

Rent-a-powhiri hijacks NZ colonial culture


Are we all Maori Now?

Prince Harry went beyond the call of duty on his recent visit when he got hot and sweaty with the army in a spirited performance of the Haka. The wild dilated stare and eyeball rolling of Powhiri “welcomes” must make visitors conclude we are all Maori.

Personal experience of how people in other countries view us was on a visit to London a few years ago when an elderly Austrian-born woman stuck out her tongue and waved her hands in the air when she heard I was from New Zealand.

One visiting Danish politician objected to being welcomed on to the Navy’s Marae two years ago by a “half-naked” man “shouting and screaming in Maori”. She also objected to being forced to touch noses.

Rent-a-Powhiri culture has taken hold and every school prize-giving, government function, welcomes for visiting sports teams and dignitaries, openings of the world rugby and cricket cups, new buildings, even passing lanes on state highways, feature an overweight Maori waving a carved stick chanting an incantation in “Te Reo”.

Unintelligible gabbling in Maori features at the beginning of court sessions and council meetings. But is this our culture and where is our colonial culture?

The national anthem, "God Defend New Zealand", has turned “bicultural” with a mumbled first verse in Maori that does not translate the English and louder singing and discernible words in the following English verse.

Wind the clock back 70 years and the culture was officially British. Up to 1948 we travelled on British passports. Many fondly referred to the United Kingdom as “home”, and Edmund Hillary’s conquest of Everest in 1953 was called “a triumph for the British race”....

Continue reading here > http://www.elocal.co.nz/view_Article~id~1834%20%20%20%20%20%20.html


Herald's shoddy Bastion Point history

Reporter Suzanne McFadden’s over-egged account of the Bastion Point story in the New Zealand Herald on Saturday failed to mention either how the land was taken, how the issue was resolved, or the numerous settlements the Orakei Ngati Whatua group has received since then.

I was at Bastion Point on the morning of May 25, 1978, mainly because I lived nearby, and saw much of the eviction. I later filed two news reports, one to New York and one to Tokyo, where they were published as briefs.

About 30 years later I started researching Auckland land history as part of the Treaty Transparency project published at the New Zealand Centre for Political Research site

McFadden equates Ngati Whatua history with Auckland history which is to an extent true although the tribe is just one of the 19 tribal authorities in the Auckland area. The tribe has hugely benefited from a relationship with the government since 1840 yet still pushes a story of grievance. Here are some basic facts:.....

Continue reading Mike Butler's indepth blog here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/mike-butler-heralds-shoddy-bastion.html


How Rotorua council included racism


What is wrong with two representatives nominated by a new elected Te Arawa board sitting on the council's two main committees with voting rights?

1. Two representatives nominated by an elected Te Arawa board may represent Ngati Whakaue (a sub-group of Te Arawa), but not Ngati Rangiteaorere, Tuhourangi, Ngati Makino, as well as many Rotorua residents affiliated to other tribes throughout New Zealand, as well as many with no tribal affiliation.

2. The proposal was driven by a handful of radicals and imposed by a crusading mayor who used her casting vote to further her agenda.

3. The imposition of these appointees was done against the wishes of the majority; if a ratepayer poll were allowed the proposal would have been voted down.

4. The process generated substantial acrimony and widened a racial divide between Maori and non-Maori that was legislated into existence in 1975 through the Treaty of Waitangi Act.

5. Having race-based appointees on council committees with voting rights further erodes our political system in which rights and responsibilities are based on citizenship, not ethnicity.

This Maori culture show in Rotorua shows what happens when a local government politician with an agenda unites with radicals and subverts democracy to impose appointees on an elected governance body as a political “improvement”.

Read Mike Butler's full blog on the scandalous Rotorua affair > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/06/mike-butler-how-rotorua-council.html#more


Marketing treaty myths to migrants


Auckland Regional Migrant Services, an organisation that insists on referring to "Aotearoa New Zealand" and regards the Treaty of Waitangi as "the founding document", runs workshops for new migrants facing questions about the Treaty of Waitangi at job interviews.

While employers in the private sector rarely require “cultural safety”, private businesses that contract to government agencies may be required to run an attitude scanner over applicants in the way that government employers do.

Political correctness is not just the butt of jokes – it is a very real requirement for anyone who may want to work for a government that runs on a new orthodoxy that could only survive using employees bullied into submission.

Reporter Maria Slade outlined the correct answers to basic questions in a report titled “Treaty tutoring for migrant jobseekers” published today. Unfortunately for Slade, a number of the so-called correct answers have no basis in fact. Here goes: ...

Continue reading Mike Butlers debunking of Maria Slade's 'correct answers' here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/05/mike-butler-marketing-treaty-myths-to.html


Key delegates water give-away

Prime Minister John Key is moving towards granting preferential water rights to government-created tribal corporations, thus running the risk of losing the support of large swathes of voters who supported the National Party’s previous one-law-for-all position.

A report commissioned by the Iwi Leaders Group calling for "an equitable, permanent share" of water allocations was released today, following a recent Cabinet Paper proposing criteria to give "preferential access" to private tribal companies that pay little tax on a case-by-case basis.

Talks between the powerful Iwi Leaders Group and the Government, fronted by Deputy Prime Minister Bill English and Environment Minister Nick Smith, are at a critical stage after ministers rejected a nationwide '”Waterlords” settlement along the lines of the outrageous Sealords deal over Maori commercial fishing claims and the Treelords giveaway of Central North Island forestry.

The claim that tribes own the water has no merit and only exists because it has repeated so often that some have started to take it as a fact.

As nineteenth century chiefs sold the large blocks of land, they also sold the water, the trees, everything above the land, and everything below it, according to deeds of land purchases that the Iwi Leaders Group conveniently ignores.

For instance, Deed No. 420 in Maori Deeds of Land Purchases in the North Island of New Zealand, by Henry Hanson Turton, that the Upper Waikato Block transaction says that the government paid the people of Ngatimahanga, Ngatitamainu and Ngatihourua £1000 on September 15, 1864, in a sale that included “trees, minerals, waters, rivers, lakes, streams, and all appertaining to the said land or beneath the surface of the said land”.

That £1000 for an area between the Waipa and Waikato rivers from Ngaruawahia to Lake Taupo, in 1864 would be worth $103,835.86 today, according to the Reserve Bank Inflation calculator.

These were standard deeds used in all transactions of that time......

Continue reading Mike's insightful blog here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/04/mike-butler-key-delegates-water-give.html


Amalgamation and race

Hastings Against Amalgamation campaigns on four points – that amalgamation for the five councils in Hawke’s Bay would increase rates, increase debt, reduce representation with powerless local boards, and introduce race-based spending through an appointed Maori board.

I had a phone-call from a Napier councillor who thanked us for campaigning against amalgamation but asked us to stop talking about the Maori board because it upset some people. An earlier email from another person suggested we were “playing the race card”.

It is difficult not to talk about a Maori board because the proposal is to replace the Hastings, Napier, Wairoa, Central Hawke's Bay and Hawke’s Bay Regional councils, with a Hawke’s Bay council that has five local boards and a Maori board, with a headquarters in Napier.

It would be odd not to talk about a Maori board since it is part of the proposal.....

Continue reading Mike Butler's 'free speech' blog here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/03/mike-butler-amalgamation-and-race.html


Hawkes Bay paper pushes coastal claims

The Hawke’s Bay Today newspaper announced support for tribal claims for the marine and coastal area in a Waitangi Day editorial and labelled those who question the legislation and claims as “unhelpfully emotive and mischievous in the context of the ground on which we stand today”.

While editorial writer Doug Laing has every right to express his opinion in our free society, and the H.B. Today has every right to editorialise in any direction it chooses, those efforts should engage in the debate rather than labelling the criticism as “antics” and describing public meetings as “staged”.

Laing asserted that: "Waitangi Day is, indeed, a day on which we should all be thinking about how we can all contribute to a process of resolving historical grievances and issues, which in some cases can only ever be modestly addressed", implying that we should all suck it up and let claimants carry on with the claim.

Hugh Barr, who represents the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand, spoke at a public meeting at Mahia on January 2. The H.B. Today was notified but did nothing until approached by Dr Barr after the meeting when Laing interviewed him.

Dr Barr noted that Laing was more interested in arguing against what he had to say rather than asking questions and taking notes. The resulting story was headlined on comments from a Hastings tribal leader.

A further meeting was held in Napier on February 2. The H.B. Today was notified and covered the meeting with a report headlined "Maori claims in HB 'echo of apartheid'".

While attacking critics of the coastal area claims, the Hawke’s Bay Today has not published any details of the areas claims made possible by the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011, five of which concern Hawke’s Bay.

The Act allows a coastal tribe to gain customary marine title if they can show that they have exclusively occupied and used the foreshore and seabed since 1840.

Customary marine title gives tribes the right to declare areas sacred, the right to veto projects, the ability to charge fees for use of current and new slipways, wharves, aquaculture areas, marinas, and exclusive mining rights to iron-sand and minerals in the area.

Fines of up to $5000 will serve as penalty for those who go to yet-to-be-declared coastal sacred areas without permission

APPLICATIONS CONFIRMED

1. Hawke’s Bay between Waikari River and Poututu Stream, claimed by Toro Waaka of Ngati Pahauwera.

2. Hawke's Bay between Keteketerau and Ponui Stream out 22km, claimed by Tania Hopmans of Maungaharuru-Tangitū hapū, an inland tribe with no sign of coastal settlement.

3. Hauraki Gulf -- Kennedy/Harataunga Bay stretching northwards to the middle of Waikawau Bay and southwards to Anarake Point and out past Mercury Island, claimed by John Tamihere for Ngati Porou ki Hauraki.

4. Coromandel. -- Mataora Bay from the northern edge of Horokawa in the south to Otonga Point in the north extending out 3.5km, claimed by John Tamihere for Ngati Porou ki Hauraki.

5. Southern Taranaki between the Taungatara and Waihi rivers, claimed by Daisy Noble, for Ngaruahine.

6. Marlborough around d'Urville Island out to 12 nautical miles, claimed by Jeanette Grace of Ngati Koata.

7. Northern Kaipara (a) the east coast from Te Arai Point to Langs Beach and extending out to 12 nautical miles, (b): the northern part of Kaipara Harbour from Karaka Point to midway between the harbour mouth, seaward for 12 nautical miles, north and then back to the coast at Mahuta Gap, claimed by Deborah Harding for Te Uri o Hau.

APPLICATIONS DECLINED

1. Northland around Matauri Bay and Cavalli Islands, claimed by Richard and Maraina McGrath.

2. Bay of Plenty around Motiti Island, claimed by Umuhuri Matehaere for the Motiti Rohe Moana Trust

3. Motiti Island between Panaturi Point and Te Rua Karamea, claimed by Umuhuri Matehaere for Ngā Uri o ngā Tupuna whānau.

4. Motiti Island, claimed by Nepia Ranapia for the Korowai Kahui o Te Patuwai Tribal Council.

5. Motiti Island, claimed by Elaine Rangi Butler and Buddy Mikaere for: Ngai Te Hapu Incorporated.

6. Onauku Bay, which is part of Arapaoa Island in the Queen Charlotte Sound, claimed by Trevor Tahuaroa-Watson for the Tahuaroa-Watson whanau (Puketapu hapu).

7. Waikawa and Whatamango Bays near Picton, claimed by Trevor Tahuaroa-Watson for the Hinehau Tahuaroa/Rikawa Houra whānau, Puketapu hapu.

8. Cape Farewell to Kahurangi Point, claimed by Trevor Tahuaroa-Watson for Tahuaroa-Watson whānau and Neville Arapeta Watson.

9. Te Arai Point out to Little Barrier Island (Hauturu) and south to Leigh, claimed by Greg McDonald for the Iris Cecilia ‘Timi’ Paraone whānau.

10. Bay of Plenty between the mouth of the Waitahanui Stream, Otamarakau to Otara-o-muturangi, claimed by Ngāti Rangitihi Raupatu Trust.

HIGH COURT APPLICATIONS

1. Hawke’s Bay around Mahia Peninsula, claimed by Pauline Tangiora for Rongomaiwahine hapu

2. Hawke’s Bay, Whangaehu to Poroporo (Cape Turnagain inclusive), claimed by Catherine Clarkson for Poronia Hineana Te Rangi whānau.

3. Hawke’s Bay Moeangiangi 42N, claimed by Wayne Taylor on behalf of beneficial owners in Moeangiangi Part 42N

4. Tamaitemioka and Pohowaitai Islands (to the south-west of Stewart Island), claimed by Denis Wiremu Tipene for the Tipene family.

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/mike-butler-hb-paper-pushes-coastal.html


Ten new coastal rights for tribes


A comment by a Mahia bach owner that tribes that win customary marine title over an area of foreshore and seabed get significant rights prompted a closer look at the Marine and Coastal Area Act. John McLean, who chaired a meeting of 120 bach owners and claimants at Mahia on January 2 found 10 rights that lucky claimant tribes can benefit from that everyone else does not have.



A further a public meeting with take place at the Napier Sailing Club at 7pm on Monday, February 2, where Dr Hugh Barr, of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand, will explain how the Act has opened up the entire coastal area to claim by tribal groups.

Those special new rights are:

1. Unlike others, lucky claimant tribes do not have to pay coastal occupation charges under the Resource Management Act or royalties for taking sand and shingle from the beach - Section 60 (b).

2. Tribes gain the sole right to issue permits for watching marine mammals like whales - for a fee, of course. S. 62 (1) (d)

3. Tribes can issue, change, review and revoke a New Zealand coastal policy statement - S. 62 (1) (d).

4. Anyone who gets permission under the Resource Management Act to carry out an activity in a customary marine title area - e.g. building or extending a boatshed on piles like those in Auckland's Orakei Basin and at Paremata and Evans Bay in Wellington, must also get the permission of the tribe that holds customary marine title over the area - again for a fee. If you build such a structure without tribal permission, you can be IMPRISONED for up to two years or fined up to $300,000, of which only 10% of the fine goes to the Crown while the other 90% goes to the tribe, thus giving the tribe a huge financial incentive for vigorous, if not vindictive, policing - S. 69.

5. The tribe can veto DoC proposlas within the customary marine title area - S. 72 (1) - and there is no right of appeal against any refusal of permission by the tribe - S. 73 (3) (b).

6. The tribe can declare any part of its customary marine title area to be "wahi tapu" - S. 78 (1) - to which it can restrict or FORBID public access - Section 26 (2) and (3) and Section 79 (1) (b). "Wahi tapu" means any place alleged to be "sacred to Maori in a traditional, spiritual, religious, ritual or mythological sense" - S. 9. So, allowing "wahi tapu" to be declared on the basis of myth opens the way for the tribe to close off the best fishing grounds and surf breaks to the public for any reason they can dream up on the grounds of a conveniently concocted myth.

7. To enforce a "wahi tapu" ban against the anglers, boaties, surfers, dog walkers and other beach users "trespassing"on these formerly publicly owned areas, tribal wardens can enforce fines of up to $5,000. Yes, a fine of $5,000 for walking on or swimming in an area that used to be publicly owned - S. 81 (2).

8. A tribe with customary marine title owns all the minerals on or under the seabed - out to 22.2km - except for petroleum, gold, silver and uranium, and can charge royalties for their extraction - money that used to go to the Treasury to help finance things such as health and education but under the Act are now for the sole benefit of the numerically small tribe. The most common and valuable mineral under the sea is ironsands, for which these lucky tribal members will get the benefits based on nothing more than happening to be born with a particular (and privileged) bloodline - S. 62 (1) (f) and S. 83.

9. Tribes with customary marine title can also charge royalties to councils and others for taking sand and shingle from the beach - S. 84 (2) (b)

10. The tribe can make its own planning document - S. 62 (1) (g) and S. 85 - which impose obligations on the Director-General of Conservation in formulating policy (S. 90), on the Minister of Fisheries in settling or varying sustainability measures (S. 91), and on regional councils (S. 93).

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/mike-butler-ten-new-coastal-rights-for.html


Gareth Morgan corrected on Treaty of Waitangi


Gareth Morgan has demonstrated a willingness to tackle and offer solutions to numerous problems confronting New Zealand. However, his current work on the Treaty of Waitangi suggests he is a devotee of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along biculturalism that is the defining characteristic of New Zealand’s Treaty of Waitangi gravy train.

The New Zealand Herald has just published a four-part series by Dr Morgan promoting his latest book Are we there yet? The future of the Treaty of Waitangi.

His conclusion that the treaty process is a success because the “treaty is now taken to mean whatever Maori leaders and the Crown, as the public’s representatives, agree it means” ignores the elephant in the room by way of a racial fault-line that came into existence with the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975.

This fault-line has widened the gap of haves and have-nots both within Maoridom and between Maoridom and other New Zealanders with the progress of successive “full and final settlements”.

The total settlement bill to March last year was $2.3-billion. The newly rich tribal corporations pay little or no tax and two entities, Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu, are entitled to repeated top-ups as a percent of the increasing grand total.

Dr Morgan’s assertion that making it up as they (Crown and claimants) go along was necessary because "the original documents aren’t very useful” shows that he has not looked closely at the texts of either te Tiriti o Waitangi or the so-called official English version of the Treaty of Waiting and has ignored or is ignorant of the Busby February 4 final English draft of the treaty known as the Littlewood treaty.

Because the treaty was drafted in English and translated into Maori the meaning and intent is clear in the source document, the original English.

Despite official attempts to obscure it, that source document is most likely the Busby February 4 draft that has only four words which differ from te Tiriti o Waitangi, one of which is the date.

Perhaps because of his ignorance of the origins of the words of the treaty, Dr Morgan makes silly statements such as“how do we help Maoridom realise the all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga (used in Article 2, te reo version) in modern day Aotearoa New Zealand?”

If he had looked at the English source draft to see what the word “rangatiratanga” translated in Article 2, he would have seen that it translated the English word “possession”, as in “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.”

Dr Morgan is also wrong to buy into land-loss rhetoric when he writes “justice and reparations have been a long time coming and, as generous as they might look to non-Maori, they’re just cents in the dollar for what Maori lost in terms of property”.

There is no mention by Dr Morgan of the fact that land-owner Maori sold their land to a variety of buyers in hundreds of transactions painstakingly recorded in Turton’s deeds posted for all to see on the New Zealand Electronic Text Centre of the Victoria University of Wellington’s website.

New Zealand has 26.8-million hectares of land. History records that a total 1.2-million hectares were confiscated during the 1860s wars. Based on the approximately 1.47 million hectares of Maori-owned land (including customary land) and ignoring the confiscated land subsequently returned (sometimes soon after the confiscation), Maori land owners actually sold at least 24.13-million hectares.

The staggeringly foolish policy by the fourth Labour government to allow claims based on grievances back to 1840 invited claimants to get cash-for-grievance top-ups on 19th century sale and purchase agreements.

Once "rangatiratanga" is understood to translate "possession", Dr Morgan’s assertion about the "all-important aspirations encompassed in rangatiratanga" is reduced to the nonsensical concept of aspirations to asserting possession over property already sold.

And if "rangatiratanga" is taken to mean "self-determination", the "rangatiratanga" aspiration appears to describe either the state of self-reliance that every citizen who works for a living already has or Maori separatism. If the latter is the case, is Dr Morgan effectively supporting Maori separatism?

Dr Morgan needs to present a coherent argument to support his contention that "because the chiefs’ signatures were on the te reo version, it’s certainly possible they didn’t cede sovereignty then”. Eye witness reports of the Waitangi meeting on the 5th of February 1840 and records of what some of the chiefs said in opposition to the proposed treaty clearly show that they fully understood the ceding of sovereignty. If he had read the treaty he would know that article 1 clearly states “the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire Sovereignty of their country”.

Finally, one is left to wonder if Dr Morgan’s primary interest in Treaty of Waitangi issues is to find himself a seat on the treaty gravy train where the phrase “the unique bicultural character of Aotearoa New Zealand” will oft be heard.

By Mike Butler
(Sent to the NZ Herald as an Opinion piece 9/1/15)

Update: NZ Herald has today (23/1/15) published Mike Butler's great article > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11390378



GARETH MORGAN WRONG ON TREATY


Self-appointed guru Gareth Morgan bought into human-induced global warming in an earlier book and his current work on the Treaty of Waitangi shows him as a devotee of the make-it-up-as-you-go-along biculturalism that is the defining characteristic of New Zealand’s race gravy train.

Promoting Are we there yet? The future of the Treaty of Waitangi, Morgan has got the New Zealand Herald to agree to run a four-part series to promote his book, with the first installment published today.

His conclusion that the treaty process is a success because the “treaty is now taken to mean whatever Maori leaders and the Crown, as the public’s representatives, agree it means” ignores the elephant in the room by way of a racial faultline that came into existence with the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal in 1975.

Along this faultine has widened a gap of haves and have-nots, both among citizens with some Maori ancestry and between those of Maori ancestry and those without, with the progress of successive “full and final settlements”....

Continue reading Mike Butler's Morgan slamming blog here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/mike-butler-gareth-morgan-wrong-on.html

Gareth Morgan's nonsense here > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=11382188


Co-governance shambles for Hawkes Bay


A two-pronged push is under way in Hawke’s Bay to create a race-based local government shambles that includes tribal appointees on both a Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee and a Maori board. The Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee, a co-governance body on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, has existed since April 10, 2012, although legislation to legitimise the panel is still going through Parliament. A Maori board is included in the Local Government Commission’s latest proposal to amalgamate five local bodies in Hawke’s Bay.

Bear in mind a democratic country, government, or political system, is governed by representatives who are elected by the people, and a democratic process is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and should be involved in making important decisions.

Both the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee and the Maori board comprise appointees on a 50/50 Maori-non-Maori basis. The experience with these 50/50 “treaty partnership” bodies is a 100 percent pro-Maori outcome.

The Local Government Commission notes that it is not able to propose the establishment of Maori wards to which Maori roll voters would elect representatives, and is also not able to propose the establishment of an independent Maori board, such as the one in Auckland, which was specifically provided for by the legislation that established the new Auckland Council.(1)

Co-governance proponents airily refer to partnership allegedly promised by the treaty but any look at the Treaty of Waitangi, whether Maori text or official English, shows that the word “partnership” does not appear. Neither is there anything in the three articles, preamble and postscript that anything like partnership was intended.

A synopsis of the bill of the Parliament website says the 50/50 Maori/non-Maori Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee is to give effect to government commitments on natural resource management already made in treaty settlements with two northern Hawke's Bay tribal entities -- Ngati Pahauwera and Maungaharuru-Tangitu Hapu.(2)

The set-up of the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee gives a glimpse of what a Maori board would look like.....
Continue reading Mike Butler's number crunching blog here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/01/mike-butler-co-governance-shambles-for.html


Separatist drivel from Delahunty

Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty tried to stick up for Maori seats on local authorities in the New Zealand Herald today after withering criticism from commentator Gareth Morgan but the more she started digging away at her topic the bigger became the hole she was burying herself in.

Delahunty wrote: “Anyone can stand for a local election but the low numbers of Maori speak for themselves and Maori who speak for haputanga rather than as individuals are extremely rare on councils unless Maori wards are created”.

Yes, there’s always a danger of bunging in a Maori word that you don’t really know the meaning of.

Haputanga is a term for “pregnancy and prenatal care”. I didn’t realise there was a need on council for Maori to speak for pregnancy and prenatal care; there is certainly not much evidence of non-Maori representatives of pregnancy and prenatal care on local authorities, except district health boards.....

A set-up of 50/50 co-governance, that white mayor Andrew Judd is pushing for in New Plymouth, would destroy the one-person one-vote representation we have in a system based on citizenship, not ethnicity. A quick look at the numbers proves this point. New Plymouth has a voting age population of 52,970, with 48,615 on the general roll and 3697 on the Maori roll. Morgan can do numbers; Delahunty cannot.

Moreover, Maori are not as keen on separate representation as Delahunty is. Last year’s Maori electoral option resulted in 45 percent (184,630) of Maori voters opting for the general roll and 55 percent (228,718) choosing the Maori roll.....

Read Mike Butler's full Delahunty debunking blog HERE


Key govt’s $1.2b treaty settlements record


The current National-led government has been by far the most generous with treaty settlements, having paid out $1.22-billion over six years, and is pushing for as many signed agreements as possible before the September 20 election.

Treaty Transparency – Settlements 1989-2014 updated looks at the treaty settlements record of Prime Minister John Key’s government, as well as the full record that shows over the past 25 years $2.7-billion has been negotiated away.

Treaty Negotiations Minister Christopher Finlayson wrote on Waitangi Day this year that National’s policy is “to address real grievances by reaching full and final settlements with genuine claimants in a timely fashion”.[1] But questions remain about whether the grievances were real, the settlements final, and the claimants genuine. Comments on Finlayson’s article were soon closed and respondents reminded to keep remarks publishable.

Many know that grievances were carefully nurtured and promoted since anti-free world Maori-sovereignty protests on Waitangi Day in the early 1970s and a land march in 1975.

Treaty settlements as we know them go back to 1984, to a hui in Ngaruawahia when a proposal to look into historical grievances appeared. The hui put the recommendation to government and the deputy prime minister of the time, Geoffrey Palmer, said he “did some research on the outstanding grievances and it did not appear that looking into them would open a 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 would be worth it in the end.”

That was nearly 30 years ago. The Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Act 1985 allowed claims all the way back to 1840 and the settlement process is still going strong. But how real are the grievances?

A can of worms was opened. The number of grievances multiplied, from just nine in 1882 [2] to 2125 claims by 2009.[3] Where did all those other complaints come from and how genuine are they?.....

Continue reading Mike's excellent blog HERE

The latest Treaty Transparency Report can be read HERE


Jamie Whyte and treaty settlements

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

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

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

Read Mike's enlightening blog HERE


Objecting to the Maorification of NZ

Separatists described this week’s ACT Party advert featuring the headline "Fed up with pandering to Maori radicals” both “deeply offensive” and a “dog whistle back to the 19th century”. But ACT Party leader Don Brash told Radio New Zealand the ad reflected a "very deep frustration on the part of many people that successive governments, Labour and National, have been trying to appease a group of quite radical Maori, who have a view of New Zealand that is not only fundamentally different from what most New Zealanders want, but fundamentally different from any reasonable interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi."

Poles apart after 171 years of living in the same country. How have we come to this? Part of the reason is that there are two opposing interpretations of the treaty. The view Brash takes is that by the first article, tribal ancestors had transferred their chiefly authority to the Queen forever, and the second article confirmed rights of possession. The separatist view is based on the second article’s guarantee of complete ownership, the Maori phrase “tino rangatiratanga”.

The problem is that “rangatiratanga” means a range of things including “sovereignty, chieftainship, right to exercise authority, chiefly autonomy, self-determination, self-management, ownership, leadership of a social group, domain of the rangatira, and noble birth”.

In drafting the treaty, British Resident James Busby and Governor William Hobson used the phrase ‘tino rangatiratanga’ to convey “complete ownership”. Maori sovereignty proponents take ‘tino rangatiratanga’ to mean both “ownership” and “self-government”, which allows the treaty to both cede and retain sovereignty.

Some generous souls argue that the chiefs who signed the treaty had neither concept of sovereignty nor ownership since in the stone-age world they occupied, everything was tied up in a system dominated by the chief. Therefore, the word “chiefly-ness” or “rangatiratanga” could explain sovereignty and ownership.

But British sovereignty was quickly explained many times back in 1840, to chiefs deciding whether or not to sign, as “the Queen will be a chief over you”. Similarly, the chiefly ownership of and the ability to sell land was equally well understood at that stage, as was evidenced by the large areas of land already sold by chiefs to some entrepreneurial English.....

Read the full blog HERE


White privilege vs Maori privilege

On to the vexed subject of white privilege versus Maori privilege. There is a chapter detailing “white privilege” in the treatyist bible “Healing our history – the challenge of the treaty of Waitangi”, mostly written by Robert Consedine. He is the Consedine who conducts Project Waitangi workshops around the country. These workshops use psychodrama, an action method often used as a psychotherapy, in which clients use spontaneous dramatization, role playing and dramatic self-presentation to investigate and gain insight, in this case, into how wicked and racist the white coloniser has been. This column summarises Consedine’s “white privilege” arguments and uses Consedine’s sub-heads to see whether there is Maori privilege.....

Other questions that Consedine does not mention
Consedine, probably a third-generation New Zealander of Irish Catholic ancestry (his forebear came to the West Coast in the 1860s) says nothing about the anachronistic separate Maori department named Te Puni Kokiri, that keeps preferential treatment of Maori rolling on irrespective of which political party is in power. Neither does he mention the separate Maori Council (what would happen if there was a separate white council?), separate Maori immersion schooling, the privatising state wealth into new tribal elites, and a race relations commissioner with a double standard on race relations.....

Read Mike's in depth blog HERE