TIME TO PUSH BACK – by Tony Sayers

I have just read the blog entitled “Confronting Separatism” in “Breaking Views” by John Bell.

John deserves commendation for his courage to speak up and ‘push-back’. A few years ago, in my article entitled “The Tail Wagging the Dog”, published on the NZCPR website, I called upon retired teachers, whose careers could no-longer be threatened if they spoke up, to draw the attention of the public to the Maori take-over of the Education System. Since that time, only John Bell and three other teachers have gone public about this state of affairs. Unfortunately, the shift in the axis of education in New Zealand, brought about by Maori activists in universities and schools, has been assisted by woke ‘white ants’ in teachers’ unions, Teachers’ Council of Aotearoa/New Zealand and the Ministry of Education. This is evident when reading their literature [14].

With reference to John Bell’s commentary about the increasing practice of replacing English words with Maori words in government and council literature plus signage in government buildings, this is just another straw on the pile of offensive and aggressive Maori Separatist’ actions that consist of: Vandalising and pressurising the removal of statues with British significance [1]; Cutting down exotic trees in parks that have a connection with Britain [2]; Twisting history [3]; Twisting the Treaty of Waitangi [4]; Subverting the Education System [5]; Sabotaging the Captain Cook commemorations [6]; Replacing the English names of towns and geographic features with Maori names [7]; Influencing the firing of radio talk-back hosts [8]; Claiming of fresh-water resources and coastlines [9]; Claiming the Electro-Magnetic (Radio) Spectrum [10]; Publicly denouncing anything that does not fit the Maori agenda as being racist [11]; Setting up illegal road-blocks that obstruct the public[12]; The list goes on. These events are all on record and not a figment of my imagination. All have happened within the last 3 to 4 years......

Continue reading Tony’s NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/time-to-push-back/

MAORI LORE - Anthony Willy

What is so surprising is that these separatist notions are being peddled in our law schools. Thus it passes comprehension how requiring that the law be taught and practiced in the Maori language and embodying early tribal customs can advance its social acceptance or utility, or in any way promote the interests of Maori people given that with vanishing few exceptions all Maori speak English and resort to the common law courts with gusto when it suits them. The sole function of a law school is to educate students in the precepts of the common law comprising statute and case law. Leaving aside the futility of the massive task of translating the existing legal sources into Maori the simple fact is that the law does not exist to address historic grievances, or to prevent a language falling into desuetude. One would have thought that this is obvious beyond debate, but apparently not so to some of those who are charged with educating our young people in understanding the law. Those who promote mixing, undefined Maori values with the common law seem to forget what is the purpose of the teaching of law; it is to train those who would provide legal services to the public which in turn will assist in the peaceful and orderly resolution of disputes. For those who sit on the courts their sole function is to apply the law in resolving those disputes. To somehow confuse this crucial social necessity by mixing in the beliefs of an early tribal society with a universally applicable legal system is to display the most fundamental ignorance of why the common law exists at all and Judges of our superior courts who tinker with this populist nonsense are playing with fire: they do a grave disservice to the law, and the harmony of the society which it exists to serve. One does wonder whether some of our superior court judges who are keen to undertake these experiments have even a fleeting acquaintance with the; history, purpose and application of the common law as standing above these ephemeral media driven causes......

Read Anthony Willy’s full NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-lore/#more-34459

John Bell: CONFRONTING SEPARATISM

How has an entire society become conditioned to acquiesce in this agenda or, at least, learn not to dare openly challenge it?

First came the “inclusive” notion that there should be a “Maori dimension” to all things. I recall being told, in the early 1990’s, that all subjects in the Secondary Curriculum were to have a Maori dimension. When told that I was expected to demonstrate a Maori dimension for the French language (which I was teaching) my reaction was: “Don’t be so bl….y stupid.” Most of my colleagues, however, appeared to comply. Now we find Sir Jerry Mateparae calling for a Maori dimension to be assured in the oversight of Health research and Stephen Franks warning that any legal academic who speaks out against the inclusion of tikanga within our legal system may be compromising his/her future employment.

Next came the replacement of everyday expressions in our English language with Maori terms. The words “family” and “children” are disappearing from current use, more and more print communications open with Kia ora and end with Nga mihi, and even TV1’s Andrew Saville has acquired one sentence in Maori which he laboriously recites nightly before getting down to the evening’s Sports News.

The mental conditioning involved in accepting that Maori terminology is increasingly part of New Zealand’s English language creates a climate of acceptance for the practice of having iwi appointees on advisory bodies that influence almost every aspect of our lives. The ODT’s columnist, Jim Sullivan, recently expressed tongue-in-cheek surprise that there is, as yet, no iwi nominee on the Broadcasting Standards Authority; how did they miss out?....

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/03/john-bell-confronting-separatism.html

Geoff Parker: THE AUTHORITARIAN NOOSE TIGHTENS

NZME’s latest victim is the renowned historian, Dr Michael Bassett. Despite his outstanding achievements and experience in academia, politics, justice and the media, NZME chose to support a single reader’s attack on Dr Bassett. At issue was his article “New Zealand’s Modern Cultural Cringe” which was published in the Northland Age and on the NZ Herald website earlier this month.

NZME’s managing editor Shayne Currie claimed the article was “unacceptable” and commentary from the former cabinet minister and historian “will no longer appear on our platforms.”

Professor Bassett’s supposed crime was calling out the absurdities and racism behind the “bizarre craze” that we “embrace all things Maori”, while setting aside “all things derived from Europe, except our creature comforts”. (I presume that includes the cowboy hat affixed to the head of the Maori Party MP Rawiri Waititi; he’s the one who refuses to wear a tie – sorry, a “colonial noose” – in Parliament).

Bassett’s article references some of the fabricated “things Maori” that are being imposed upon us without discussion, debate or referendum. The use of Aotearoa is a prime example. The fact is that the many, separate Maori tribes never had a name for the whole country until the ‘white man’ created Nu Tireni/Nu Tirani for the 1835 Declaration of Independence and 1840 Treaty of Waitangi.

The absurdities include the cost of churning out newly created te reo for the renaming of government departments, their policies and our streets, resulting in ongoing confusion to all ethnicities – even those raised in Maori speaking households.

The most destructive of such fabrications has to be the “partnership” lie that has been used to attack our democracy in recent decades. No one has ever found any reference to ‘partnership’ in the Treaty of Waitangi. The over 500 tribal chiefs who had been at each other’s throats for 3 decades prior to 1840 certainly didn’t form any sort of united governing body with which Queen Victoria could do such a deal with − even if the Crown entering into a partnership with any of its subjects was constitutionally possible!……

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/03/geoff-parker-authoritarian-noose.html

INSIDE THE WAITANGI TRIBUNAL - by Robin Grieve

A Waitangi Tribunal hearing taking place on a Marae not far from my home presented me with the opportunity to see for myself what happens at these hearings. I had up to now been somewhat dismissive of the Waitangi Tribunal and what I regard as its questionable decisions, but now I had the chance to see for myself how these decisions were made and what sort of evidence was presented.

I made a conscious effort to attend the hearing with an open mind because I wanted to be informed and also because I knew some of the Maori claimants well enough to want to respect them with my objectivity.

It took me a little while to get an understanding of the process and even after two days I would have to acknowledge my understanding was less than complete, with much of the dialogue in Maori. I drew the conclusion it was some sort of pseudo court with people they referred to as judges and many lawyers but the law and the process was unlike anything I was familiar with. The Crown was represented by two fresh faced young lawyers who were very restrained and respectful in what were referred to as cross examinations, although they sang well, with all participants required to sing a song at the end of the day.

The first claimant I heard had two grievances. The first was straightforward enough and involved a small parcel of land which was......

Read on here > https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2021/02/a-waitangi-tribunal-hearing-taking.html#more

NEW ZEALAND’S MODERN CULTURAL CRINGE – Michael Bassett

A bizarre craze seems to be sweeping New Zealand right now. All things derived from Europe except our creature comforts must be set aside as we are expected to embrace all things Maori. It’s racism on a grand scale. No longer do our television stations refer to New Zealand. In fact, we are lucky if its Aotearoa-New Zealand. No reference to the fact that, as Michael King shows, Maori didn’t have a name for these lands, and only came to accept “Aotearoa” in relatively recent times. Several newspapers are falling into line and are now calling our country Aotearoa, a name unknown to most people beyond our shores. No public debate. We are expected to acquiesce. The name “New Zealand” which dates back to Abel Tasman’s visit in 1642 came more into early use and is the name by which our land has always been recognized abroad. It won’t be long before the woke who are driving all this insist on officially changing our country’s name. Instead of being proud New Zealanders, we’ll be expected to call ourselves Aotearoaians. They’ll try to avoid a referendum lest it results in rejection like occurred with changing the flag. Just impose it! The woke have no respect for democracy.

Government departments and public institutions are being renamed at such a rapid rate that it isn’t clear what the names refer to. Waka Kotahi for Transport? Why? Since all forms of transport except the canoe were unknown to Maori, and were imported from overseas, why a Maori name? Where did Waka Kotahi come from? Waka, yes. But Kotahi? It doesn’t appear in the revered Bruce Biggs’ Maori dictionary. Waka Kotahi wasn’t a term used by Maori before settlers arrived in the 1840s and 1850s. There are other institutions with self-bestowed Maori names that are unrecognizable to ordinary Kiwis.

Radio New Zealand, too, has been working full time. They are deleting the words both “radio” and “New Zealand” from everyday use. Nowadays it’s “Te Irirangi o Aotearoa” or “RNZ”. Don’t mention dreaded English terms! Some Radio New Zealand reporters fall over themselves trying to conform to a ruling from on high that they should introduce themselves in Te Reo, despite the fact that the concept of radio came from overseas, and was absolutely unknown to Maori.

We have also been told recently that all streets in New Zealand are to be given a Maori name. Wow. That will be an expensive exercise! Who will dream up the new names? The Maori Language Commission that seems to be churning out new words at 200 kph? And since Maori were very thin on the ground in the Auckland area in 1840 and were soon rapidly outnumbered by settlers, it won’t be appropriate either. A relevant fact provided to members of the Waitangi Tribunal during the Kaipara case I heard was that in 1840 there were only 800 Maori living on the million acres of land between the Kaipara and East Tamaki. That fact will be conveniently overlooked. Nothing is sufficiently disrespectful for Pakeha whose street names quite often have family or historical significance to them.

Similar examples of cultural cringe are showing up with the move to teach New Zealand history in our schools. Scratch the surface and it becomes clear that those driving the idea want to downplay the huge significance of the arrival of European culture in New Zealand. Rather, they intend to replace it with only partially accurate accounts of the difficulties Maori faced when brought into contact with a more developed culture. Recently, I sought from the Ministry of Education details about who was designing the curriculum. Back came the names of a couple of black arm band school teachers and a collection of Maori radicals. There were a couple of academics, both Maori. No serious Pakeha historian in sight. We can say with certainty that a skewed version of New Zealand history will be devised, one that leaves out things like the Musket Wars where Maori did irreparable harm to their own economy and society. Instead, there will be much concentration on “evil” colonial land purchasers and settler governments, and excessive Maori land confiscations at the end of the wars of the 1860s. About the last of these, of course students must be told. The confiscations came on top of the damage that Maori had already done to themselves and helped further depress the Maori economy and damage Maori society. But what is taught to modern students should not exclude everything that reflects badly on Maori themselves. Moreover, kids need to know that up to 50% of Maori in the country in the 1860s sided with the Crown. And they need to be told why. The term “Kupapa Maori” to describe those Maori is regarded by modern Maori as equivalent to being called an “Uncle Tom”. But it was respected in earlier times.

And if one needs any more evidence that cultural cringe has reached massive proportions in Auckland, have a look at the programme for the Auckland Arts Festival between 4-21 March 2021. Its Maori name, Te Ahurei Toi O Tamaki, takes precedence on the front cover. Remember, that in Auckland, Maori are only 11.5% of the total population. Pacific Islanders are 13% of Auckland’s population and Asians constitute more than 25%, according to the latest census. People of European ethnicity make up more than 50% of Auckland’s population, but in the eyes of the organisers of the festival they don’t count. The programme is “kapa haka, Maori artists, waiata sing alongs and korero [that] will bring the taonga that is te reo front and centre for audiences”. Really? In a city where almost 90% of people are not of Maori ethnicity? Why hasn’t Auckland City, Creative New Zealand, Foundation North and a collection of worthy sponsors spared a thought for the overwhelming majority of Auckland citizens and ratepayers? Where is the “equity” in this festival?

Answer: too much power has been allowed to slip into the hands of crusaders who for too long seem to have been able to commandeer the resources of others for their own political ends.

When, or will, Aucklanders, and New Zealanders as a whole, stop cringing and wake up to what is being done to their culture and largely with their money?

https://www.bassettbrashandhide.com/post/new-zealand-s-modern-cultural-cringe

‘DRIVING A WEDGE ON BASIS OF RACE’ – by Craig Bauld

Some things are plain. Under our current system, good candidates for council get elected. Poor candidates do not. If you are broadly supported and respected by the community, you get elected. If the community thinks you're hopeless, you don't. Trying to muck around with that system in order to tilt the scales in favour of your own racial politics, hmm, a very dangerous game.

I wouldn't mind so much except that I'm an ex-educator, so it irks me to see ill-taught youngsters demonstrating no ability to think, merely parroting mindless slogans like “equity”, unable to see the ramifications of their notions.

So, answer me this. If we are to have wards for Maori exclusively, presumably the other wards are for Pakeha exclusively. Is that correct? Pakeha in the broadest sense, of course, including Chinese, Indians, Pasifika, Whites, etc.

No? That's not what you mean? You have some simple-minded idea that it will be like Parliament, Maori seats and general seats? But if you divide local elections into a Maori/Pakeha split then I will cheerfully predict no Maori candidate will ever be successful again in a general seat in Gisborne. However well-intentioned your intervention, you will successfully drive a wedge between people on the basis of race.

Now, presuming you don't want exclusive Pakeha wards, answer me another question. What happens if, as in the last election, Meredith wants to stand for both the mayoralty and a council seat? Can she stand for council in a Maori ward and for the mayoralty in a general election? Or would she have to stand for council in a general ward? More to the point, what about Josh, who is an outstanding councillor and hopefully future Mayor?

Ah, of course, the mayoral election would be separate and available to people on either roll. But I say to you again, the minute you create this divide you handicap future Maori mayoral candidates. If they stand for council in a Maori ward they are announcing that they are not part of the broader community. And if they stand for council in a general ward they will be struggling to get votes.

Some people may think the voting community is “bigger” than to let this affect their votes. Yup, currently the voting public of Gisborne is pretty much colour-blind. But once you ram it in their faces they won't be.

Of course it is entirely possible that Aimee, and our dear Editor, know more about what makes voters tick than I do. Um, no, they don't.

The general goodwill of the community is what makes democracy viable as a system of governance. Lose that goodwill by shoving pious “woke” ideas down everybody's throat and you endanger everything. If history, or an elementary understanding of human nature can't teach you that, just look across the seas to America.

http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/20210116/driving-a-wedge-on-basis-of-race/

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR . . . - by Clive Bibby

Re: ‘Undermining democracy', January 13 story.

It is clear from this “one-sided” article, obviously sanctioned by the editor of this newspaper, that he and all the rest of the Maori ward supporters (including all members of council and their spokesperson, the deputy mayor) don't understand the meaning of the word “democracy” and its part in our legitimate political process.

It is to their everlasting shame that they should be championing this attempt to subvert law-abiding citizens' rights to be heard.

If there is anything happening in that vacant space they promote as “collective responsibility”, they should be doing their best to answer the questions that have arisen because of the council's vaguely-formed decision to back the introduction of Maori wards.

Their deliberate reluctance to expose the true intent of that decision, by not coming clean with clear answers to those of us who are asking, only adds to the confusion of what they meant when voting in council.

I'm not sure that they even knew themselves.

Here are a few facts.

Mr Wharehinga is wrong to imply that the council had a mandate to vote for the introduction of these wards.

That can only be given after there has been a vote on the matter in the (hopefully) upcoming referendum that will decide it based on a democratic vote — hardly the same as the council's and Government's misuse of their authority in an attempt to bypass the democratic process.

Second, there are important unanswered questions about the intent of the council's decision that can influence individual decision-making over which way to vote on this issue.

The most glaring examples of these are also the ones that are being deliberately left that way so that confusion remains.

For example, how many Maori wards are being proposed? One, two or five?

Will the rural wards survive?

Answers to these questions could change people's votes from the “pro” camp who support the motion, to those voting against.

Finally, it is hard to understand the agitation for guaranteed Maori wards when the current system allows Maori equal opportunity to the decision-making process.

The facts are undeniable.

Councillors Meredith Akuhata-Brown and Josh Wharehinga are living proof that they can stand successfully in urban seats traditionally dominated by Pakeha.

It only requires a repetition of others like them deciding to put their hats in the ring at election time for Maori representation to increase dramatically. I would personally unequivocally support their admission to the council table if it happened in that way. Why wouldn't l?

But that might be too hard for some!

Go figure.

http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/20210114/be-careful-what-you-wish-for-3/

PARTNERSHIPS – by Anthony Willy (Retired Judge)

The Maori Party in the run up to the 2020 election had a Mana Motuhake vision for New Zealand. As reported in The Guardian (of course) and enunciated by Claire Robinson a Massey University academic, that vision is Maori people asserting their right to self- management, self-determination, and self-governance over all their domains. It calls for an end to “mainstream management of matters Maori,” “abolishing full and final Treaty of Waitangi settlements,” “buying back land (source of funds not disclosed) for Whanau Hapu and Iwi.” The Government “handing back all conservation land to Hapu and Iwi,” and “all Maori joining the Maori electoral roll within the next three years.” Presumably compulsorily with suitable penalties for those who refuse or neglect to do so.

In addition, there will be a separate Maori Parliament with 15 to 17 seats having control over 20 billion dollars of annual self-managed spending. These demands are said to result from the fact that “the country was settled by consent not conquest.” The proposed model is said to be similar to that which exists in Scotland, Ireland (an independent sovereign state) and Wales. Mr Tamihere the leader of the Party is quoted as saying that “Westminster did not work for the Scots or the Irish” and that “Wellington definitely does not work for Maori.” All of this is said to flow from “the Treaty.”

M/s Robinson elaborates on this theme by opining that: “major parties have none the less determined that if they can co-opt and absorb Maori interests into their broader platforms and attract more Maori as mainstream MPs they can neutralise Maori demands for separate forms of self-determination.” All of this is said by her to be linked to levels “of inequality and poverty still affecting Maori.” The professor expresses the view that “any notions of equality were in terms of legal notions of citizenship not in treaty commitments to Partnership.” (whatever that may mean). She deprecates the notion of “Kiwis” rubbing along as one society.

For a professor at a New Zealand university this is an extraordinary mish mash of ideas devoid of any knowledge of history, law, or constitutional structures. To cite Mr Tamihere with approval is to overlook the superficiality implicit in his views nowhere better illustrated by his approval of claims by some Scots for independence. This silly comparison overlooks a thousand years of troubled relations between the Scots and the English and the constitutional settlement arrived at which gave the English a Scottish King James the First. This settlement has endured for close to four hundred years and notwithstanding the best efforts of Nicola Sturgeon looks set to remain so as the Scottish economy is dependant on the English taxpayers for its survival. Without “Westminster” these ersatz “Parliaments” could not exist. The Maori voting public gave its verdict on Mr. Tamihere’s aspirations at the recent election in which he secured a little over 1% of the Party vote

It is difficult to know where to start in making sense of this separatist thesis, but the Treaty of Waitangi is as good a place as any. It says:......

Continue reading Anthony Willy’s enlightening NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/partnerships/#more-33749

I FEAR FOR THIS COUNTRY: FINAL COLUMN – Clive Bibby

My guess is that my critics will have a field day if this final contribution to our local conversations makes it into print.

Some will seize on the opportunity to portray my comments as those of a poor loser.

Well, if they do then that’s their privilege but contrary to what they might think about me, l would like to offer my sincere congratulations to Isaac Hughes for his emphatic win in the by-election. He worked hard for his victory and deserves the opportunity to represent his constituency at the council table. I wish him well.

However, l must qualify that endorsement with a little bit of sage advice both to the council as a whole and the wider community, who seem to be either indifferent or oblivious to what is actually happening in our region and in other similar communities throughout the country.

Some of us are witnessing the loss of our individual sovereignty by stealth and if the Government has its way, this is only the beginning of a list of measures that will strip any offending clauses from current legislation that enable us common folk the right to respond to their undemocratic actions.

I refer of course to the nationwide movement to introduce separate Maori wards at local government level, which is likely to become entrenched with the removal of the opportunity to challenge council decisions through a referendum.

Minister Mahuta has publicly stated her intention to make changes to the legislation as a matter of priority.

In most districts where the Maori population is a minority, these moves represent apartheid in reverse.

We must ask what is the justification for these unnecessary, blatantly racist decisions.

Is it because, as some have claimed, that Maori have been denied equal access to the decision-makers, or to share in the opportunities available to every citizen in this country, or to benefit from the wealth generated by the nation’s producers?

In the community where l have lived, worked and contributed for the past 4O years, the opposite is true. The Maori population (a large majority in these rural wards) have been well served by their elected representatives, irrespective of the colour of their skin.

In fact, the evidence suggests that local and central governments over the years have probably responded more generously to the plight of low-decile communities on a per capita basis than to those constituents living in the larger metropolitan areas.

That is more than likely a more accurate reflection of the current state of race relations in this country.

It is clear from recent history that no politician would ever be elected at either local or central government level advocating a separatist policy such as the one they are trying to force on us — until now!

In my humble opinion, it is incumbent on every ratepayer concerned about this potential betrayal of our rights to resist this move in the only democratic way available to us. As a first step, we must sign the petition currently in circulation that has the capacity to force a citizens referendum.

Look for newspaper advertisements that will show where you can sign the petition before it is too late.

http://www.gisborneherald.co.nz/column/opinion/20201203/i-fear-for-this-country-final-column/

THAT WHICH DIVIDES US

A real tragedy seems to be unfolding in this country, as councils ponder the issue of Māori wards.

One might have hoped that we were steadily evolving towards a society in which our various component cultures, not just Māori and the numerical dominance 'enjoyed' by those of European descent, are recognised, respected and valued. Not long ago we seemed to be doing just that, not with great haste perhaps but slowly and surely. Now we are increasingly focusing on all that divides us.

A cursory examination of our collective voting history over the last generation or two, at both central and local government levels, reveals that New Zealanders don't look to ethnicity when it comes to choosing who will represent them. And nor should they. The best candidate should win, and, with some exceptions perhaps, generally does. Ethnic minorities are not shut out of our political system, but some people obviously think they are.

Two questions need to be addressed. Firstly, is the electoral system biased against ethnic minorities, particularly Māori, and if it is, should the general populace have a say in how we fix that? The answer to the first is clearly no, and to the second an emphatic yes.

The writer is not intimately familiar with the ethnic origins of the Far North District Council's 10 elected members, but a correspondent last week claimed that all but two of them could claim Māori ancestry. To most of us that will be of no interest at all. We looked at those who were seeking election last year and made our choices; it is difficult to believe that anyone made those choices based on the candidates' ethnic origins.

There is much more to this issue than candidates' ancestry, however. The drive for Māori wards is clearly aimed at introducing a specifically Māori voice, people who are familiar with te ao Māori, and are able to represent it in all that the council does. That might have some relevance in terms of some council roles, but it would be drawing a very long bow to suggest that a specifically Māori point of view, or need, differs to any degree from what councils should be doing for every person they represent in terms of maintaining roads, supplying water, disposing of wastewater and rubbish.

Every territorial authority will be different, of course. Some communities have very small Māori populations, while in the Far North Māori are actually the majority. Fifty-one per cent of those who live in this district reportedly identify as Māori, but still there seems to be little appetite for establishing Māori wards here. At least there hasn't been much support for them in the past, and Mayor John Carter, who favours them, clearly suspects that that hasn't changed.

Carter displayed the benefit of his enormous political experience when the subject was discussed by his council, successfully deferring a decision, by referendum, until the 2022 local government elections. He's copped a bit of criticism for that, which is grossly unfair, and doesn't bode well for the standard of debate we can expect over the next couple of years. His logic was this - a vote to establish Māori wards now would almost certainly result in a call for a referendum, the result of which would be binding. Given past antipathy, he believes that a referendum now would result in the proposal being rejected, in which case it could not be raised again for another six years.

Shelving the proposal for a referendum in 2022, however, would allow time for a proper discussion, and a much better informed decision, which he believes would improve the prospects of majority support. We won't know if he's right until the time comes, but his rationale might well see his council adopt Māori wards much sooner than Northland's other councils, which have all voted to establish Māori wards, with fingers crossed that opponents do not call for polls, and if they do, that those polls will fail to stop them.

Some of those who support Māori wards clearly know which way the wind is likely to blow.

They are now asking the Minister of Local Government to remove the provision for binding referenda from local government legislation, an extraordinary attack on the fundamental principles of democracy, one that is unlikely to improve the odds of popular support. Even more alarmingly, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta does not seem averse to doing as she has been asked, although it is unlikely that her government will agree with that. One would certainly hope it doesn't.

The case for Māori wards isn't helped by the dearth of information regarding how they will work or how they will change the way in which local authorities function. It is extraordinary that a council would resolve to establish wards without any indication regarding how they will work or what impact they might have. The people who made these decisions have latched on to what seems to them to be a jolly good idea with no concept whatsoever of what they were actually voting for, or, more importantly, proposing to impose upon their communities. Any politician who thinks this is an acceptable way to make such a decision should follow former Northland Regional councillor John Bain's example and resign, and campaign for re-election on the basis of what they supposedly believe in terms of fair representation.

It's probably not a bad bet that none of those who have voted for Māori wards could do that even if they wanted to, because they wouldn't be able to explain in any detail just what they are proposing.

It's all a bit sad really, and unnecessary. Surely we should be focusing on the things that unite us, and there are plenty of those. Do we not all want local authorities that do a good job of providing the basic infrastructure that their communities depend upon them to deliver? Do we really care who does that job, providing they do it, well and affordably?

What exactly are the barriers that are preventing people of any given ethnicity or philosophy from winning a seat on their local council? We spend a lot of time and energy complaining about barriers, but more often than not they are a myth. An excuse. And we don't need any more of those.

Having said that, it might be that Māori wards could make a significant positive contribution to the way in which local authorities function, but those who believe that should be telling us why. It would be nice to think that most voters are reasonable, rational people who will accept a well-argued case for change.

What they are unlikely to accept is an edict from people who are widely perceived as practising political correctness on a grand scale, and in some cases are prepared to deprive the people they represent of a fundamental, legally protected democratic right, to have their way.

If Māori wards are a good idea, tell us why. Tell us, in detail, how they will work, and what they will contribute towards making councils more efficient, effective and responsive, beyond the utterly baseless argument that they will meet some obligation imposed by the Treaty of Waitangi.

Please, tell us why Māori wards would be a good thing. We're listening.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-age/news/that-which-divides-us/PSHH7MNMFZV4JFDSJAXSTM63PI/

Mike Hosking: PUSH FOR MAORI WARDS ON COUNCILS IS RACIST AND UNDEMOCRATIC

Here is the great advantage Nanaia Mahuta has over most of the rest of us: we don’t care.

What she is doing in trying to change the law and prevent a democratic action in terms of Māori wards and the ability to have any sort of public say is racist.

She, along with the rest of the apologists on various councils around the country who favour separatist Māori wards, is that the bulk of the constituency don’t want them.

We know this because when we get the chance to directly vote on them, the no’s win and win by large margins.

Under current law, if a ward is voted for by council, that is the council going beyond their mandate because they know full well it’s not supported by the majority of people who elected them.

So by way of a safe guard, they can choose to put those sorts of decisions to a vote: when they have, they lose.

So now, they not only vote for separate race based wards, they then also vote not to have a vote.

Fortunately, the law allows the public, i.e. the people the council are supposed to be serving, to drum up a petition involving five percent of the local constituency at which point a referendum is forced.

This is where Mahuta comes in. She’s changing that law. She is taking away a democratic right, in order to propel a racist agenda.

They know that what they are doing is not publicly supported, so they’re taking the public out of the equation.

We should of course be outraged, but this is where they have the aforementioned advantage.

We don’t care.

We can barely turn up each three years for local body elections, so pathetic has it become it ranges from a third to a half of turnout.

It’s a chicken and egg situation. Has the representation become so tragic; i.e. Invercargill, Tauranga, Northland, Wellington, Canterbury, Auckland, pick your recent headline and shambles, so we’ve given up?

Or did because we gave up, it becomes the mess it has, i.e. any doofus can get elected and know they’re good for life because no one is going to do anything about it, hence the disintegration.

Either way, here are some simple facts; if Māori are underrepresented, then stand. Nothing stopping you.

If you want more Māori on council, vote for them. Nothing’s stopping you, the mechanisms are all there.

In a democracy, everyone gets a free shot. What Mahuta and her lot are looking to do is not democracy, its artificial, its racist, its stacking the deck, its making up the rules to suit your agenda.

They are shameless, overt and dangerous, so what now? That ball is in the court of those who currently by in large can’t be bothered, so guess who’s got the upper hand?

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2020/11/mike-hosking-push-for-maori-wards-on.html

THE DESTRUCTION OF DEMOCRACY

I have just resigned from the Northland Regional Council (NRC) on a matter of principle, over how ONE vote can change a century old system of electing our local decision makers.

Like many local authorities around New Zealand, the NRC faced demands to change our voting system to introduce Maori wards. As a result, at our council meeting on October 20, a motion was tabled in favour of Maori wards: “That pursuant to section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001, council resolves to establish Maori constituencies for the 2022 and 2025 local body elections.”

I strongly believe that the community should be consulted over such a major constitutional change to our voting system, since the introduction of Maori wards will involve re-drawing our electoral boundaries, and either replacing general wards with Maori wards, or increasing the size of the council.

Accordingly, I moved an amendment to consult the community before the decision was made by the council: “That council instigates a poll to determine the community’s view on the establishment of Maori constituencies”.

The motion was refined to: “That pursuant to section 19Z of the Local Electoral Act 2001, council resolves to establish Maori constituencies for the 2022 and 2025 local body elections and that council instigates a poll to determine the community’s view on the establishment of Maori constituencies”.

The motion for holding a referendum was defeated by 5 votes to 4.

The other Councillors who voted in favour of holding a referendum were Justin Blaikie from Hokianga-Kaikohe, Colin ‘Toss’ Kitchen from Te Hiku, and Rick Stolwerk from Coastal South.

Those Councillors who voted against a referendum, were the Chair Penny Sharp from Kaipara, Marty Robinson and Joce Yeoman from Coastal North, Amy McDonald from Coastal South, and Jack Craw from Whangarei Urban.

To alter the electoral system to introduce separate seats based on race without a poll being taken of the community is abhorrent. It should be fought on every front. The fact that our fathers went to war to protect our democratic rights and freedoms, is enough reason for me to stand up now and be counted. I hope people reading this will feel the same.

There are several important issues at risk for the Regional Council........

Continue reading John Bain’s NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-destruction-of-democracy/

Henry Armstrong: ALL CULTURES ARE IMPORTANT IN NEW ZEALAND - NOT JUST ONE

Another Maori Language Week has come and gone and hopefully te Reo has been strengthened. In the same week, the Maori Party declared that if elected, it will arbitrarily demand the country’s name be changed from New Zealand to Aotearoa, along with all other anglicised place names, to Maori place names.

However, the name “Aotearoa” is not a traditional, nor even an appropriate, alternative name for New Zealand, according to Distinguished Professor Kerry Howe whose seminal article “Aotearoa-What’s in a Name” appeared in MSN News on 19th September. It is by far the most erudite and well-researched article on this issue yet to be produced. All New Zealanders should read this.

But, it is high time we acknowledged all cultures in Nu Tirani (New Zealand) in the face of continued denial of other cultures by bicultural activists.......

https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2020/09/henry-armstrong-all-cultures-are.html

REVEALED: AUCKLAND COUNCIL SPENDS $129 MILLION IN SIX YEARS ON DUPLICATED IWI CONSULTATION, TARGETED MĀORI SPENDING

A new briefing paper co-published by the Auckland Ratepayers’ Alliance and Democracy Action reveals that in just six years, Auckland Council spent at least $129 million on iwi consultation and targeted Māori spending.

In 2018/19 alone, the total spend was $30 million – more than double the $13 million spent in 2013/14.

This spending includes that of the Independent Māori Statutory Board, ‘Ngā Mātārae’, formerly ‘Te Waka Anga Mua ki Uta’, payments made by Auckland Council for consultation, payments made by Auckland Council Controlled Organisations, Long-term Plan allocations, and direct grants to iwi.

Ratepayers’ Alliance spokesperson Jo Holmes says:,

“Every dollar allocated to cultural advice, a marae development, or an unelected Māori authority is a dollar that cannot be used for the core council services that benefit all ratepayers."

"The function of Māori representation at Auckland Council is duplicated by at least six different Council mechanisms. Not one of these can be held to account by the general ratepayer who funds their operations.”

“Many Aucklanders will be supportive of some degree of race-based spending, but what this report uncovers is the extent of duplication and an alarming increase in costs. The Independent Māori Statutory Board was set up to promote issues of significance to Māori to Auckland Council, but we’re now paying eight times its budget because the Council undertakes the same function through other branches.”

“As the Council annually increases rates far beyond increases to living costs, including during an economic crisis, we’re calling for an urgent review into this non-essential spending.”

Democracy Action spokesman Lee Short says: “

A 2015 report by the NZ Institute of Economic Research showed that the Māori economy in Auckland is substantial – at around $4 billion of GDP with $23 billion of assets. This being so, the wisdom of Council contributing towards Māori economic development at ratepayers’ expense is questionable at best.”

“This paper is evidence that the interests of those who identify as Māori are being elevated above those of all other Aucklanders, thereby undermining the concept of equal rights upon which our democracy is based.”.....

https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/atawhai

See the ‘Briefing Paper’ here > https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/democracyaction/pages/1829/attachments/original/1600131889/Atawhai.pdf?1600131889

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

SUGGESTED NAME CHANGE TO AOTEAROA

New Zealand is racked with racial separatism. The last thing we need as a nation is for an established minor political party, incapable of polling even 1%, to be promoting further separatism by demanding a change to the only name New Zealand has ever known. This absurdity from the radical and racist Maori Party, can only be viewed as a desperate clamber for publicity given their almost non-existent polling numbers, but, if taken seriously could only lead to the continued progression of New Zealand toward being an apartheid state.

Our country was named New Zealand in 1640. This is the only name contained in our nations founding documents, the Queen Victoria Royal Charters and Patent letters, and the Treaty of Waitangi. There is absolutely no logical or rational reason to consider changing the name which is, and always has been, the only internationally recognised name for our nation.

The suggested name, Aotearoa, does not even originate from Maori. It was invented and first published by S. Percy Smith in 1890 in his fictional work about Kupe. There is no historical basis for this name and, its use has only become more common in recent years due to the targeted lobbying by minority groups combined with the political correctness of multiple governments, and media, desperate to placate Maori and gain the benefit of Maori support to form government under our MMP electoral system. Given these facts, we must ask the simple but very pertinent question, why is this name change being promoted again at this time, or at all?

Firstly, until we can stand shoulder to shoulder as New Zealanders, despite our skin colour or cultural differences, New Zealand will forever be destined to repeat the apartheid mistakes which are being internalised in our legislation, economy and education system to provide legitimacy. We are, and must be, New Zealanders first, and identify with our cultural, or ethnic identities secondly. This must be the case for ALL Kiwis, Maori, European and the myriad of other immigrants who now form part of the multi-cultural melting pot that is New Zealand in the 21st century.

There can be no room in modern day New Zealand for the continuation of the current apartheid system and decades old process of indoctrination through our academic institutions. New Zealand governments, both left and right, must be focused on reducing the apartheid-like separation of Maori and all other New Zealand citizens/residents; not building more walls to divide us and driving additional wedges between us.

Governments and the mainstream media are both guilty of growing the tension that comes with racial separatism. Governments have implemented Maori language in schools by stealth, changed the accepted/advertised names of government ministries/departments from English to Maori, increasingly replaced English words for Maori in the reporting (online, newspapers, radio and TV) of city/town names, landmarks, greetings, family, children, and more and more everyday vocabulary.

These changes have been implemented and normalised by stealth, and absent of any community or voter consultation. Local bodies across our country are reviewing and changing the names of well-known streets, parks, creeks, landmarks etc. on an almost daily basis, again, with no public consultation, nor mainly agreement, and in doing so, in many instances, erasing much of our collective history that accompanies the existing names.

This almost surreptitious re-writing of our language, maps, atlases, and history is appalling. It is one thing to change the accepted names after appropriate consultation and a formal voting process or referendum, but for so many local bodies and government agencies to be so actively progressing this renaming process with no mandate or formal acceptance by the majority of Kiwis is simply unacceptable. It is even worse, and a sad sign of the times, that if anyone dares question the normalisation of this practice, they are instantly lashed and publicly berated as racists. Straight out of the Saul Alinsky, “Rules for Radicals” playbook.

https://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO2009/S00232/suggested-name-change-to-aotearoa.htm

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

TIPPING THE SCALE WITH MAORI SEATS IS ONLY PATRONISING AND DIVISIVE - by Tom O'Connor

Has the Tauranga City Council embarked on a new era of inclusiveness with the decision to establish a Māori Ward for the 2022 local government elections, or have they driven the wedge of division even deeper into an already seriously divided community?

Wellington City Council has also recently discussed the same possibility and both councils were divided by ill-informed and acrimonious argument.

It is too easy to label those who disagree, or agree, with the concept as racist but both sides to the debate have done that already. With a few notable exceptions in recent times, including the reaction to the return of wrongly taken land in Tauranga to Māori not long ago, that is an overly simplistic and unhelpful reaction to what is a much more complex issue than it may first appear.

While there is racism in all communities there is also a significant number of people on both sides of the question with strongly held opinions based on equality and the high principles of true democracy and it is simply wrong to suggest they are all racist. They are not.

During the Tauranga discussion it was claimed that there had not been an elected councillor of Māori descent in the past 28 years but there was no indication of how many unsuccessful Māori candidates there had been in that time either. There was an unsuccessful Māori candidate in the 2017 who only missed out by a few votes but that is the very nature of elections.

There appears also an assumption that non-Māori voters will not vote for Māori candidates so having dedicated Maori seats is the only way to have Māori on councils. The number of Maori in general seats in Parliament suggests there is more to the matter than simple racism. A lack of Maori candidates and a voter turn-out of little more than forty percent are more important considerations.

Much has been said of nebulous partnership between Māori and the Crown but local Government is not the Crown, neither are Pakeha nor the wider non-Māori community. The Crown is exclusively the executive wing of the government and does not even include opposition members of Parliament.

The concept of a permanent partnership between Māori and the Crown came from a misused comment by Justice Robin Cooke who said the 1987 lands case against the Crown ‘signified a partnership between Pakeha and Māori requiring each other to act towards the other reasonably and with the utmost good faith.’

He clearly meant the Crown as there was no partnership with Pakeha who are not the Crown. There is in fact nothing to substantiate the concept that an ongoing permanent partnership in the governing of the country centrally or locally was ever contemplated by either side.

The British of the time had never agreed to share sovereignty with anyone over two centuries of world-wide colonisation. Māori on the other hand simply wanted to govern their own people in their own way under their own rules leaving Pakeha to do the same.

The Māori seats in Parliament have also been cited as a precedent, but they were established to ensure Māori could vote in general elections and stand for Parliament as only men with Crown issued title to land could vote in those times, and they were exclusively Pakeha. There are now no such impediments to Māori candidates in local body or general elections.

Many Māori leaders now see the Parliamentary seats as a form of separatism and a means of confining Māori political influence to an easily manageable group. While there will always be those who will take advantage of any opportunity to further political agendas Māoridom generally does not want separate representation. That was clearly shown when the Māori Party was voted out of Parliament in the 2017 general election by Maori voters who abandoned the concept and turned their efforts to winning general seats through major parties.

All Māori people originally asked for was to be treated the same as all other New Zealanders. Until recently they never asked to be treated as special or different; only that those things which belonged to them prior to 1840 would still be in their ownership after 1840. That reasonable and lawful expectation is still is denied them in many instances today but our current electoral laws treat all people equally and that should never be altered.

Having Māori involved in local government can only bring positive outcomes but special seats would be far too divisive. The best option would be for Māoridom to put up good candidates and for all Maori residents to vote. Given the traditional low turn-out that would give an indisputable result without relying on the sycophantic paternalism of the colonial era.

https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/300093131/tipping-the-scale-with-mori-seats-is-only-patronising-and-divisive

TE KOOTI - By Don Jacobs

Vincent O'Malley is one of the worst revisionist historians this country has ever had the misfortune to be associated with. He is of Irish heritage and equates Maori colonisation with that of the Irish. He is a professional Waitangi tribunal historian...A bought and paid for bootlicker. He has received well in excess of a million dollars for his 'research' done for, and on behalf of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Oh, and don't believe for a minute that were any lack of Maori writers. TeKooti was bilingual and knew how to read and write.. Tekooti was educated at the Waerenga A Hika mission station school from the age of 8.(My GGpa was head stockman at the mission station at the time TeKooti was there. He was at Matawhero just after the massacre cleaning up the mess, he fought at Ngatapa...and in 1890 left his reminisces of the battle)...

Now, Here is Te Kooti's diary entry from 1st January 1868. 10 months before the massacre. "My wrath shall always abide on those who oppress my people, I will punish the people and even the children, my anger will never abate"...So all the murders were premeditated. And here O'Malley is expressing indignation that the murderers were shot without trial...

Well, what trial did the 1 year old George Biggs get when he had his throat cut when he whimpered in his sleep.

What trial did the one year old Nora Ellen Walsh get when big brave drunken Maori 'warriors' tossed her up in the air and caught her on their bayonets.

What trial did the infant Munn get when she had her head cut off and was fed to the roaming pigs.

What trial did Alice Wilson, aged 6, Edwin James Wilson, aged 4, or Jessie Gertrude Wilson, Aged 1, get when they were bayoneted by big brave drunken Maori...

And what trial did their mother Alice Sweetman Wilson (nee Beamish) get, when unarmed and dressed only in her nightdress she was bayoneted 11 times trying to protect her children ...NOW I'll type this REAL slow just in case any of you f*ucking apologists don't get it !!...SHE FOUGHT ARMED AND DRUNKEN MAORI WARRIORS WITH HER BARE HANDS DRESSED ONLY IN A NIGHT DRESS, TRYING, WITH NOTHING BUT HER LIFE, TO PROTECT HER BABIES WHILE THEY STABBED HER ELEVEN TIMES. When she couldn't fight them any more because of her wounds.. they bayoneted her children to death.

The stain upon history wasn't at Ngatapa when these murdering maggots got shot.. it was at Matawhero in the early hours of November 10th 1868...when they committed these atrocities on babies, children and unarmed women.

Then Te Kooti went to the Pa at Patutahi, The pa of his own people who 10 months before he wrote that he would protect. He rode in on a stolen horse, saddle and bridle, had a bottle of brandy in one hand and a stock whip in the other, which he had plundered from Goldsmith's store. (So he was a drunken, psychopathic, murdering, thief) He lined everyone in the pa up. Some he placed on his left hand some on his right...He then ordered all those on his left hand to be shot. He said "GOD HAS TOLD ME TO KILL WOMEN AND CHILDREN, NOW FIRE ON THEM" The whole lot of them were shot bayoneted and stabbed with swords until dead. What god actually said was 'THOU SHALT NOT KILL.

Now, I drove to Gisborne for the 150th anniversary of these killings...I didn't see Vincent O'Malley in the Matawhero Church...but I did see many of the descendant relatives of those who were killed...they still live in new Zealand. The part Maori minister wanted us all to forgive and forget and reconcile....and then my gentle, god faring Aunt who every Sunday weeds the graves at the Patutahi Cemetery and who NEVER says a bad word about anyone...said "you know,all these people who want us to forgive are only here temporarily while on their way to somewhere else...it is US the descendants who have to stay and live with it."

In finishing, the Waitangi Tribunal, no doubt with Vincent O'Malley's help, convinced the government to give descendants of TeKooti $1 million dollars because of the stigma they 'suffer' as a result of the murders....the descendants of those killed, of course, got nothing.

MĀORI VICTIMS OF CRIME - By Ward Kamo

I grew up in a household full of crime. My siblings and I were constantly in and out of prison. I rubbed shoulders with murderers, drug dealers, rapists and child molesters. Our house was visited by gang members and other criminal “lowlifes”.

You see Mum and Dad were both prison chaplains. Crime was never far from the surface as they and other members of the prison reform movement met to talk rehabilitation. And we would be at a church service in the prisons at least once a month if not more often.

I saw men and women at the lowest point of their lives. I saw first-hand the scarring on their bodies and the bandages around their wrists as they’d yet again tried to kill themselves. And I heard stories of horror about those prisoners’ childhoods that even Stephen King would struggle to write.

One that still chills me to this day is too graphic to describe in any detail. Suffice to say this Māori woman had, at the age of 7 with her five-year-old brother, watched their father murder their mother in the most brutal way imaginable. She told with chilling calm how she had directed her little brother to “put Mum’s blood into a bucket so when the ambulance comes they can pour it into her and make her better again”. This girl went on to kill herself alone in her prison cell.

I write these words in light of the recent Criminal Justice Symposium, held in Porirua – another yawn-fest focused on the fact we have too many Māori prisoners. Uh huh.

Here’s the thing: having grown up with Māori criminals, I don’t much care for their life choices. You kill, you go to prison. You deal hard drugs, you go to prison. You bash your wife and kids, you go to prison. These people know right from wrong.

They know that their choices may end them up in prison. And if you don’t believe me, ask them.

I care about that brutalised seven-year-old and the life path her murderous father set for her. In the lead up to that almost inevitable killing of her mother, her father was a wife-beating, hard-drinking, serial-womanising thug. Her life was punctuated by the sexual abuse she suffered at the hands of those her father brought around for parties – Once Were Warriors was effectively her life story. She was a victim of crime. And yes, she went on to victimise, by committing murder.

Unfortunately we’ve become criminal-focused and not victim-focused. We speak in horror that 50% of male prisoners are Māori. And we’re now beginning to speak of the fact that 65% of the female prison population is Māori. Is it a crisis? Only if we consider that for every prisoner, we have multiple victims of their crimes. The number of Māori prisoners does signal a crisis – a crisis for their victims and for our Māori communities.

We are disproportionate victims of crime – 30% more likely to experience theft and damages offences, almost twice as likely to experience property crime, and nearly three times more likely to experience repeat violent interpersonal offences. It gets worse.

Māori women make up just 7% of our country’s population, but 20% of all assault victims. And if that doesn’t cause you to sit up, perhaps this next number will. Of the 58 children killed in their family homes between 1990 and 2014, 35 (60%) were Māori.

For those of you who want to blame colonisation as the cause, tell that to the victims’ whānau – they’ll spit in your face and tell you it was a drug-addled alcohol-addicted useless Māori father that murdered their child. These men should be grateful for prison, in comparison with the justice meted out in our old Māori ways.

Prisons are not a failure. Māori men and women who commit crime are a failure. And that failure starts with us – their whānau.

We’ve watched the parties that start on a Thursday night and finish Sunday. We’ve been to homes and watched as they sit in a cannabis-induced haze, where the benefit is prioritised on alcohol and partying at the expense of food, clothing, and schooling. We’ve turned a blind eye to the black eyes.

You see, dealing with whānau like this is hard and horrendously frustrating. We know the Treaty has got nothing to do with it – we come from the same whakapapa or have the same grandparents and tīpuna and don’t behave like this. And that’s because of personal choices.

My grandfather, Ned Kamo, came to Christchurch from Wharekauri with my grandmother (Kui Whaitiri). Papa’s education was limited (he left school at 12). He was a farm worker on the island and those skills weren’t in much demand in 1930s Depression-era Christchurch. He had no money and struggled to make ends meet. But make ends meet he did. And throughout my father’s childhood, my grandfather was laser-like in his focus on the importance of getting an education.

So you can imagine the messages that we mokopuna heard growing up. He never spoke of broken Treaty promises or the fact he’d received little lands from the alienation of title that occurred in his father Tareikamo Paramena’s time. He never complained of his lack of education or that colonisation was making life hard for him.

What he did do was celebrate every success we told him about. And he took great pride in the fact we were at school and trying our best. We need to change the tune.

I know first-hand the brutal lives of many Māori criminals and I know that too many of them have been victims of crime, neglect, and violence in their childhood. These root causes have been generations in the making, and no one government can be blamed.

But to focus on prisons as being the problem for Māori borders on absurd. To suggest less prison equals less crime is preposterous. The problem is the victimisation of Māori by our own.

Prisons provide welcome relief for those brutalised by their loved ones on a daily basis – they serve these victims of crime. They may also be a place where we can begin the long road to addressing the issues that led to time behind bars – but I doubt that – if they did we wouldn’t need them.

The cure starts in our whānau and the choices we make. Rehabilitation has to start with “habilitated” individuals. The seven-year-old girl I referred to could never have been rehabilitated, because she was never properly socialised in the first place.

A lack of education, poor life, financial and social skills, hand-in-hand with poor parenting, are at the root of crime. The solutions involve support to the parents of at-risk kids. We must ruthlessly address these issues early, and, as whānau, demand the resources to keep these kids at school, and even, if necessary, to keep their parents away from them.

Crime will not end with more prisons. And nor will fewer prisons end crime. Crime will end within our whānau and the choices we make.

ngaitahu.iwi.nz/our_stories/maori-victims-of-crime-tk79/

UNITY IS BEING ERODED BY DIVISION

by Tony Orman

Recently in the US, at an “Over-population Conference” in Washington DC, a former Governor of Colorado Richard D Lamm spoke on the startling subject, how to destroy America.

Before he spoke an eminent college professor Victor Hansen Davis talked about his latest book, 'Mexifornia,' explaining how immigration - both legal and illegal was destroying the entire state of California.

Richard D Lamm followed describing eight methods for the destruction of the United States. His first one riveted the audience. 'First, to destroy America, turn America into a bilingual or multi-lingual and bicultural country. -- History shows that no nation can survive the tension, conflict, and antagonism of two or more competing languages and cultures. It is a blessing for an individual to be bilingual; however, it is a curse for a society to be bilingual.”

Lamm continued “The histories of bilingual and bicultural societies that do not assimilate are histories of turmoil, tension, and tragedy. Canada, Belgium, Malaysia, and Lebanon all face crises of national existence in which minorities press for autonomy , if not independence. -- France faces difficulties with Basques, Bretons, Corsicans and Muslims.”

Lamm further explained the steps towards destruction of America:-

* Invent 'multiculturalism' and encourage immigrants to maintain their culture.

* Celebrate diversity rather than unity.

* Make the fastest growing demographic group the least educated.

* Get big foundations and business to give these efforts lots of money.

* Establish the cult of “Victimology.” In other words get all minorities to think that their lack of success was the fault of the majority.

* Start a grievance industry blaming all minority failure on the majority.

* Make it taboo to talk about anything against the cult of 'diversity.'

Discussion would be stopped and thinking paralysed by counter accusations of 'racist' or 'xenophobe' he added.

Richard Lamm’s address received no applause - only a stunned silence.

“ Every American in that room knew that everything Lamm enumerated was proceeding methodically, quietly, darkly, yet pervasively across the United States today. Discussion is being suppressed,” said a report.

In New Zealand is discussion suppressed by accusations of “racist” and “xenophobia”? After all, immigration is a hot topic. NZ First leader Winston Peters has been strongly opposed to uncontrolled immigration. In a recent speech Peters said “having near 72,000 plus net immigrants settling here permanently every year is way too much for our small society.”

Immediately the cries of 'racist' or 'xenophobe' - just as Richard Lamm described - followed. But name calling suffocates and stifles sensible debate.

Immigration is an important debate but so is the bigger picture around New Zealand’s lack of a population policy relative to not only composition but size also.

Richard Lamm’s reference to the “grievance industry” and “victimology” raises issues around the Treaty of Waitangi. Surely the Treaty of Waitangi’s fundamental intent was to create “one society” and avoid a divided one? Besides that would have been synonymous with the egalitarian society, which early Europeans deliberately set up, on the basis of opportunity for all - regardless of wealth and/or ethnicity.

Our European forebears wished to rid themselves of a feudal system that gave privilege to the wealthy upper class. In an egalitarian society, there are no privileges. Everyone is equal with equal opportunity. It was written into laws such as around trout fishing and duck shooting where fish and game, unlike the UK, are public resources available to all.

Besides, all New Zealanders are now of mixed ancestry.

Undeniably some unscrupulous early European settlers did by deceit and deception, acquire land. Yet also undeniably before European settlement, Maori tribes conquered other tribes with war-like force and seized land and treasures. What is the difference, except one was by trickery and the other by aggressive, violent assault?

But sadly we are increasingly divided and even bilingually too. Several years ago I attended a Marlborough fisheries meeting where “Maori” speakers spoke for 30 minutes in Maori, then left without translation of their oratory, leaving the remaining attendance to converse in English and wondering what the previous speakers had said.

Today a number of my friends have Maori ancestry but all firmly believe the Treaty’s aim was “one people”. Yet I sense a reluctance from those friends to publicly speak up for fear of being branded “racist”.

In the 1960s, I played in Hawkes Bay senior rugby in a team broadly comprising a mix of New Zealanders with European and Maori ancestry. We all got on fine and such was the team spirit, we became labelled as the “giant killers” of the competition taking down teams boasting All Blacks.

Oh for that teamwork today as a nation.

FOOTNOTE: Tony Orman is a Marlborough-based journalist, author and conservationist.

WHAT AN EX-LABOUR MINISTER REALLY THINKS ABOUT JACINDA ARDERN'S GOVERNMENT

We have this rather extraordinary liberal preoccupation with everything Māori while we push Pakeha culture aside. Māori are having a whale of a ride on the back of the Treaty. What the Treaty doesn’t say they make up, and the liberal intelligentsia are “yes, yes, rah, rah”. The courts chime in from time to time. So you won’t see much movement on monarchy, for example, from Māori, who want to maintain the link with the Crown, or from the wider New Zealand public.....

.....Why should I be? I’m only jumped on by ignoramuses – people who believe in big government and people who think te reo and separatism are the answers to Māori problems. After World War II, we were empowering Māori, but then we slipped into welfare mode, and Māori have been the biggest and most conspicuous of the losers from modern policies. That is what worries me. I didn’t attend integration rallies in the United States in order to come home to find Māori pushing for separatism and separate treatment. What irritates me most of all are the liberals who marched alongside me when we wanted to stop rugby contact with South Africa because of apartheid; those same people now say, ‘Let’s do some separatism, just a little bit”. If we want to ruin this country, that is the way to do it. Not only because it’s wrong, but because it is proven not to help Maori.......

Read Dr Michael Bassett’s full article here > https://www.noted.co.nz/currently/profiles/michael-bassett-has-harsh-words-for-jacinda-ardern-government/

RACISM IN THE UNIVERSITIES

We (Kapiti Independent News) recently published Bob Brockie’s article about Maori groups putting pressure on the Royal Society and Otago University to have the Treaty and Maori viewpoints central in all scientific investigation. (Scroll down to April 10.)

Bud Jones points out below that Victoria University of Wellington has caught some of the contagion......

Read Bud Jones’s article here > http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/racism-in-the-universities/

KILLING TE REO MAORI – EXTRACTS BY PROFESSOR PAUL MOON

Of all the techniques that have been experimented with or proposed in the increasingly desperate struggle to revive Te Reo Māori, none is more ineffective than the call for the language to be made compulsory in schools. Compulsion has failed to revive indigenous languages in every territory where it has been implemented, including places where the indigenous language belongs to the majority culture of the area. What is surprising about this repeatedly-advocated ‘solution’ to the slow collapse of Te Reo Māori is that it is finding increasing popular favour in spite of the overwhelming evidence of its complete failure to achieve its desired objective. This speaks of an environment of language revitalisation where desperation and ignorance have become close bedfellows in discussions about saving Te Reo Māori......

Read the interesting extracts in Paul Moon’s NZCPR guest commentary here > https://www.nzcpr.com/killing-te-reo-maori-extracts-by-professor-paul-moon/#more-25210

JABBERWOCKY

For more than a year our state broadcaster, Radio New Zealand, has concealed the fact that it is engaged in a campaign to “change the linguistic landscape”. This radical new mission was far from voluntary. It was imposed from above, forced upon a supine RNZ staff following amendments to the Maori Language Act in 2016.

Few New Zealanders were aware that one of their most trusted institutions had been so fundamentally subverted, and no-one at RNZ, it would seem, thought fit to tell them (or even, as many of us might have hoped - to protest). But no, they just quietly went along - some of them minimally and probably reluctantly, but others with servile enthusiasm.

How long the deception would have persisted is anyone’s guess - not too much longer, I suspect, since more and more people were beginning to wonder what was happening to their once-familiar service.

The cat is now well out of the bag, and RNZ, its institutional duplicity exposed, has become increasingly defensive. What, after all, is RNZ’s proper role, and why should a taxpayer-funded and ostensibly independent broadcaster be covertly engaged in reconfiguring the language we all speak daily?

Damage control was urgently required, and thus, on 2nd December, Dr Don Brash - who had expressed some unease at the Maorification of RNZ, was interviewed on the Kim Hill programme – see here > http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018623927/don-brash-ragging-on-te-reo

Hill started off with legalities. Did Dr Brash not realise, she said, that under RNZ’s charter the protection and promotion of te reo by RNZ was now a statutory responsibility?

This proved less than a king hit,........

Continue reading Dave Witherow's article here > https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com.au/2017/12/dave-witherow-jabberwocky.html

COULD YOU SAY THAT AGAIN PLEASE – IN ENGLISH?

New Zealanders were once recognised as democratic, intelligent people, pragmatic and self-reliant, with a well-developed sense of social justice – the “fair go”, as it used to be known. There are still, of course, plenty of Kiwis who merit that description, but their proportion in the population is shrinking.

There are a number of related reasons for this: we are, thanks in great part to the Lange/Douglas government, part of a “global” community now, dedicated to material enrichment (or greed, to put it baldly), and with a greatly-diminished sense of responsibility for those afflicted by misfortune, or simply less-adept in the rat-race.

We have also, in consequence of Geoffrey Palmer’s incredible naivety (amply augmented by subsequent governments), become a racist society, and no longer a fully-functioning democracy.

It has become impossible to explain this to many people, especially younger people. The ill-educated product of several decades of indoctrination, our younger generations fail to grasp that different rights for different races is the classic definition of racism.

The extent of the rot that now afflicts us was brought home to me following the publication of a brief article of mine, prompted by what I considered the excessive intrusion of Maori speech on RNZ’s National broadcasting. It was inappropriate and disrespectful, I argued, that an audience of potentially millions should be subjected to ever-increasing quantum of an incomprehensible language, and my objection would have been exactly the same if the language been Urdu, Inuit, or Uzbek. This gross bad manners, I believe, is made even more inexcusable by the fact that everyone concerned is quite capable of speaking English.

There was considerable uproar in response to this opinion-piece – most of it from people who completely failed to comprehend the simple point I was making. I was anti-Maori, claimed my critics. I was anti te reo. And of course I was a racist. The race relations conciliator jumped into the act, beefing up her indignation with a laughable and totally-erroneous interpretation of Irish history.

I had included in my piece a description of an interview I had heard on Morning Report, where Katharine Ryan (or maybe it was Wallace Chapman), listened with endless sympathy and commiseration while two young Maori moaned on and on about the terrible tragedy they were suffering from pakehas getting their names wrong. I described these moaners as “snowflakes” – a modern usage meaning someone who melts under the least pressure or imagined slight. I think this fits the case exactly.

But once again there was knee-jerk outrage. Criticism of individuals – but only if they are Maori – is now impermissible in New Zealand, and this racist censorship is fully endorsed by the Race Relations commissar, as well as most of the media.

Te reo, we now learn, may be made compulsory by 2025, or maybe by 2030, and, such is our pathetic fear of being suspected of racism, this futile imposition may well be imposed on the coming generation.

The difficulty, however, is that te reo is a fossil language, and increasingly artificial. It does not grow, as living languages do, by self-renewal, invention, and the creative assimilation of words and phrases from a multiplicity of sources. Te reo has to be kept on life-support. When new nouns and verbs appear – and there has been an avalanche of them in recent years with the explosive expansion of technology – te reo equivalents must be cooked up de novo. Many of these coinages are hilarious, and bear little relation to what they are supposed to be aping.

The sad truth is that there is no long-term future for the Maori language. It will be subsidised, ever more extravagantly, impressed in the schools, and applauded by the right-thinking people. But in the end it will share the fate of the Gaelic language in Ireland, which, after a full century of funding and patriotic propaganda, remains an unspoken remnant, verging on extinction. The Irish, no fools, understand their linguistic good-fortune in inheriting a universal language, an incomparable written literature, and a passport to the unlocking of the world. They have embraced English, embellished its poetry and literature, and the proposition that they might revert to Gaelic has no connection with reality.

I will, of course, be misunderstood here, and accused, once again, of hating te reo. I do not. Why should I? I simply have no interest in te reo, but am fully in favour of supporting the language for anyone who might wish to learn it. There may well be, for Maori people, a pride and comfort in the preservation of their old native tongue, and its denigration or precipitate abandonment would be entirely unwarranted. But it should not be forced on everyone.

Languages expire – more than four hundred of them in the last century alone. It is part of an inevitable process that began with the great oceanic explorations of the sixteenth century, and continues to the present day. Globalisation has merely accelerated this evolution (or perhaps devolution), but in the end we shall have a handful of hegemonic languages. The rest, overwhelmed and deprived of the oxygen of currency, will die.

The 1930’s, Auden once observed, was “a low, dishonest decade”, and the same is true of our present era. For thirty years now we have been parasitised by a class of arrogant, half-educated dullards, secure in their unconscious racist ignorance, and quite immune from any possibility of intellectual recovery. They have been augmented by the Waitangi Tribunal – an openly racist entity dedicated to the manufacture of imagined slights, and to fomenting of injustice forever.

Then we have the so-called universities, now bloated beyond all recognition and burdened by an army of “students” who are intellectually incapable of very much, and who are mostly wasting their time. The bell-curve of intelligence can only be evaded by a constant lowering of standards, and it is common, now, to encounter young people with advanced degrees who are illiterate, innumerate, and utterly ignorant of history. Few of them read anything unrelated to their personal advancement, and, most lamentable of all, they have been shielded from all contrary opinion, and have never been taught to think.

None of this can be turned round very quickly. Another decade at least will be required, and by then we shall be facing real existential challenges. It is hard to be optimistic.

Welcome to the land of voluntary brain-fade. The land of the smug white clown.

By Dave Witherow

Source: https://www.nzcpr.com/could-you-say-that-again-please-in-english/#more-25020

THIS RACIST NEW ZEALAND

Embedded racial differences

Racial difference is firmly embedded in New Zealand – in statute, in requirements for special attention based explicitly on race, within local bodies, universities, many professional organisations, and in societies that refuse any discussion or questioning of that conventional wisdom.

The idea that we can be divided into separate races is morally repugnant. Yet here it is, written into law.

The separation of New Zealand citizenship into two peoples is between Maori and others, with just who is Maori defined in the Maori Affairs Amendment Act 1974. “A Maori is a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendent of such a person.”

This is a logical absurdity, defining Maori as Maori, which is no definition at all. But we are more interested in the key word here, which is “race”.

Science rejects the concept of race

Acceptance of race involves a belief that humans are divided into distinct groups, a hypothesis that has been scientifically debunked.

That concept was refuted by the eighteenth century Age of Reason, when the principle of equality became enshrined in the French and USA constitutions.

Article 1 of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights expresses this principle clearly. “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” It was basic to the Treaty of Waitangi, until its recent rewriting.

Racism in law is quite simply the denial of that principle with provision of special race-based rights. That is what exists in New Zealand.

The spread of racist provisions in NZ

It has been growing and spreading throughout out the 42 years (from 1975) of the Waitangi Tribunal, in a process of building grievance that stands in stark contrast with the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) which worked for just five years “to advance the cause of reconciliation”.

One consequence is the formulation of an extraordinary, extensive list of legal differentiation and preferential treatment, including 175 statutes (a list is available at http://www.hobsonspledge.nz/the_separation_framework

This legislation includes representation at national and local levels, control of and ownership of state assets, rivers, fisheries, foreshore, television, buildings – and much more.

There is even provision for special consultation with iwi on climate change, and a strategy for engagement with Maori on international treaties. Special rights are everywhere, on the beaches and at sea, along rivers, on lakes and in national parks.

An insistence that all non-Maori should feel a deep guilt for claimed wrongs of the past has become deeply embedded in New Zealand culture.

A typical example is provided by Max Harris in The New Zealand project. He demands “decolonisation” – “recognising the political, social and economic effects of colonisation, and working to redress them”.

Divided into separate races?

Here is the basis for the particular form of current New Zealand racism. We are divided into separate races, and required to believe that our history is replete with racial discord and terrible wrongs done by colonists.

We are asked to take on the responsibility for such supposed wrongdoing, which is defined in a one-sided fashion as being all the fault of ‘colonists’. Then, driven by this guilt trip, we must provide special and favourable provisions in recompense.

The whole pattern falls apart when we believe in the unity of mankind and understand that race is an artificial construct, that what is important is to recognise our common humanity and work together as equals – in other words, to refute racism.........

Continue reading Dr John Robinsons’s great article here > http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/this-racist-new-zealand/

OCTOBER 28: REMEMBERING 19TH CENTURY NZ WARS

NEED FOR ACCURATE INFORMATION

Otorohanga College students Leah Bell and Waimarama Anderson proposed the idea after a visit to Orakau seven years ago.

Their feeling was that the public needed to have a better understanding of the conflicts of the 19th century and that students should learn about them as part of the school curriculum.

Today is the first commemoration, and it is vital that there is accuracy and objectivity.

Let’s start with one important fact: the Wars were not just between Maori and Crown forces representing white settlers. In reality there were more Maori fighting with the government (kupapa), than against it.

WHAT’S IN A NAME?

Historians have struggled to come up with a universally acceptable name for the battles and skirmishes which occurred after the Treaty of Waitangi.

* Maori Wars? No, because there were plenty of British and some settler troops fighting as well.

* Land Wars? No, because although there some disputes related to selling or retaining land, there were other issues such as the Maori “king” claiming sovereignty over territory in the Waikato.

* James Belich has suggested “wars of sovereignty” but this is nonsense as sovereignty of all New Zealand was ceded by Maori chiefs in the Treaty of Waitangi. The British government, which had been reluctant to intervene in the country at all, was not going to just accept sovereignty of part of the country.

* New Zealand Wars? Not really as there were no battles in the South Island or in many regions of the North.

* Vincent O’Malley has used the title The Great War for New Zealand for his book on the 1863-64 Waikato War. But this a preposterous name, as that conflict was a rebellion and limited to the central North Island.

WARS OF REBELLION?

Historian John Robinson has suggested WARS OF REBELLION AND THIS COMES CLOSEST TO THE REALITY OF WHAT HAPPENED.

The First Taranaki War occurred after the Governor attempted to introduce the law and order which settlers and most Maori leaders wanted.

And the Waikato War began as a consequence of threats of aggression by some Maori against white settlements such as Auckland, and the Maori “king’s” refusal to accept the sovereignty granted to Queen Victoria in the Treaty.

Many history books refer to the latter conflict starting as the result of British troops invading the Waikato. Wrong word, governments don’t invade parts of their own country.

WHAT TO REMEMBER?

This website presents aspects of the New Zealand Wars fought between Māori and the Crown throughout most of the 19th century. Ngā Pākanga Whenua O Mua

We should all remember the conflicts of the 19thcentury that occurred in New Zealand and we are entitled to get accurate information from historians, websites and official sources. (The statement quoted above is flawed, because there was no Crown before 1840 and no fighting in the last 18 years of the century.)

The battles and skirmishes from the 1840s to the 1870s probably killed 3,000 – 4,000 people, whereas the inter-tribal wars of the 1800s to 1840 are estimated to have caused the deaths of at least 40,000, many of whom were innocent men, women and children, as well as prisoners.

Wars are always regrettable and any casualties are too many. One of the big tragedies of the early 19thcentury tribal wars was the killing of thousands of women and girls, which set back the recovery of the Maori population for a generation or more.

“I’m looking forward to the commemoration because it will give our nation the opportunity to learn a part of our history that has been silent for too long,” Former Māori Development Minister, Te Ururoa Flavell

I’m sure we would all agree, but let us remember all the 19th century conflicts, and ensure that there is an ACCURATE AND BALANCED UNDERSTANDING of this important part of our nation’s history.

By Roger Childs > http://kapitiindependentnews.net.nz/october-28-remembering-the-19th-century-wars/

RANGIAOWHIA AFFAIR - 21 March 1864

Two years ago, I learnt that my grandsons are direct descendants of Thomas Power and Rahapa te Hauata. Until then I was ignorant of the history of the settlement at Rangiaowhia. To improve my knowledge, I visited the site and the Te Awamutu Museum. The museum has an impressive display of the locality and holds the Taonga of Mrs. Power, gifted to the museum by the West family. I then did follow up research on the genealogy of the couple and read up on what I could find.

A few weeks later at a historical group meeting I mentioned my family’s connection to Rangiaowhia to be told by a Kaumatua of a NE Waikato Iwi that “that was where the British locked over 100 Maori men, women and children in the church and burnt them to death.”

I was stunned by this statement but was unable to rebut it as I had already observed that the Catholic church at Rangiaowhia no longer existed.

It was around this time that I learnt of the girls of Otorohanga College petitioning the Maori Select Affairs Committee at Parliament. I have been told that part of their oral presentation included the same story of numbers of Maori being burnt to death in a church at Rangiaowhia. I understand that on a visit to Rangiaowhia the girls were told the history of the place by a local Kaumatua. I believe this person was Mr. Rahui Papa who is an advisor to the Maori King and recently stood for parliament. It would be hard to rebut any part of Maori history from such an individual.

I was astonished to learn that Dame Susan Devoy referred to this story during her address at a dawn Waitangi Day ceremony this year at Mt Maunganui. I wrote to her office explaining that the story had no basis in fact, only to be told “that somebody told her it was so” I remain absolutely dumbfounded that a person of her standing, can so easily be duped.

The New Zealand Listener (25 Feb 2017) carried a six page article on Rangiaowhia, written by the historian Vincent O’Malley wherein he alludes to a death toll of up to 100. Interestingly his recently released book on the land wars did not include this claim.

In September this year Shane Te Pou told a similar story, live on the AM Show on TV3, as part of his campaign to have the Col Nixon memorial in Otahuhu removed.

These five references widely told by people in prominent roles is hard to ignore so I have been attempting to find official references to support the story. To date I have found none.

The sources I have looked at include Cowan, King, Belich and O’Malley. I have also read other historians interpretation of Cowan’s work. They all seem to agree that Cowan (who lived in the area as a child) was a very reliable source. He was fluent in Maori and interviewed many living participants of the wars. He was also considered to be sympathetic to Maori. His seminal work was The New Zealand Wars, published in 1922.

My analysis concludes that the story is false. The Catholic church at Rangiaowhia was not destroyed by fire with a large number of Maori civilians locked inside.

When I asked how such a story came to be told I was advised that it was a Maori oral history that must be accepted as fact, ahead of any other evidence. Personally, I discount such an assertion, as from my experience as a Genealogist I have found that the least reliable facts are handed down stories. It should be added that young Maori men had been educated by both the Anglican mission at Te Awamutu and the Catholic mission at Rangiaowhia since about 1841. It would be very surprising if a large number of the population in that area were not fluent in both English and Maori, both oral and written. Yet as far as I can ascertain there are no writings from Maori of the day on the subject.

In fact, there is irrefutable fact that the story cannot be true. Two examples are quoted below.

The Rev Father Vinay, who resided at the church for many years after the war, cleverly effaced and closed up the bullet holes left in the building after the skirmish, and yet these were long visible upon close inspection. The temporary stand made by the natives in the church formed the closing scene of that mornings encounter.

This is a footnote on Page 347 of Cowan’s first edition of 1922.

Interestingly the footnote is missing from the version available online.

“The churches still remain intact, two officers of the 50th regiment live in the Catholic church. The beautiful stained glass windows of the English church are entire.”

This from the NZ Herald dated 6th April 1864, some 16 days after the affair.

Other similar examples are easily found by online searches.

During all of my research into the Land Wars in general and Rangiaowhia in particular there are three separate issues that stand out to me.

Firstly, how so many people, trained historians included, tend to judge events of the past through the lens of today’s social mores. While things that were acceptable and commonplace 150 years ago are considered abhorrent today we should not judge the individuals involved from today’s perspective. A mere 20 years previously the British were flogging, hanging and transporting convicts for crimes unlikely to be punished today. In the same era Maori employed slavery and occasional cannibalism.

Secondly, some condemn the British for a vicious attack on unarmed, elderly civilians who were mainly women and children. This was plainly not the case as written histories explain that possibly half the inhabitants were armed adult males. Others, particularly Military Historians, believe the intent of the troops was to minimise casualties while closing down the farming operation thus cutting off supplies to the combatants in fortified Pa. Throughout history basic military strategy is to avoid conflict where possible by starving the opposition of food water and munitions. I personally believe that General Cameron employed such tactics to good effect. Actually, most historians cast Cameron in a good light for his efforts, often against orders, to minimise casualties on both sides.

Thirdly, while historians focus on the events of the few years preceding the Land Wars in my opinion they ignore, in the case of Rangiaowhia, the important years from 1841 and the people involved. Namely Sir George Grey, Capt. Hobson, Rev John Morgan and Thomas Power. The life of the latter is particularly interesting. Thomas Power was born in Waterford, Ireland and was transported to NSW for sheep stealing. It is believed he was known to Hobson (or his family) and was sent to NZ by Gov. Gipps as an aide to Hobson at Waitangi. He accompanied Hobson to Auckland and served as a courier. He was then sent to Te Awamutu c1845 by Gov. Grey with horses and farm implements to be employed by the Anglican Mission to introduce English farming methods to the community.

In this endeavour he was hugely successful. He married Rahapa te Hauata (believed born in Pirongia c1825) They raised a family of five children. Thomas and Rahapa made their home at Rangiaowhia and she was present with some of her children on the morning of the British attack. They are both buried in the cemetery in front of where the Catholic church stood. There is a memorial to them there, although their graves are unmarked. There is some conjecture that Grey and Power were also known to each other. Grey’s mother was born in Waterford and Grey spent some of his early military career there.

I think history has overlooked Gov. Grey’s involvement with Rangiaowhia.

Grey was largely instrumental in the establishment of a very successful horticultural enterprise in the area during his first term as Gov. General. (1845 – 1853) He was well regarded by Maori in general but particularly within the community at Rangiaowhia, which he visited twice. He arranged for two young Maori men to travel to England to present a bag of local flour to Queen Victoria. They were rewarded with portraits of the Queen and Prince Albert. One of which still exists. Grey was actually reprimanded for his action. In all of New Zealand the close bond Grey had with Maori was strongest at Rangiaowhia.

When Grey returned to New Zealand relationships between Maori and the British had changed markedly. It was because of Grey’s early rapport with Maori that he was recalled.

Grey considered that the Maori King Movement was is breach of the Treaty of Waitangi with their disloyalty to the Crown and the invasion of Waikato was his response. The Maori King Movement had earlier written to Gov. Browne stating “that as the Waikato tribes had never signed the Treaty of Waitangi and that they were a separate nation”. That assertion was false. The third largest gathering to sign the treaty was at Port Waikato in April 1841. Of the 32 signatories on that document most were from Tainui affiliated tribes such as Maniapoto and Ngati Apakura. The later having Rangiaowhia within their Rohe. There was also a treaty signing at Kawhia where again most signatories were affiliated to Waikato.

When examining Grey’s place in New Zealand history most would agree that he was probably the most influential individual and his achievements in the development of our nation are immense. He was not perfect however. My personal assessment of him as a man was that he was very much an authoritarian and did not like to be crossed. When challenged he was apt to bear a grudge and inflict penalties beyond the effect of the slight.

I think that can be borne out in the massive land confiscations that followed the Land Wars, much of which was returned within a short period when cooler heads prevailed.

I think Grey’s order to Cameron to clear out the settlement at Rangiaowhia was part military wisdom and part revenge. To his credit Cameron carried out his orders yet still successfully minimised losses. Maori would describe Grey’s actions as Utu.

My concern regarding the false story of the burning alive of large numbers of people is that is being told consistently for political advantage, by people of standing in our community who either know it not to be true, or worse, by people who cannot be bothered to seek the truth.

History tells us that the telling of large lies, loud and often, has worked well in other regimes.

Our country and especially the young deserve better.

By Murray H H Reid

7 October 2017

SAMUELS SAYS BOOT CAMP BETTER THAN WHANAU FOR OFFENDERS

Former Minister for Maori Affairs Dover Samuels says don't rely on whanau to help Maori prison inmates turn a corner because often home is where they learned to be criminals.

He said the call for greater whanau involvement in inmates' rehabilitation was "culturally correct claptrap".....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11840515

SOMEONE SHOULD DO SOMETHING! -- Well, ‘Democracy Action’ DID

What an amazing 24 hours for democracy and our campaign in Auckland. We’ve been sitting watching Auckland Council go through their final meetings on the Unitary Plan and I am proud to report to you that our campaign fighting for democracy and against the Mana Whenua provisions has been a success.

Yesterday began with the decision by Auckland Council to send the Unitary Plan straight to the Governing Body for consideration, avoiding unelected Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) members from voting on Unitary Plan decisions. This is something we had been calling for, and were seriously considering legal action had the members of IMSB been allowed to vote, (our lawyers advised that they were conflicted). Truly this is a victory for democracy!

After fighting for 2 years to protect the democratic and property rights of all Auckland citizens we also won two other important battles.

* The Independent Panel’s recommendation that Cultural Impact Assessment provisions be removed from the Unitary Plan was accepted.

* The Independent Panel’s recommendation that the remaining nearly 2,600 ‘sites of value’ be removed – the recommendation Council officials were opposing – was also accepted in full!

Our reaction to the Council’s votes are here and here.

THIS WOULD NOT HAVE HAPPENED WITHOUT YOU. If the hundreds of Democracy Action’s supporters and volunteers hadn’t stood in solidarity with us to say yes to democracy, and no to the dubious sites of value which were inserted into the Proposed Unitary Plan at the last minute, I believe the provisions would still be there.

The last 18 months have been intense. We know that hundreds made submissions, some appeared before the Hearings Panel and with so many of you, we, along with our lawyers, presented evidence a number of times.

While there is a lot to celebrate our work doesn’t end here. In the Unitary Plan there are still provisions that if implemented will undermine our democracy. These include provision for the co- governance and joint management of our physical and natural resources, which includes at the moment a push for the co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf!

http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2016/08/someone-should-do-something-well-democracy-action-did/

HOW MANY TIMES DO WE SIT AT HOME BEING OUTRAGED AND SAYING SOMEONE SHOULD DO SOMETHING?

These people have.

Congratulations for doing the hard work and standing up.

If you can't be bothered to get out of your chair, but you want the hard work done, CONSIDER SUPPORTING DEMOCRACY ACTION. http://www.democracyaction.org.nz/about

Take a bow Susan and Lee

PEOPLE MUST STOP BLAMING OTHERS (Waikato Times editorial 8/8/16)

By Peter Dornauf

It’s always someone else’s fault, isn’t it? Behave badly and it’s someone else to blame. It’s CYF’s fault, it’s Corrections’ fault, and best of all, it’s the colonisers’ fault.

Whenever is it going to be the fault of the people who perpetrate the crimes and the appalling behaviour?

We live in an age, particularly in this country, of passing the buck, of dodging personal responsibility, of looking to blame anyone but oneself for everything from recidivist criminal behaviour to child abuse and neglect.

Offloading the blame on to some government department has become par for the course in these islands. Children living in absolute squalor, dog shit covering the carpet: oh, it’s CYF’s fault. Maori criminal stats and reoffending sky high: oh, it’s Corrections’ fault.

When are people going to grow some balls in this country, accept personal responsibility and front up to their own culpability?

Looking for excuses and providing them has become a fine art in New Zealand. What that does is perpetuate emotional and moral adolescence, encouraging people to blame others for their own failings and shortcomings.

What it also does is facilitate the blunting of conscience. People cease to have any shame. The recent classic case must be the murderers of Moko.

Not content with hiding behind a manslaughter charge (failing to have the guts to front up to the real nature of the crime), these people now have the effrontery to appeal their conviction. These people are without shame, completely bereft of any moral compass and conscience.

Such moral vacuity is exemplified in the recent proposal of offering monetary bribes as an incentive for people to report child abuse cases. That authorities feel the need to stoop so low is an appalling ethical indictment on things as they stand in this country. While one appreciates the motivation behind such a move, the thing in itself is a shocking commentary the level of moral bankruptcy that exists in certain sections of the community here.

The fact is, some people seem not to know how to behave as civilised human beings and providing them with excuses and outs is not helping.

A case in point: The Waikato Hospital recently tried to be culturally accommodating. Aware that whanau in large numbers like to attend the birth of a child, they were happy to facilitate such a practice. But this has come back to bite the hospital and its birthing centre in the worst possible way. People have simply run amok. There has been vandalism, graffiti, theft and abuse of staff. Midwives have been threatened, a fish tank had milk poured into it, killing the fish, a donated artwork was ripped off a wall, staff property was stolen from the change room and bored children, left unattended, commandeered wheelchairs and raced them around the hallways. Others lounged across the floor of the hallway, creating a hazard for pregnant mothers and postnatal clients.

The Dunedin longitudinal study on human behaviour would say that those sort of people are ‘‘under-controlled’’, which is simply another way of saying they lack self-control. They never developed it as children and thus don’t exhibit it as adults. And they have a dozen excuses for its absence. It’s everyone else’s fault.

At the opposite end of the spectrum are those who are over-controlled. The ‘‘documentary’’ coverage played out on TV2 recently of yet again another soft focus look at the Cooperite cult at Gloriavale, is a classic example.

Here we see people whose lives are under absolute control to the nth degree. Everything from what they wear to what they are allowed to think to when they have sex is under strict supervision. North Korean president Kim Jong-un would be drooling if he could see.

The controllers of this small tribe are, of course, men, and the women, in this patriarchal setup, like good Stepford wives, submit. And everyone is happy clappy.

The one positive to come from this bizarre social experiment is that they’re not costing the taxpayer squillions of dollars in having to clean up any criminal, mental or physical mess after them. They’re not trashing hospitals, manufacturing and selling P or abusing and killing children, unless you count entrapment in the cult itself as psychological abuse.

The majority of well-balanced New Zealanders fall in the middle part of the spectrum – Maori, Pakeha, Pacific Islanders, Asian, Indian, Middle Eastern.

They take personal ownership of their lives, mature and self-controlled enough to operate responsibly inside a liberal democracy where freedoms for self-determination pertain.

And they don’t look to blame others if they happen to fall short of the mark.

But here’s a curious irony. Perhaps the under-controlled ones who lack their own inner resources, unable to handle the world of individualism, need the authoritarian and fascist control of a Gloriavale-like commune, living inside a kind of pre-modern tribal unit where not only rigid hierarchical structures operate, but strict taboos are enforced and overlaid with the fear of divine retributions.

DCC RATES POLICY MAY BE UNFAIR TO PAKEHA LANDOWNERS

The Dunedin City Council's decision to develop a rates remission policy to take into account the special relationship Maori have with the land is interesting, writes Gerrard Eckhoff.

All Dunedin City Council ratepayers will, I'm sure, be sympathetic yet intrigued to understand the principle the council has employed that allows for rates remission for Maori freehold land and not producing revenue (ODT, 19.7.16).

It is a policy that will be embraced by most, if not all, ratepayers, as it sets a wonderful precedent. Cr Hillary Calvert sensibly noted DCC staff should develop policy which included non-Maori land as well for consideration.

It won't take long for most Dunedin residents to coherently argue the "special relationship'' they have with their freehold residential property should also qualify for rates relief, as their home and surroundings are unlikely to produce any revenue by which they can pay their rates, yet pay rates they must.

Currently, councils are very even-handed. Both Maori and non-Maori ratepayers are too often denied the opportunity to create some revenue from their property because of planning rules.

Residential properties' owners have often been refused council permission to gain some revenue through subdivision because of (say) a beautiful specimen tree growing on their land that is viewed by the council planners as a public asset. Little consideration, if any, is given to the long-suffering owner of the tree as to shading, roots blocking drains and lifting concrete.

This outstanding proposal of rates remission will surely produce rational claims for rates relief for all property owners and will be extremely popular with property owners and councillors alike - especially in a local government election year.

Cr Jinty MacTavish is quoted as saying this (rates remission) is a cultural issue and must be viewed as such. She comments: "This is because Maori see themselves as kaitiaki [guardians] of the land'' which implies the rest of us don't.

Really? Try telling farmers they have no cultural attachment to the land, despite making a conscious decision to live and work on and with the land.

If the issue is about fairness and justice, as Cr Neville Peat suggests, then perhaps such wonderful concepts must apply beyond one's ethnicity.

Where is the fairness and justice when governments force private freehold land to be "laid off'' along rivers where no marginal strip applies?

Where is the rates relief or compensation when councils identify and "appropriate'' valuable significant natural areas (SNAs) on private freehold land which effectively renders such private land as non-revenue producing public property. (The words "laid off'' and "appropriate'' have been skilfully developed to replace the words "stolen'', "filched'' and "pilfered'' - by government decree).

The great value of rates on the capital value of land to councils is that they are applied to all privately held land with very few exemptions. Exactly the same principle applies to the successful GST. If bread, butter and cheese was to be exempt, how is a cheese roll served in a cafe to be viewed? Or milk being exempt but not a milkshake? The same principle applies to this rates remission proposal.

Many people have developed a strong personal and cultural objection to paying tax and rates as they feel they don't get value for money, yet most recognise each of us must contribute to the rates take, based on the value of the land held in private ownership - which surely includes the highly successful and extensive Ngai Tahu Holdings, including their land not producing revenue.

-By Gerrard Eckhoff, of Central Otago, is an Otago regional councillor.

http://www.odt.co.nz/opinion/opinion/391646/dcc-rates-policy-may-be-unfair-pakeha-landowners

HEIGHT OF HYPOCRISY

The announcement overnight that the Rotorua Lakes Council had been successful with its Te Arawa Partnership Project (TAP) in the NZ Local Government Excellence Awards for “the outstanding delivery of best practise value and services to their community” certainly raises some questions.

Firstly, for such an undemocratic change of appointing unnelected maori representatives to Council, which resulted in splitting the Rotorua community, and still does today, to win an Excellence Award strikes this writer as hypocritical. Particularly so when you take into account that the majority of Rotorua citizens did not support such a radical break from what had been the norm.(Rotorua Daily Post 68% against).

Granted, there needed to be an improvement in relations between Te Arawa and Council, but for the Mayor, Steve Chadwick, to proceed without any mandate to appoint unelected maori to Council Committee Meetings, with voting rights, was a step too far. Hence the Council experienced the most controversial process of consultation with the community ever, with accusations abound. And the Council wins an Excellence Award for significantly dividing our community?

Add to this is the fact that this undemocratic process will be the number one issue to be debated in the forthcomming elections, with the possibility that it could be reversed.

It is worth noting here that Te Arawa, a confederation of some 13 Iwi and 60 hapu with around 11,000 members, already had three maori representatives on Council, of the total of twelve. One could well ask why, and what ulterior motive did the Mayor have to proceed and divide the community as she has.

Then if one reviews the actual Entry Form the Council submitted there are clearly some ingenuous claims. Firstly the claim that “the project was innovative and original as iwi themselves came up with the model” is patently false. The model was in fact introduced to us Councillors in a Council Forum ( not confidential) on the 1st May 2014 by the Auckland legal company Atkins Holm Majurey. Then it was subsequently introduced toTe Arawa on 6th May, who took many months to fine tune the model that had previously been introduced to the Wellington Regional Council by the same legal company.

As for the comments in its Entry Form regarding “overt acts of racism and threats” are concerned, there is no doubt that both parties were guilty as the whole process involved a highly charged and emotive environment, which today again begs the question as to the validity of this very entry for such Excellence Awards.

Whilst there has been a clear drive by the Mayor to promote such undemocratic appointments with other Councils around the country, there does not appear to be much buy in to date. We all know what happened in New Plymouth with an 86% rejection of maori Wards, and one would not be surprised if the Masterton Mayor will no longer rule after the elections. And of course many people will be watching the outcome in Rotorua with the hope that democracy will be restored here.

By Mike McVicker, Rotorua District Councillor since 2004

https://www.facebook.com/MikeMcVickerforRDC/?fref=ts

SUPPORT FOR MARINE FARMING CAUSES CONCERN

A potential increase in marine farming in the Hauraki Gulf has sparked serious concerns from Waiheke representatives Mike Lee and Paul Walden.

Waitemata and Gulf councillor Mr Lee says the Sea Change process, which was set -up by Hauraki Gulf Forum to create a marine spatial plan for the gulf, is focused on the interests of aquaculture and iwi, instead of considering environmental protection.

"This Sea Change, if it's any change, it's a change for the worse.

"The Sea Change process has been captured by vested interests relating to aquaculture and iwi and it's focussed on money and power;' says Mr Lee.

A recent Sea Change round table report on aquaculture notes that the industry needs a "supportive regulatory environment" offering "certainty for business planning and investment", along with clean water and land based facilities.

The report highlights the commercial benefits of marine farming and describes methods for "managing potential ad-verse effects", such as ecological effects and impacts on landscape and natural character.

Mr Lee has opposed the "undemocratic" process from the start and says people are likely to fight against the Sea Change process from the start and says people are likely to fight against the Sea Change marine spatial plan as soon as they get a chance.

"A bunch of people are scheming up plans to exploit the Hauraki Gulf and keep the public shut out.

"I think there is going to be a public backlash when people see what is being presented" he says.

Mr Lee wants marine farms kept away from islands, such as Waiheke, and other popular bays and the needs of marine farming balanced with protecting the environment.

"It is all a matter of scale - some marine farming is good, but if people get too greedy and want to significantly expand it, there will be environmental impacts in terms of pollution and not just visual pollution.

"There is going to be a backlash if aquaculture is going to be significantly expanded in inner bays of the Hauraki Gulf and in the channels between the islands.

" Mr Lee says the members of the Sea Change group mostly live outside Auckland and are not concerned with balancing environmental needs with business opportunities.

Half of the 16 Sea Change steering group members are mana whenua representatives, and Mr Lee says the iwi interests are focussed on business not marine protection.

"The Sea Change group has to realise the gulf is not just there to exploit in terms of extraction, which is what they are interested in.

"The Hauraki Gulf should be a place of marine conservation and there's an important tourist and recreation aspect to the gulf, that is not being considered by Sea Change."

Waiheke Local Board chairperson Mr Walden is also alarmed by the way iwi and business interests are dominating the Sea Change process.

"The reality is we're having a spatial plan as a carving up of the Hauraki Gulf and there is a lot of talk about marine farming and other exploitative aspirations without any real focus on the purposes of the Hauraki Gulf Marine Park Act being to protect, maintain and enhance the gulf and its environment - and it's so unique internationally;' says Mr Walden.

A moratorium has been placed on any new marine farms in the Hauraki Gulf, but this could be lifted when the Sea Change marine spatial plan is completed, he says.

A Bryde's whale recently died after becoming entangled in mussel farm ropes in the gulf and marine farms also impact on the beauty of bays, says Mr Walden.

"Instead of looking at open water and people enjoying dolphins and whales jumping in the bay, suddenly we could have bays dominated by man-made structures, mussel buoys in rows or the more visually invasive and intensive fish farms;' says Mr Walden.

Fin fish farms create areas of condensed nutrients and excrement and feeding the growing fish requires intensive fishing, he says.

Farmed mussels filter seawater, but Mr Walden says it would be better to protect naturally occurring mussel beds than to create more shellfish farms.

"Over the past 60 years, people have dredged almost the entirety of the naturally existing mussel beds in the Hauraki Gulf and more energy needs to be put into protecting, maintaining and enhancing those that remain"

While fishing and aquaculture have been important commercial operations in the gulf over the past 50 years, tourism is likely to be a more significant industry in the future, he says.

Waiheke Local Board has been locked out of the Sea Change process, and no consultation with the public will be carried out before the plan is adopted by the Hauraki Gulf Forum.

However, the local board will present the results of its survey on marine protection to the Sea Change group.

"I'm offended to be in a position of being a decision maker for the Waiheke community and the islands of the Hauraki Gulf and finding there is no vehicle for us to have meaningful input into this process.

"Many people in New Zealand are fond of the Hauraki Gulf and we're entitled to have a say in how it is developed so our values are provided for;' says Mr Walden.

Sea Change involves representatives from mana whenua, the fishing industry, the Department of Conservation, the Ministry of Primary Industries, Auckland Council, and Waikato Regional Council.

The group had planned to complete its marine spatial plan by July, but the deadline has now been extended and the completion date remains uncertain.

* By Rose Davis

Gulf News 9/7/15

Gisborne Herald 19/5/15 (Column section)

PROTECTION WAS A MAJOR MOTIVE

By Bruce Moon

AS The Herald’s editorial on May 9 observes, “it is not known what (William) Williams told rangatira about the meaning of the Treaty” when it was offered to them for signature, but based on reports on other occasions and Hobson’s instructions we can get a pretty good idea.

A major motive for having a treaty at all was the protection the chiefs sought from other foreign powers. As noted, Williams “will have emphasised the protective role of the Queen”. That this could be offered makes plain that the Queen’s power was superior to their own. As Maori society was hierarchical with several chiefly ranks, they will have understood this.

As Hobson stated in his opening remarks at Waitangi, her Majesty offered that protection “but as the law of England gives no civil powers to Her Majesty out of her dominions, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent” to accept him as governor in her name — ranking higher than any of them. Recorded words of many chiefs make it clear that they understood this and agreed to it by signing the treaty. In short, this was cession of sovereignty.

This being a major point, Williams, a first-rate speaker of Maori, would certainly have addressed it at East Coast meetings in words the chiefs could understand.

If the chiefs chose to alter their views some 15 years later, as reported by Magistrate Wardell, it does not change the situation.

Initially the forces on the ground with which protection could be offered were tiny, but sufficient to deter foreign powers such as the French. That is why Akaroa did not become a French colony.

Within New Zealand, extension of effective sovereignty was inevitably gradual as it always is. That is why in 1843, following the accurately described massacre at Wairau, Governor Fitzroy chose not to prosecute the Ngatitoa chiefs for murder under British law.

With the East Coast remote from any centre of government, sovereignty was for some years only nominal. While it was peaceful, this was no problem. The situation changed rapidly with the rise of Pai Marire — the Hauhau. The murder and desecration of the bodies of Captain Lloyd and missionary Volkner as Hauhau influence spread eastwards were good reasons for alarm amongst settlers and tribes opposed to it alike.

There was no choice but to take action to subdue the Ngai Tamanuhiri, Rongowhakaata and Ngati Makino rebels. That is why, in 1865, government forces attacked and captured the rebel pa of Waerenga-a-Hika. When 400 surrendered near Wairoa in 1866, loyal chief Pitera Kopu said: “your lands are confiscated . . . but the government will allot you reserves . . . (you) crawled back as slaves, and by rights should be treated as such, but the tikanga of the Pakeha was one of aroha, and if they behaved well they would be treated fairly”. They ignored this fair warning.

It is true that at Ngatapa pa on January 4, 1869, Rapata Wahawaha, fighting for the government — reminiscent of Ngatitoa at Wairau — executed 120 Rongowhakaata prisoners. This was unlawful but understandable as personal revenge for his captivity and enslavement as a child by those whom he slaughtered.

What is sometimes overlooked is that Hauhau falling upon Matawhero the year before had slaughtered 33 settlers and 37 Maoris, followed on April 10, 1869 by the bayonetting of children at Mohaka.

In the light of this behaviour, quibbling today about what chiefs said in 1855 about 1840 agreements is a barren argument.

From the files of Alf Grumble

No shit – the world’s biggest Maori cultural event is being held now, but in which country?

Nope. Alf was not wrong when his ears pricked up this morning at some babbling from Radio NZ.

He has revisited the news item and it confirmed that the buggers who write the stuff for Te Manu Korihi News just love to portray the country’s indigenous persons as achievers of the the biggest, the brightest and the best.

Not only in this country. They are big globally.

And so the listening audience was told this morning:

The stage is set; the kapa haka crowds have booked out accommodation, and Hagley Park in Christchurch is the venue for the biggest Maori cultural event in the world – Te Matatini – which begins today with a massive powhiri just before midday.

The biggest Maori cultural event in the world?

No shit!

Now – stand up anyone who thought the biggest Maori cultural event in the world might have been held in – well, let’s say Bosnia, or Syria, or maybe China.

https://alfgrumblemp.wordpress.com/2015/03/04/no-shit-the-worlds-biggest-maori-cultural-event-is-being-held-now-but-in-which-country/

March 4th, 2015

Bay of Plenty Times article 10/3/15

CRAFTILY CHIPPING AWAY AT DEMOCRACY

By Richard Moore

I truly value democracy and, while I don’t always like the way many “sheeple” vote, it is all part of the process that supposedly gives power to the masses.

Of course, many voters are easily manipulated and, watching from the sidelines, I often put my head in my hands and almost sob in despair.

Other things that have me shaking my head are the rise of rule by faceless bureaucrats, the increasing secrecy of government at all levels and the increasing sidelining of voter power.

We just have to look at the way the public is ignored by local government — despite being the ones paying for the devils — and even our representatives, the councillors, face uphill battles when opposing staff-driven proposals.

What is even scarier is this ever-growing push to have unelected people making decisions that should really be made by those we have voted on to council.

Those councillors should listen to all groups before making a decision, but that decision should only be made by elected members.

In Tauranga, we have a constant push for a Maori ward.

That is unacceptable to most voters because it takes us out of the equation. I certainly believe in one person, one vote, and all votes being equal.

Because the idea of a Maori ward is so unpopular among most voters, some clever clogs seem to be switching the angle of attack to completely take it out of public debate.

They are doing this by considering granting a joint committee of tangata whenua and the city council “limited” decision-making powers.

Iwi and hapu representatives want more powers for the advisory committee and this is not being instantly rejected by the leaders of our city.

This is not a race thing. I would have just as much of an objection if farmers wanted decision-making powers, or the police, or school teachers or journalists.

It should be up to elected councillors and no one else.

Otherwise, democracy becomes even less democratic and the vast majority of people will become even more ignored, except as walking cash machines to pay for the wishes of the few.

Hi Simon

I listened resignedly to the Maori protagonist “Dr” Ngata advocating use of Maori names on emergency vehicles on Afternoons on Radio New Zealand, hosted by Simon Mercep on February 24..

Of course he appears to get support. Very few in NZ nowadays dare not to acquiesce to Maori requirements. To question threatens employment, career, business, and more. Positive response is often from those with an agenda, and time on their hands. Most in the productive community are too busy to bother.

It is only a matter of time before someone brainwashed in current maori dogma requests a waka turoro instead of an ambulance and confusion results. Maori is creeping in everywhere and does nothing useful, it just wastes time, generates confusion, and creates needless expense in signage, training etc.

The widespread adoption of long, difficult to remember, difficult to spell, difficult to pronounce, Maori place names where simple short, instantly identifiable European names have applied for more than a century, already causes confusion.

No member of the Police, St Johns, Fire Service with any career aspirations will dare criticise the concept. I note you avoided any searching questions.

Of course the local newspaper supports. Much of the advertising clientele are maori. Newspapers are very selective of Letters to the Editor and scrap any contributions likely to ruffle the PC indoctrinated multitude. Nom de plumes are not allowed so most persons are in any case afraid to express a contrary view.

If a secret poll of non maori were taken I suspect 90% would oppose. And may be surprisingly high if all those who could identify as maori were polled separately.

A Maori name on ambulances may avoid drivers being beaten up at incidents. But it is the wrong remedy, and just refocuses the anti establishment attitude on some other representative of order.

It sounded as if the spokesperson will be the judge of the success or otherwise of the trial. As with the Waitangi Tribunal findings, the outcome is entirely predictable.

No wonder many are keen to learn Te Reo. If it can lead to jobs as soft as that with the Maori Language Commission it is a shrewd career choice.

Some more. Emails from the local Council are signed off “Noku noa na”, complete with accents, the absence of which is considered one of the great merits of English. Now simple souls who struggle with English, and are handicapped in life accordingly, are expected to also absorb a huge expanded contrived maori vocabulary with mystifying accents.

I havent the faintest idea what noku noa na means, but based on the tenacity of much of my correspondence, it quite likely means means “boil your head”.

I now sign off all my replies with “needle nardle noo”

ANONYMOUS

GARETH MORGAN’S ‘UPPER HOUSE’ BETRAYS ALL NOTIONS OF DEMOCRACY

To reinstate an upper house in New Zealand would be an entirely backward move, regressing the entire political system the nation has developed. But to employ an upper house with 50% Maori representation not only defeats the purpose of a democracy, but also goes against the idea of the Treaty of Waitangi, which was intended to express the equality of every New Zealand citizen.

If New Zealand is to have an upper house, it must follow the path shown by the Australians, Canadians, Brits or Americans. Although none of those is perfect, they are all representative of the electorate.

Gareth Morgan’s proposal defeats democracy at its heart. He suggests that “Maoridom” should appoint the Maori members, and Parliament the others. That would mean that the citizens of New Zealand no longer have democratic control of their nation. One half of the upper house of New Zealand would be undemocratically appointed by a non-elected panel. Those appointed by Parliament, as in Canada, are at least being appointed by an elected government. If each house has equal legislative powers, as is the theory of such matters, then a full 25% of the New Zealand Parliament will be there undemocratically.....

Read Devon Mace's full article here > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2015/02/devon-mace-gareth-morgans-upper-house.html

THE TAIL WAGGING THE DOG

For many years as a practising teacher in New Zealand, I watched the gradual but tangible creep of Maori influence upon the NZ education system. ‘And what is wrong with that?’ the Maori educationists and culturally liberated activists, may cry......

Other manifestations of creeping Maori influence in education that I have witnessed first hand are:

1 At Wairoa College, after being appointed to the job by the Board of trustees and commencing teaching duties, I was required to be observed teaching the subject of metalwork, by the Ministry Inspector for Maori Studies, (a rose by another name, for those who know to whom I refer). Was this to assess my suitability to teach Maori students? If she was a skilled engineer then it was not apparent.

2 Another lady inspector from the Ministry cruised into the workshop. She demanded to know ‘to what degree I had incorporated aspects of ‘Taha Maori’ into the metalwork programme’. I replied, “To the same degree as the Maori Studies Department has done with ‘Taha Metalwork’. I am still awaiting a supply of ships nails.” She was not amused and left the workshop.

3 An edict was passed down from the Ministry that signage in classrooms had to be displayed in both Maori and English languages. The principal informed teachers that: frequently used terms and glossaries should also be available with their Maori equivalents. Keen to comply, I sought to find Maori equivalents for: micrometer, calliper, oxy-acetylene, and so on, to no avail. I sent a memo to the HOD of the Maori Studies Department, asking for assistance. He told me to disregard it, since it was all BS. I had to agree, but wouldn’t it be nice if we could nail down the faceless individuals who put this stuff in motion.

4 The Maori Art & Crafts teacher plus other Maori teachers and students, held a ceremony to plant some ‘Pouwhenua’ in the school grounds. (No they’re not flowers.) These were duly blessed by a Ratana priest. Now they are tapu and cannot be interfered with. A lovely aesthetic touch don’t you think, but do Pakehas understand the political connotations, I think not. (Pouwhenua are carved poles, traditionally placed to stake out territory, or mark tapu locations. Take your pick.) Where was this headed I asked myself. Funny! I thought, this was a state school that belonged to everyone in the community. I do not recall any consultations with the wider community, it just happened, under the radar.

5 I, along with other new staff at the school, had to compulsorily attend a three day ‘Marae Course’. What the objective was, or if there was any benefit to the teachers concerned, I am not sure, but the Marae collected some nice kohas. Why it took three days, remains a mystery. Was it to assess our suitability to teach Maori students, AFTER we had been appointed by the Board of Trustees, or was it some statement, or subtle form of intimidation? You’re on our turf. At other schools, new teachers to the school generally receive a compulsory welcome onto the school marae. One hour. Charming. I can get to recite my whakapapa.

6 When I taught at Opotiki College, if any Maori student disrupted lessons, they were scheduled to be interviewed by the School Marae Committee, when it next convened. Non-Maori students were dealt with the same day and generally did detention. The difference in the results of the two protocols was markedly noticeable. There were no apologies or improvements in conduct from those students dealt with by the Marae Committee. Hang on! Isn’t this a race-based protocol? Isn’t that called ‘apartheid’? Oh no, silly me.

7 The Jim Moriarty Maori Drama Academy turned up at Opotiki College to give a performance. I do not recall the title of the performance, but what I do recall is the ‘race hate’ message of the play. It portrayed nasty pakehas and honourable Maoris. The acting was from the heart. I regarded the play content as offensive propaganda. I was astounded that the school administrators would allow such content into the school. The school administration routinely bent over backwards to appease the local iwi, (whose members had previously pulled down the NZ flag at the Council Building, hoisted the Kotahitanga flag and occupied the Council Chambers). Yes the school’s upper management resembled a croquet pitch. But never mind, the performance was an example that Maori were good actors and other young Maori would be similarly inspired. What was really remarkable was that non-Maori students had to compulsorily attend the performance, and pay an entry fee for the opportunity to be offended.

8 Whilst teaching at Wairoa College and again at Opotiki College, part-way through my mathematics classes there was a regular exodus of Maori students headed to ‘Kapa Haka’ practice. The consequence was, that these students missed out on so much learning in the subject, that they were not able to reach the required achievement levels in numeracy. Let’s blame it on the Pakeha system that does not address Maori students’ needs.

9 At the most recent school I taught in, the morning staff meetings had to begin with a ‘waiata’. We are doing this the Maori way, so get used to it......

Read Tony Sayers's full enlightening blog here > http://www.nzcpr.com/the-tail-wagging-the-dog/#more-14076

Have Your Say: Embargoed Sites

Further to Kevan Marks' letter entitled Many Questions (Advocate 14/01/2015) regarding destruction of evidence of pre-Maori occupancy of NZ:

It is unsurprising that authorities are not being advised of new discoveries until fully documented photographs and carbon dating of artifacts have been established.

Why? Because the immediate "official" response is to bulldoze the site, impose a 75 year embargo on the region, or advise local iwi who rapidly declare the area sacred to prevent further investigation.

There are more than 100 such embargoed sites in NZ. Yes, Kevan, what don't they want us to know?

I have just viewed one website with photographs of an immense earthen pyramid, stone walls extending for miles, and religious cairns in Northland. Artifacts on this site have been carbon-dated at around 5000 years old.

The location was not disclosed - probably because the "discoverers" were led to the site by a bulldozer driver who was occupied in demolishing other structures in nearby areas.

Millions of dollars are at stake arising from Maori claims that they are the indigenous people of NZ, thus any evidence that casts doubts upon NZ being uninhabited when their ancestors arrived is a serious threat to their money tree - and also raises the ugly question of mass extermination of an earlier people.

Ngapuhi chieftain David Rankin (a direct descendant of Hone Heke) states unequivocally that when his ancestors arrived, there were people on the shore to greet them - and puts it even plainer by saying "Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa."

Are our governments, "historians" and part-Maori spokespersons collaborating to conceal damning evidence?

Kiwis should rise above their apathy and insist upon a Royal Commission of Enquiry into our true history so that we can all determine fact over fiction.

MITCH MORGAN, Kaipara

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11388503

Regarding “Wanganui” and Whanganui”

I have a most interesting book entitled Richard Taylor: Missionary Tramper, published by A.H. and A.W. Reed, written in 1966 by A.D. Mead who also wrote Wanganui River (1957). I quote from his introduction, “One source of variation was due to dialect; in particular the aspirate h, whether by itself or in the combination wh, was fully sounded only among the Ngapuhis of North Auckland; further south it was either lightly sounded or almost suppressed…”

I see four reasons not to change “Wanganui” to “Whanganui”......

Continue reading Guy Steward's interesting blog - click > HERE

Pou to be admired ... not discussed

By Rodney Hide

I am quite taken by the striking Maori totems on the new Kopu and Waikato Expressway bridges. I figured the taxpayer was milked for them. There would be outrage if they were Christian crosses but somehow they are okay because they're Maori.

I decided to find out more. A Google search turned up nothing. I emailed the New Zealand Transport Agency. I thought it would have a brochure to explain the history and spiritualism behind what are I now know to be called pou. Nope. Nothing.

There followed six months of emailing back and forth. Finding out about pou was harder than pulling state secrets.

The best the Transport Agency could produce was that the eight pou whenua at the Kopu Bridge were part of the "Tangata Whenua Mitigation Plan", which, in turn, was a condition of the bridge's resource consent. Taxpayers funded the pou for Ngati Maru because they are kaitiaki (guardians) of the Waihou River.

The four pou erected on the new Waikato River bridge on the Ngaruawahia section of the Expressway, it was explained, tell the stories of Tainui's involvement with the river.......

Continue reading full article > http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=11373908

Maori Appointments to Council

The issue of Maori Wards on Councils has certainly been rearing its head around the Country recently. Here in Rotorua this political demand by Maori is certainly heating up again and will come to a head on Thursday 18th December at the final Council meeting of the year.

This week speculation proved to be correct when it was confirmed that our Mayor, Steve Chadwick, was behind a proposal to push significant change relating to Maori appointments through at this very last meeting. She was clearly hoping that the political fallout will fade over the Christmas holidays.

A very similar proposal to give Iwi two unelected representatives on the Rotorua District Council (now the Rotorua Lakes Council), plus 50% control of the Resource Management Committee was similarly launched by the Mayor in May. Once the public were alerted to this somewhat underhand move, it was flatly rejected by Rotorua ratepayers.

With the new Mayor some 14 months into her first term, it must be acknowledged that she has achieved some significant changes, and many improvements to what had become a rather stagnant city.

However, in recent times the Council, with the support of the Mayor, has increasingly paid lip service to due process and pushed through numerous contentious items,. Unsurprisingly, pubic tolerance of such behaviour is fading. As a result of this unilateral decision making we are seeing a Ministerial type of operation in the Council with elected members increasingly left in the dark. Hence it came as no surprise to find out this week that the intention of the Mayor was to push this change through at the last meeting of the year.

Such tactics would be ill-advised and hopefully backfire. Ramming through unelected representation will push the boundaries of democracy, and once again divide our community.

What is of particular interest in this case, is that only last month the Council voted on Maori Wards, and rejected the proposal unanimously. The difference however is that what is being proposed now, as in May, is Appointments to Council, not Maori Wards. The rational here is that using the Appointment process eliminates the opportunity for 5% of the electors to force a referendum.

The Mayor has claimed that Maori Wards and Maori Appointments are completely separate issues. We say rubbish! Both are race-based approaches.

Clearly, the Mayors continuing campaign, without any mandate from the community, must be actively opposed.

Consequently a group of like-minded people have established the Rotorua Pro Democracy Society to defend our democratic rights. Our objective is to maintain the status quo. It is worth noting that the Rotorua Lakes Council currently has three Maori Councillors of the twelve, so one could rightfully argue that Maori are already well represented in Rotorua.

This week our group has forced the Mayor to declare her hand as to her intentions, with the resultant media coverage, and consequent public outrage. Next weeks outcome will be a close call as the Mayor does have her loyal band of Councillors to perhaps help her secure a majority of 7 of the 13 votes required.

However, in the meantime pressure will go on all Councillors as we have made it clear that this issue will not go away, and if necessary will be a major issue at the next elections.

Mike McVicker is a fourth term councillor on the Rotorua District Council. If you share Councillor McVicker's concerns, and would like to express them, the email addresses for all members of the Council are:

Steve.Chadwick@rdc.govt.nz (Mayor)

dave.donaldson@rdc.govt.nz (Deputy Mayor)

peter.bentley@rdc.govt.nz

mark.gould@rdc.govt.nz

karen.hunt@rdc.govt.nz

rob.kent@rdc.govt.nz

mike.mcvicker@rdc.govt.nz

trevor.maxwell@rdc.govt.nz

merepeka.Raukawa-tait@rdc.govt.nz

glenys.searancke@rdc.govt.nz

charles.sturt@rdc.govt.nz

tania.tapsell@rdc.govt.nz

janet.wepa@rdc.govt.nz

http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/mike-mcvicker-maori-appointments-to.html#more

Nonsense reasoning behind council rebrand

Recall the Mayor’s thwarted attempt to give undemocratic power to Te Arawa. Remember also that, the iwi already ‘owns’ our lakes, and like all interest groups, looks for opportunities to expand its power and influence. Fair enough.

But they must have opened the champagne when the Mayor justified the ram-through strategy on the 28th by announcing that “Using the word 'lakes' also gives acknowledgement to our Te Arawa partners.” Hold on. Partners with our elected representatives? When did that happen? Or is this yet another pretend change?

There we have it. The decision to symbolically ‘rebrand’ the Rotorua District Council as ‘Rotorua Lakes Council’ is part of a cunning plan to symbolically revitalize the Mayor’s Te Arawa Partnership dream instead of actually involving all citizens in a fresh process of building a Cultural Engagement Policy on common ground. .......

Read Reynold Macpherson's full exposing blog > http://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.co.nz/2014/12/reynold-macpherson-nonsense-reasoning.html#more

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

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

Well said that man...

“Is it a pre-requisite to be an idiot to run for local body politics? New Plymouth’s Mayor Andrew Judd has dreamed up the idea that the law should be changed so that half of all councillors are Maori. He’s already wanting to create a Maori ward.

He bases all of this on the Treaty – yes, the same Treaty the Tribunal suggested hadn’t ceded authority to the British.

“Top tip for the Andrews of this world: firstly, councils are in the business of mowing lawns, collecting rubbish, not for social and historic engineering; secondly, no country’s future is based on segregation – or giving one race a false hope, or false start, or false advantage based on nothing more than skin colour.

“This is a recipe for disaster and acrimony, and New Plymouth - not to mention the rest of the country – deserves a hell of a lot better.”

Mike Hosking, co-host TVNZ Seven Sharp, 24 November 2014.

We need a fresh look at the Treaty

By Gareth Morgan

Every group needs an equal say — granting unique power to anyone is a quick path to a divided nation.

Big changes are being discussed over the way political power is shared, changes that should make all Kiwis sit up and take notice.

There is definitely a conversation to be had about Maori aspirations, but the Waitangi Tribunal is not the place to be having it.

In recent weeks the Waitangi Tribunal found that Ngapuhi and other Far North tribes did not intend to cede sovereignty when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi. If taken to its logical extreme, this means that Maori who signed the Maori version of the Treaty didn't hand over the reins of sovereignty to the Crown.

This finding contradicts not only earlier tribunal findings but also the reality that sovereignty does lie with the Crown - after all it's the Crown Maori have been negotiating with and which taxes New Zealanders to pay settlements.

Meanwhile, a debate is stirring over Maori representation on local councils. The New Plymouth Mayor, Andrew Judd, already embroiled in a debate over whether his council should have a Maori ward, is calling for all councils to have Maori provide half of their councils. This, he believes, would better "reflect" the Treaty of Waitangi. Demonstrating if nothing else, just how dynamic interpretations of the Treaty have become, the Judd model seriously undermines democracy in New Zealand.......

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11368383

Maori seat poll valid

Northland Age Editorial

THE response from iwi leaders has been cool, but the Far North District Council's plan to gauge the entire community's attitude towards the addition of Maori-only seats to the council table is a valid one.

The mood amongst iwi has hardened over recent days, perhaps thanks to the Waitangi Tribunal's finding that Ngapuhi signatories to the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 did not cede sovereignty to the Crown. This clearly has some believing that iwi have gained greater political status, a view expressed today by Ngati Kuri Iwi Trust Board chairman Harry Burkhardt, who claims that the council is tied to the high-level partnership between iwi and the Crown.....

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northland-age/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503402&objectid=11367449

Better relationships with Maori

By John Carter (Far North Mayor)

What nobody needs is vexatious issues surrounding Maori land still unresolved with the prospect of Treaty settlements just around the corner."

One of the most crucial political and social determinations the Far North District Council will make in its current term of office is the question of how best to develop new levels of partnership with our Maori community. With people of Maori ethnicity making up close to half the population of the district, it is critical that meaningful relationships are developed with iwi and hapu if we are to progress as a district. Early in the New Year we will conduct a public poll which will seek a simple yes or no response on whether the Far North District Council should have dedicated seats at the council table for Maori. This is a decision which has to be made by the community rather than the council. If the community’s answer is ‘yes’, we will take this into account when we conduct a mandatory review of boundaries and representation arrangements before the next local elections.

Of course, reviewing Maori representation is only one part of the picture. We will also continue to look at non-electoral options for improving relationships and dealing with other issues that concern Maori. High on the priority list is the historically vexed issue of rates on Maori land. For more than 50 years, we have struggled to find the right approach. As a consequence, the owners of land that is in Maori freehold title have progressively been disenfranchised, their connections with their ancestral land severed and their ability to settle on their land and derive an income from it negated.

We think we may now have found an approach which will bring the land back into production and provide an enlightened basis on which rates will actually be paid moving forward. From the number of inquiries we have been getting from Maori freehold land owners, it’s clear they share our views and want the partnership developed further.

There are still some issues to be resolved with the Maori Land Court. In the longer term, there may be a need to change the law underpinning the way valuations are set on land in Maori title so that the rates charged are more in line with those charged on land held in General title. It is essential that these formal relationships are developed as quickly as possible so we can all move ahead positively. What nobody needs is vexatious issues surrounding Maori land still unresolved with the prospect of Treaty settlements just around the corner.

Even the Local Government Commission has acknowledged there are relationship issues which are going to have to be addressed and is working with the Northland Iwi Leaders Forum on a nonelective Maori representation model which could be incorporated in any reorganisation plan.

The Northland Age

Northland Age Waitangi Tribunal summary

TRIBUNAL SUMMARY

The following is the Waitangi Tribunal’s summary, word for word, of its conclusions in stage 1 of the Northland Inquiry:

• The rangatira who signed te Tiriti o Waitangi in February 1840 did not cede their sovereignty to Britain. That is, they did not cede authority to make and enforce law over their people or their territories.

• The rangatira agreed to share power and authority with Britain. They agreed to the Governor having authority to control British subjects in New Zealand, and thereby keep the peace and protect Maori interests.

• The rangatira consented to the treaty on the basis that they and the Governor were to be equals, though they were to have different roles and different spheres of influence. The detail of how this relationship would work in practice, especially where the Maori and European populations intermingled, remained to be negotiated over time on a case-by-case basis.

• The rangatira agreed to enter land transactions with the Crown, and the Crown promised to investigate pre-treaty land transactions and to return any land that had not been properly acquired from Maori.

• The rangatira appear to have agreed that the Crown would protect them from foreign threats and represent them in international affairs, where that was necessary. Though Britain went into the treaty negotiation intending to acquire sovereignty, and therefore the power to make and enforce law over both Maori and Pakeha, it did not explain this to the rangatira. Rather, in the explanations of the texts and in the verbal assurances given by Hobson and his agents, it sought the power to control British subjects and thereby to protect Maori. That is the essence of what the rangatira agreed to.

Taranaki Daily News editorial

COMMONLY HELD TREATY BELIEFS JOLTED

The Waitangi Tribunal gave the country plenty to think about over the weekend with the release of its findings on Stage 1 of the Te Paparahi o Te Raki Inquiry. Most New Zealanders will get their understanding of the tribunal’s conclusions from media accounts. But no matter how the critical bits of the hefty report are disseminated, commonly held beliefs about the Treaty of Waitangi and its place in our governmental arrangements will be jolted.

The tribunal says the rangatira who signed the Treaty in 1840 did not cede their sovereignty. Hence they did not cede their authority to make and enforce law over their people and within their territories. They agreed only to share power and authority with the governor.

They and Governor William Hobson would be equals but with different roles and different spheres of influence. How this would work, especially where Maori and European populations intermingled, would be sorted out case by case over time.

‘‘But the rangatira did not surrender to the British the sole right to make and enforce law over Maori,’’ the report declares. The Treaty therefore did not entitle the British to move in and take over the country’s governance.

This finding inevitably will be the stuff of politicking. Te Tai Tokerau MP Kelvin Davis, calling for calm and for "wise heads" to sit down and discuss the implications, said some "red necks" might view the report as Maori separatism (although he believed it could bring people together). Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty said Treaty Minister Chris Finlayson now must engage with the Waitangi Tribunal on the implications for the Crown.

Finlayson, NZ’s AttorneyGeneral, does not need gratuitous advice. He has a formidable track record for signing several Treaty settlements and for apologising for wrongs done historically by the Crown. He said the report did not change the fact that the Crown had sovereignty.

True. But it will change attitudes to the legitimacy of that sovereignty and will heighten Maori expectations about their entitlements.

Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand

By Michael Botur

‘Maori and Pakeha Need Each Other’. Interview With Ngapuhi Chief David Rankin

David Rankin: does the name sound familiar? He is a chief and elder of Ngapuhi, a fearless warrior unafraid of controversy because he has a strong conscience and a powerful pedigreed whakapapa to back him up. David represents the culture within Maoridom of speaking your mind and knowing that the truth will set you free. elocal has, over the last five years , tirelessly brought you theories and archaeological evidence about people who have been here before Kupe first arrived, and now David wants it verified.

elocal: “You recently voiced support for historians who claim that New Zealand was settled much earlier than commonly accepted. Are you merely supporting free speech and political incorrectness, or do you genuinely believe that there were other civilizations here in NZ before the arrival of Kupe circa 1250AD?”

DR: “Let me just start off and say this, Maori are not the indigenous people of Aotearoa New Zealand. There were many other races already living here long before Kupe arrived. I am his direct descendant and I know from our oral history passed down 44 generations. I believe this needs to be investigated further because every Maori community talks about Waitaha, Turehu and Patupaiarehe. This goes hand-in-hand with the other research. As Maori, we have come to a time of maturity where we need to debate these issues. I want to get to a genuine consensus about this issue, although I think academics want it to disappear. If we start talking about it and investigating it, it’s an exciting opportunity to explore. My ancestors like Kupe came to the Hokianga in search of other people. In the Waima ranges, there was a pipi shelter on the mountains, and the kuia used to talk about the fair skinned people up there. A lot of people identify as Paniora (translated as Spaniard), indicating that the Portuguese and Spanish washed up on ancient ships in Northland. In 2002, I went to the Austronesian Leaders Conference in Taiwan and we discussed similarities with Taiwanese Aborigines. We traced our origins and the Maori and Polynesian connection to China. All the leaders such as myself and Matiu Rei, Aborigines, Solomon islanders, Rapa Nui and Hawaiians were all interested in early settlement theories. There is a lot of writing about the whole ancestral link. Really, Maori didn’t navigate here, we came on a tidal drift. Te Tai Tokerau is actually the tidal drift from the Tokelau islands. When my ancestors arrived at the shores of Aotearoa, there were people here to greet them. The question is: who are those people? It goes hand-in- hand with our oral history. There are questions written by Ian Wishart, Noel Hilliam and others that need to be answered.”......

Continue reading this fascinating interview click - click > HERE