The Maori circus comes to Whangarei District Council

THE MAORI CIRCUS COMES TO WHANGAREI DISTRICT COUNCIL

As a Whangarei District Council (WDC) ratepayer and a staunch supporter of democracy, one law for all and racial equality I tuned into the Youtube coverage of the WDC public meeting on the 29th August 2024 which was primarily about the retention of separatist Maori Wards. (a)

The Mayor to his credit did a reasonable job of containing a potential volatile situation with a roomful of Maori ward supporters and a few New Zealanders. The Mayor stated that he had previously heard all the arguments before and this time around was hoping to hear something different - perhaps he was hoping to hear the truth?

True to form the meeting was peppered with misinformation and half truths from Maori wardist speakers, they cleverly played the race, victim, emotion and white guilt cards.

LEN BRISTOWE
Len Bristowe (a fine Maori name?) was the first public speaker who prattled on for about 3 minutes in a language that approximately 4% of New Zealanders understand, very helpful in a public Governmental meeting where English is New Zealand’s COMMON language. Cr Phoenix Ruka later also resorted to this nonsense, which in my opinion is a form of Maori control – New Zealanders respectfully sit there while they babble on in a language that will never be NZ’s common language - rudeness displayed at its best.

Mr Bristowe was followed by his colleague Delaraine Armstrong, a group rep for a race-based entity named Te Karearea, who claimed the Treaty of Waitangi is a Crown / Maori partnership, she further claims the Chiefs did not cede sovereignty - I will address this misinformation later.

Then the floor of dissidents broke out into a time wasting, feel good Maori sing song (the 1st of 3 occasions), why was this nonsense permitted?

TIM HOWARD
Tim was the next speaker and like some councillors below, is someone who I believe rats out their own race and culture for the warm glow that comes from lining up with supposedly “oppressed” peoples. Tim harked back to He Whakaputanga (1835 Declaration of Independence) - more on this later.

1) Tim said, Maori chiefs made space at the the table for the English Crown to control the behaviour of English and other newcomers. <> The fact is that in 1831 the northern chiefs wrote to King William IV begging the Brits to protect them primarily from the French (who they feared), secondly to protect them from fellow marauding tribes and lastly for control of a few wayward settlers that it appears 80,000 brave warriors could not control? (b)

2) To his credit he confirmed that Maori ward councillors are primarily there to benefit Maori only <> Which is blatant racism.

3) Tim said we have come too far not to go further <> what does he mean ‘go further’? 50 Maori/50 non-Maori seats on council or all Maori?

4) He alluded to tyranny of the majority <> Extremist minority groups often raise the spectre of the tyranny of the majority in their call for special government favours. But that is a cop out.

A population is made up of individuals, each with their own individual views that need to be respected.

That they concur with others over how their country or council should be run to make up a majority, is not a crime but a strength.

The majority view is the summation of all of the individual minority views. It’s not tyranny, it is the wisdom of the crowd.

Cr PHOENIX RUKA
Now we come to Cr Phoenix Ruka who in my view along with Cr Scott McKenzie share the prize for the most plausible history twisters of the day.

1) Ruka claims that Maori formulated the Treaty <> In a roundabout way perhaps they did when begging for protection from King William IV (b), but Lieutenant Hobson had instructions from Lord Normanby to gain the willing consent of the natives for the transfer of sovereignty, Hobson did this through the Treaty. (c)

2) Ruka said Maori invited the world to be part of NZ <> the truth is, Hobson in the preamble to the Treaty said “already many of Her Majesty’s subjects have settled in the country and are constantly arriving: And that it is desirable for their protection as well as the protection of the natives to establish a government amongst them” (c)

3) He goes on about a generational decision, this is not about the current Maori ward councillors it is for his descendants <> Fair enough, but the majority of New Zealanders also care about the future of NZ and prefer democracy, one law for all and racial equality over racism and tribalism.

4) Ruka said in 1854 first Government was established and that Maori were locked out of voting because of communal land holding <> Firstly not all Maori were locked out, I understand that Maori who met the property qualification did vote.

Secondly, when a legislature was established in 1852/4 in NZ, naturally the British model was followed with a property qualification and many settlers were excluded. Country electorates had far fewer voters than town ones so their electors had much more power in the scheme of things.

So plenty of settlers had just as much to complain about as any Maori!!

Because very few Maoris had an individual property qualification it is true that initially few had the right to vote. Then it was realized that most Maori land was held communally so most Maoris, it could be said, were landholders in their own way.

Therefore, about 1867, the rules were altered so that Maori men holding land in common, i.e. most of them, were enfranchised but the rules were not altered for settlers. For some years therefore, virtually all Maori men had the vote but a great many settlers did not - clearly it was the settlers, not the Maoris, who were at a disadvantage! (d)

5) He claims that in 1868 only four electorates for Maori were established at a time when Maori outnumbered non-Maori <> In 1867 four seats were created, on a temporary basis because of land title issues, for a population of 56,000 Māori when a European population of 171,000 enjoyed 72 seats.

However the time frame for these seats was extended and eventually never abolished because of the fear that Maori would flood the European roll ~ this because the Act saw male Māori receive the right to vote irrespective of any property qualification, twelve years before non-Māori. (e)

6) Ruka said if you really wanted to be one then you would take time to learn Maori language culture etc, as Maori learnt English language and culture <> Early Maori adopted the English language and culture as they were wise enough to see it as the way forward in a changing society. It is neo Maori activists that want to revert back to tribal warfare, slavery, cannibalism and child infanticide.

7) Typically he blames the ‘coloniser system’ for negative Maori society stats <> The ‘coloniser system’ is not the cause of their misfortunes. The causes are welfare dependency, family breakdown, parenting and educational failure – problems that do not discriminate according to ethnicity.

8) He alludes that the system is to keep Maori suppressed <> How then does he account for generous YEARLY Maori funding (over a $Billion)) (f), 5 Billion in Treaty settlements (g) and at least 20 special Maori privileges (many legislated) that are available to no other race? (h)

9) He goes on about planting a seed <> The only seeds that he and his ilk want to plant are those of racial separatism which in my view will eventually grow into civil unrest.

Cr CAROL PETERS
1) Cr Peters said her father or grandfather obtained milk from Maori farmers, because their farms were isolated they had less chance of containing the smallpox virus <> Mmmm so Maori farmers had cows and legal title to their land ~ I wonder who we thank for the cows and legal title?

2) She said that Maori return servicemen were denied ballot farms after the wars <> During World War I (1914-1918) the New Zealand government decreed that soldiers returning from overseas service would be given the opportunity to settle on farms of their own, specially purchased and developed for that purpose.

Farmland was available mainly to non-Maori soldiers. In the time before the great drift of Maori from the country into towns, Maori veterans were assumed to have tribal land.

There were conditions for eligibility for farms, including previous farming experience and how much personal money the applicant had available to put into the farm.

Around the Second World War under the first Labour government, Maori were provided with equal financial treatment in standard rates of pay on public works, unemployment benefit, and sustenance payments.

An ethnic difference in treatment appears after World War 1 - while there was NO ethnic difference after World War 2, corresponding to the races living apart in the early part of the century and integrating by the middle of the century. As integration continued no separate treatment was called for, or justified. (i)

3) The racial division in our society she speaks of is caused by Maori supremacists who in their complete lack of ethical individualism are unable to transcend tribal mentality.

Apart from racist representation they are making claims for our coastline, making a grab for our freshwater resouces, want a new written constitution based on the Treaty that will relegate all other NZers to second class citizens, entrench Maori language, history and culture in our education system, rename our country and many other placenames and impose Maori lore into our Justice system.

4) Equity: Fairness is a great ideal and as far as political systems go, Democracy with its “one law for all” has proven to be the most effective way of delivering it. everybody plays by the same legal rules and is on the same voting system – which is fair!

Cr NICHOLAS CONNOP
From memory Cr Connop said that you do not need to be Maori to stand as a candidate in a Maori ward <> It's true that non-Maori can stand as candidates in Maori ward seats but those lacking a Maori ancestor cannot qualify for the Maori roll, as I understand, unless they make up a story about having a Maori ancestor. Further, being on the Maori roll locks them in to voting for Maori ward candidates ~~ ie: unable to vote for a candidate in geographic ward if say that candidate was a preferred choice and of Maori descent.

Tribalism also becomes an issue in Maori wards, because the strongest tribe in the electorate may push their candidates forward, or gain tribal benefits at the detriment of other Maori in the electorate.

Cr SCOTT McKENZIE
Lastly we come to Cr McKenzie who asks the Council whether we uphold the intent of the Treaty or continue with under representation for Maori <> The primary intent of the Treaty was the transfer of chiefly authority to the Queen’s sovereignty and the rights and privileges of British subjects were granted to all Maori (a boon to the many slaves), this alone negates any notion of separate representation in Local Government or Central Government for that matter.

The fact is that the Queen of England could have no civil powers out of her domain so needed to gain sovereignty ~~ so this was the intent of the Treaty. (j)

1) He said Maori have not been proportionally represented - It is only activist Maori that feel they have been unfairly represented, other Maori (most) are represented as New Zealanders.

2) McKenzie said that the Treaty was signed by Maori chiefs and it said Maori would control their land and taonga <> Article 2 guaranteed ALL New Zealanders ownership of their property (in usage or occupied at the time) (c)

3) He said that Maori could only sell their land if the Government allowed them to <> Article 2 stated “But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.” ~~ this was to protect Maori from unscrupulous buyers. (c)

4) Mckenzie said the Treaty was an agreement between two states <> Valid treaties can only be made between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840.....(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round - law lecturer Canterbury uni)

The Treaty was not a true treaty it was a simple transfer of sovereignty agreement and and had served its purpose the moment it was signed.

5) He accuses the Crown of breaking the Treaty <> Noted historian Dr John Robinson who has worked for several Government entities, writes that The Crown, the several Governors, and the government never broke the Treaty of Waitangi. All actions taken were in accord with the accession of sovereignty and the assertion of British law. A number of Maori chiefs, and their iwi, committed acts of treason and rebellion, in contradiction of the Treaty of Waitangi. He cites the ‘Te Kooti massacre’s and the ‘treason of the Waikato king movement’ as examples of many. (k)

6) He said that the Government imposed laws designed to harm Maori <> Since 1840 many Statutes have been passed with good intention to help maori adapt to changing times. But today’s crop of agenda driven griever Maori and their European sycophants twist these to put them in bad light.

A prime example is the Native Schools Act 1867 which decreed that English should be the only language used in the education of Maori children, today’s part-Maori grievers spread the tale that ‘m

Maori was beaten out of the children’, yes in some cases children were physically punished for speaking Maori, in those days ALL children were physically punished if school rules were breached.

The opportunist grievers conveniently forget that this was at the request of the wise Maori elders who wanted Maori children to be equipped for the changing society and economy that colonisation brought. There was/is no law preventing Maoris from keeping their language or culture alive in their own environment as many other races do.

If the government had not of helped Maori learn the English language then today’s grievers and their European sycophants would be beating the door down at the Waitangi Tribunal and bleating that the government breached the TOW in not treating maori as equal British subjects by not making the English language available to them. - Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

7) McKenzie said the South Island sold to Governor Grey 1846 for 50k pounds (New Zealand Government Act 1846?) - 1844-64 Ngai Tahu dispose of their territory in the South Island to the Crown; about 32 million acres of land is sold for £14,750, with the tribe retaining reserves totalling about 45,000 acres for its 2,000-odd members. (L)

8) He rabbits on with a list of Acts that he believes were designed to harm Maori <> Answered above in #6 and further to that this quote from Sir Apirana Ngata 6th Feb 1940 - “Let me acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori”

9) Mckenzie repeats the hoary old chestnut about Maori children being beaten for speaking Maori at school <> It was Maori elders and statesmen that requested this as they could see it was the future for their children, and in those times all children got the strap back then if they disobeyed the rules, sometimes for things as little as looking out the window, writing left handed or a spelling mistake.

Discipline was very strict in those days and all kids were either strapped or caned when a rule was broken. (m)

10) He uses the Central Government Maori seats as a reason for Maori wards on Local Government <> Parliament is about ideology and how the country is run, Local Government is about local core services (infrastructure, consents, rubbish, environment etc) not ideology.

11) He says the Local Government Act 2002 requires Council to work with Maori - The Local Government Act 2002 does NOT confer special rights and privileges on Maori that are not accorded to other members of the public and it states very clearly that councils must prioritise the good of the whole community.

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

Several councillors referred to ‘Crown / Maori partnership’ - That the chiefs did not cede sovereignty - He Whakaputanga (1835 DOI) and Treaty of Waitangi ~~ I will address these now.

CROWN / MAORI PARTNERSHIP
‘It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of it's subjects’ - Article 3 of the treaty gave to Maori the rights of British subjects, which put signatories under political control of the Queen, hence no partnership. > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/partnership

THE CHIEFS DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY
Here I refer you to my comprehensive article as the explanation is too long to repeat here - Sovereignty WAS ceded > https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/01/geoff-parker-sovereignty-ceded.html

HE WHAKAPUTANGA - 1835 DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE
Noted historians agree that this unauthorised document was a non-event, see here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/1835-declaration-of-independence

TREATY OF WAITANGI
The treaty was first written in English and then translated into Maori, both documents were read to all assembled at Waitangi on the 5th Feb 1840, there would have been many in attendance fluent in both languages and nobody said they were different. See here > https://sites.google.com/site/treaty4dummies/home/tow-simplified

The original signed Maori version is the correct version of the TOW.

In a nutshell that Treaty says:

ARTICLE ONE - the chiefs cede all their rights and powers of sovereignty to the Queen.

ARTICLE TWO - the Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and tribes and ALL people of New Zealand the possession of their lands, dwellings, and all their property.

ARTICLE THREE - the Queen's government extends its protection to the people of New Zealand and grants Maori the status of British subjects.

No Less, No More
From David Round's 'The Law Made Simple' page 62 in the book Twi$ting the Treaty

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL
Some councillors referred to the controversial Waitangi Tribunal to support their argument - the fact is The Waitangi tribunal is a racially stacked pro-Maori lobby group and is not a court authorised to make binding authoritative statements about New Zealand law, they can only make recommendations to Government.

What some have to say about this group of people

WAITANGI TRIBUNAL DOING MORE HARM THAN GOOD (By Ngapuhi elder David Rankin)

When my tupuna (ancestor) Hone Heke, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, he did so because he knew it was the only option in terms of having a relationship with the British Crown. But the tribunal is now telling us that all those chiefs saw the declaration of independence, which a few had signed in 1835, is the basis of their relationship with the British. That is a lie and that is not what the tribunal was told by me. In my view, the Tribunal report defamed the memory of Hone Heke, and of my whanau’s oral histories.

It may surprise many New Zealanders, but a growing number of Maori are fed up with the Waitangi Tribunal, and the entire Treaty gravy train. There is a stereotype of Maori collecting millions of dollars in settlement money and living the easy life. The reality is very different. Here are a few facts:

1. THE TRIBUNAL MAKES UP HISTORY AS IT GOES ALONG. A growing number of New Zealand historians are pointing this out, although most of them are labelled as racist for doing so. Facts are omitted in Tribunal reports, and evidence is shaped in some cases to fit predetermined outcomes. The bias is so obvious, but most historians are too scared for their careers to question the tribunal’s findings.....

Read more about this group of people here > https://sites.google.com/view/kiwifrontline/enlightenments/waitangi-tribunal

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

RANDOM NOTES IN CLOSING:

* Starting in 1840 New Zealand was a fledgling nation, financially strapped, with two different cultures at vastly different stages of development coming together so things may not have been perfect by today’s standards.

* A Sir Apirana Ngata quote 6th Feb 1940 - “Let me acknowledge first that, in the whole world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maori”

* The 1840 treaty (Article 3) granted Maori the same rights and privileges as British subjects (now New Zealand citizens), this alone negates the cry from activists for separatist Maori wards.

* The 1865 Native Rights Act specified that Maori were deemed to be natural-born subjects of the Crown - again, this must negate the cry from activists for separatist Maori wards.
https://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_act/nra186529v1865n11281/

* It is interesting to note that these people who are demanding Maori wards in Whangarei are the only race that has special provisions when it comes to paying rates on their land?
https://www.wdc.govt.nz/Services/My-property-and-rates/Rates/Rating-of-Whenua-Maori

* Maori were/are not ‘Treaty Partners’ ~~ they were only ‘participants’ in the Treaty signing as was Hobson.

* Just a reminder, the settlers in just 200 years have built this country, everything you see above the ground (except trees) was built by settler culture - this development benefits ALL who reside here today.

* It is activist separatist Maoris and their European sycophants who have placed New Zealanders in this divisive situation by demanding race-based wards, so it is they who are to blame for any extra costing to ratepayers. New Zealanders are simply fighting for equality and to have the pre 2021 status quo reinstated.

* Today there are no full blooded Maori alive and many have more ‘other’ ancestry than Maori. So in essence those that affiliate to being Maori are little more than a cult, they could just as easily choose to be New Zealand citizens as per the Treaty.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse