Across the world, over many millennia, people have learned how best to live together, in a decent society where all share a common feeling of belonging to one larger community – in sovereign countries, unified and living together as equal citizens.
There is there no longer any special inherited privilege of an aristocratic class based on inheritance and a special, elevated ancestry, nor the rule of any one religion or superior culture. Within that commonwealth a diversity of religions and local cultures coexist, under the umbrella of a unifying sense of nationality. There is no longer slavery, racism, or tribalism as citizens of each nation come together as one people.
Such ideals, basic to a decent society, do not apply in New Zealand, where there is inequality and racism in law, tribalism, and priority to one old set of beliefs. There is a declaration of a Maori race, as a special ‘indigenous’ people. New Zealand is racist. [1] All reference to Maori in law must go.
That separation by race, with the resultant considerable privileges, is written into law. Democracy is further undermined, with considerable differences in the value of a vote.[2] There should be no Maori seats and wards; all should vote together on a common roll.
Both the Treaty of Waitangi and New Zealand history have been rewritten to become myths of wrongs to Maori, with never any fault committed by Maori. One such has been the insistence that the Crown only broke the Treaty of Waitangi, an assumption written into the 1975 requirements of the Waitangi Tribunal which is required to investigate claims only by Maori against historical Government decisions and actions, an assumption which is basic to the many Treaty settlements. This is false; the Crown never broke that Treaty while Maori rebels did so on several occasions, with grievous consequences. Without a belief in that claim, the many payments and privileges of Treaty settlements can be seen to be a scam, and the Waitangi Tribunal to have no validity.[3]
The priority claimed for the Treaty of Waitangi has become a key weapon in the fight for power. It has been rewritten and then proclaimed a sacred text, immutable, to be followed religiously and not to be challenged. The only valid text is held to be that in Maori and the only arbiters to determine the meaning of the text are those Maori activists; none other have any authority.[4] That trickery, and this revolution – a process aiming for the overthrow of government – must be recognised and negated with a firm and determined counter-revolution. The completely compromised Treaty of Waitangi must be removed from all legislation, and the Waitangi Tribunal closed down immediately by government, which has that power – and that responsibility.
Since 1975 New Zealand has been moving in the direction of separation by race, until a virtual system of apartheid is in place, with even more fundamental separation in government – and inequality set down for anyone who takes the trouble to understand where we are going. For many years it has been evident that the country needs to take a new direction, out of the fog and deliberate confusion. That can be provided by the one principle – of equality – from which flows the demand for democracy, and for a united and sovereign nation, together with the parallel demand for determined action to remove division and unequal rights based on race. This is equality before the law, in rights and in governance (including votes of equal value, equal representation), which does not exist today.
That firm guideline for a decent society has been expressed many times, as by the United Nations in 1948.
“All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.” [5]
That statement called for action, to bring about true equality – as the British had done in the 19th century with their fight against slavery. Here in New Zealand, which has been seized by a revolutionary movement for racial superiority, such action must be decisive and determined, to undo a whole raft of inequalities in law. Half measures will fail.
Such a challenge calls for firm direction, for decisive and forthright leadership to make the future direction clear, unequivocal. With a spokesman having the conviction to speak out plainly for freedom – for liberty, equality, and fraternity.
Any hint of leadership is lacking in the current government. Despite the considerable emphasis on equality in the two coalition agreements, Prime Minister Luxon is more intent on keeping onside with Maori forces who are calling for separation.
We do not see the elected leader of the nation standing proudly and stating, with complete clarity and authority, that we are one people, as Hobson did at Waitangi in 1840. Instead of asserting the sovereignty of a united nation, a constitutional monarchy with one king for us all, Luxon has gone cap-in-hand to join the celebration of the anniversary of the coronation of the rival, rebel, king, the inheritor of a 19th century rebellion, the breaking of the Treaty of Waitangi in the Waikato.
Luxon joined the celebrations of this false king, on arrival by politely watching a savage war dance complete with half-naked warriors brandishing threatening spears (the challenge of tribal times, a supposed welcome) before sitting passively and listening to an angry tirade demanding a complete overturn of the policy basic to the coalition government.[6] That was no polite exchange; it was a humiliating display, the Prime Minister being subject to such bullying aggression. That public display of supine weakness only shows that the overturn of our form of government will continue unopposed by any resolute insistence on the basic principle of any developed society, including respect for elected leadership.
David Seymour, who refused to attend, wants equality for all New Zealanders; Mark Luxon wants only to be Prime Minister. To the push towards apartheid and two separate race-based governments, we must add the monarchy-in-waiting as a unifying constitutional monarch based in Britain will be replaced by a Maori king with allegiance to tikanga, tribalism and indigenous rights. A country that puts up with that has no pride.
Now, with the death of and the anointment of his daughter as the new leader, is an important time to consider the place of that separatist movement in the New Zealand story. The idea of a Maori king was presented, and defeated, in the Waikato at two great hui of 1857 and 1858 when a majority held on to the promise of loyalty to the British Crown, and the rights that resulted. The activists withdrew and announced the great warrior Te Wherowhero (Potatau) now an aging man who was to die less than two years later, as their king. Te Wherowhero (1858-1860) was abused, kept as a virtual prisoner, and his opinions were ignored.
His son, Tawhiao (1860-1894) believed that he was indeed a king; a separate territory was asserted and Government agents were expelled by force, against the wishes of those who were benefitting from the aid that they had requested. After that rebellion was defeated, Tawhiao remained defiant, declaring in 1876 that “I have the sole right to conduct matters in my land – from the North Cape to the southern end”. That challenge was ignored and he was left to continue his activities. He set up a parallel government, and a bank, and in 1893 the kingite government posted notices advising that “Pakeha as well as Maori were subject to ‘the laws of the Government of the Kingdom of Aotearoa.” The continuing acceptance of a rebellious monarchy is a curious feature of New Zealand.
Mahuta (1894-1912) supported the Western Maori MP, Henare Kaihau, who introduced a Maori Council Constitution Bill to Parliament, providing for a form of Maori self-government, a Council under the mana of the king, which was discharged before its second reading. In 1903 Premier Richard Seddon invited Mahuta to Wellington as a member of the Legislative Council (Upper House) and to sit on the Executive Council as Minister representing the Maori race, which positions he held until 1910.
While Te Rata (1912-1933) decided during the First World War that enlistment was a matter of individual choice and no one should be forced to serve, Te Puea (a powerful grand-daughter of Tawhiao) held that Waikato had its own king and didn’t need to fight for the British King. The insistence on isolation and separate development continued to cause problems, providing a barrier to government initiatives and preventing the advancement of their followers.
Koroki (1933-1966) continued the claim that the king held a unique position, above the law, and in 1939 he and his wife refused to register under the conditions of the 1938 Social Security Act, as a symbolic action of separation. On several occasions Koroki and his family refused to take part in receptions for British royalty at Rotorua – Te Puea explained that it was her people’s custom to receive important people on their own marae; they did not go to other marae to welcome them. In 1953, Queen Elizabeth visited Turangawaewae marae and it is reported that for the first time a Maori King swore allegiance to the British Crown. This can be questioned since Mahuta must have sworn an oath of allegiance when taking up government positions in 1903. Whether these monarchs truly give any loyalty to the nation remains unclear today.
The first woman, Te Atairangikaahu (1966-2006), “came to enjoy a national profile, embodying Maori identity and symbolising Maori mana at a time when Maori were increasingly asserting their language, culture and rights under the Treaty of Waitangi.”[7]
Tuheitia (2006-2024) spoke quietly but with a clear message: “Mana Motuhake [Maori self-government] is our guide.” In 2016, he used a landmark speech commemorating his 10th anniversary on the throne to propose a formal role for Maori in the country’s leadership, with a separate Maori share in New Zealand’s sovereignty by 2025, apparently under his rule.
Nga Wai hono I te po Paki has now (September 2024) been chosen for this role of alternate monarch. A 2022 statement tells us her ideas for the future. “My heart was heavy when I arrived because I saw how vast and abundant the land is here [in England]. So why did you have to come to Aotearoa? To steal our land, to murder our ancestors and grandchildren, to confiscate our resources and for what reason? … Its only right to come here to give prestige to our ancestors. King Taawhiao intended to deliver a petition to Queen Victoria seeking recognition of tribal sovereignty. As I am following in the footsteps of my ancestors I feel angry, but its only right that I feel angry. I believe I should feel angry. King Taawhiao was not granted an audience with Queen Victoria, despite the vast distance he had travelled. … Although I feel excited about meeting the Prince of Wales, a part of me is still reluctant. I have a loud mouth so I need to be careful. … Te Puni Ariki Nga Wai hono I te Po says the pain of the past is firmly in her mind. To this day, I am still here sharing the stories of our ancestors and speaking about the invasion of Rangiriri. All of these stories and historical accounts continue to leave me hurting inside. I’ll be honest, my greatest desire is for all Maori land to be returned to Maori.”[8]
These were her heartfelt thoughts, setting down a clear challenge to our way of life, a wish for utu, and a desire to return to the tribal past. The words must be read carefully, the meaning taken seriously.
The ACT Party has held to the coalition agreement with the expressed desire for equality, but has created a major problem by asking that principles to guide the nation should derive from the Treaty of Waitangi. That idea of well-defined guiding principles points in the right direction but they are going about it in the wrong way, playing into the hand of the opposition and inviting the disruption that they were foolishly hoping to avoid.
That would be fine if I were the arbiter. The Waitangi Tribunal was set up to determine the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – there are no such principles stated in the Treaty. “For this Act to make any sense, any such principles must be derived from the text. This is a simple matter, provided that such a derivation in firmly based on the Treaty alone. The Treaty, as initially drafted, and as understood prior to this Act, makes it clear that sovereignty is with Britain and all New Zealanders are equal British citizens. That equality was made particularly clear by Hobson after the chiefs had signed the Treaty when he said: ‘Now we are one people.’ This equality and unity is the one principle that can be taken from the Treaty.” [9]
The original intention of the ACT Bill was to assert three basic principles, which can be derived from the original Treaty.
- The New Zealand government has the right to govern New Zealand.
- The New Zealand government will protect all New Zealanders’ authority over their land and other property
- All New Zealanders are equal under the law, with the same rights and duties.
But those who profit from the Waitangi Tribunal could not have remained employed and in power for 49 years if that task was so simple, so all those years have been spend inventing many lists of possible principles and expanding the scope of the Tribunal. The original Treaty has been stripped of its intended meaning and rewritten to support claims for the very opposite, for ‘partnership’, separate rule and tikanga to replace the promised unity and British law.
The danger was soon evident. The Waitangi Tribunal, which is acting as an independent governing force in opposition to the elected government, has emphasised a quote from the Official Advice to the Government that the Act’s principles “differ significantly from current understandings within the Crown, Courts and Waitangi Tribunal.” That is completely correct; the original Treaty has been overturned, turned to mean the opposite of the original by the Waitangi Tribunal and its allies – and that completely different version has become accepted within officialdom.
This left the door open for a rewrite of the principles set forward in the Bill. The suggested second principle has become:
- “The New Zealand Government will honour all New Zealanders in the chieftainship of their land and all their property.”[10]
The first version spoke of equality; this rewritten text makes a claim for separation and superior Maori rights – I am not a chief, and chieftainship is an obvious reference to the old Maori ways. A couple of words altered in the drafting and the whole Bill has been turned on its head. That second principle is frequently presented online as “iwi have the right to organise as iwi and, under the law, control their resources as their own”, suggesting a further distortion of the original ACT Party principle.
That rather strange version of property rights has, since the above was written, taken another step away from universality. The second principle has become (11 September 2024):
- Rights of Hapu and Iwi Maori: The Crown recognises the rights that hapu and iwi had when they signed the Treaty. The Crown will respect and protect those rights. Those rights differ from the rights everyone has a reasonable expectation to enjoy only when they are specified in legislation, Treaty settlements, or other agreement with the Crown.[11]
This insists on special rights defined by race. The Bill has been destroyed, and the promise to the New Zealand people has been betrayed.
The insistence of the Waitangi Tribunal that it alone is the supreme authority, the effective ruler of the country, is made abundantly clear in their 200-page report, NGA MATAPONO: The Principles .[12]
Their key goal is stated, no longer being set up by stealth but out in the open. This must be publicised; everyone must read this report. An entire section, “2.7 UNDRIP and He Puapua” outlined the intent, with an explicit call for separate governments. “He Puapua also articulated the need for constitutional change to reflect the Maori text – te Tiriti and rangatiratanga. Building on the Matike Mai report, He Puapua utilised the ‘spheres of authority’ model to demonstrate its 2040 vision of rebalancing the rangatiratanga and kawanatanga spheres at the constitutional level. He Puapua stated it envisioned ‘a larger “joint sphere”, in which Maori and the Crown share governance over issues of mutual concern’ in the future. … The DWG [Declaration Working Group] concluded that the joint sphere may require co-governance mechanisms and a regulatory body to determine jurisdictional boundaries.”
A call to bring down a government is treason, but this is ignored, absent from public debate or Parliamentary concern. Here is a body set up to advise the Government grown so powerful that it is giving orders to the government to destroy itself. Why is the Vision 2040 aim for separate governments not recognised, made public and refused as impossible? And why is the Waitangi Tribunal not condemned for the proposal – and immediately disbanded?
The country grows crazier with each new year. We have been living in Animal Farm for too long. When the pigs strut about and proclaim that “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”[13] our only response must be – don’t be so silly.
If you walk into the lion’s den you are bound to get your head bitten off. That was the mistake, linking the principle of equality to the destroyed Treaty with its powerful and determined gatekeepers.
The best way forward would be to drop any reference to the Treaty of Waitangi from the Bill and simply state the principle (or principles) that should guide New Zealand into the future. I prefer the one principle of equality but this could include all three set forth by ACT. Then we can support that challenge to the National, Labour and Green Parties as to whether they would dare to oppose a statement of sovereignty, equality, and security of land ownership.
The Waitangi Tribunal report includes an appeal to the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which prescribes considerable separation by ancestry and race, with comprehensive lists of special rights and powers to ‘indigenous’ people.[14] Yet that declaration repudiates itself, with the inclusion of a forthright and unequivocal condemnation of racism that contradicts and denies all those claims.
“All doctrines, policies and practices based on or advocating superiority of peoples or individuals on the basis of national origin or racial, religious, ethnic or cultural differences are racist, scientifically false, legally invalid, morally condemnable and socially unjust.”
This, coupled with the United Nations assertion that we are all born equal and the similar call of Governor Hobson at Waitangi when New Zealand was founded, provides the basis for a simple call for equality of all New Zealanders, accompanied by firm action to make that a reality.
References:
[1] Robinson J 2024. New Zealand nonsense (one). Sovereignty and defining Maori. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/john-robinson-new-zealand-nonsense-one.html
[2] Robinson J 2024. New Zealand nonsense (two). Voting by race: Unequal Maori seats. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/john-robinson-new-zealand-nonsense-two.html
[3] Robinson J 2024. New Zealand nonsense (three). How Maori rebels broke the Treaty. https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/john-robinson-new-zealand-nonsense.html
[4] New Zealand nonsense (four). Weaponizing the Treaty of Waitangi https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/08/john-robinson-new-zealand-nonsense-four.html
[5] Article 1 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights
[6] At the Turangawaewae Marae, 19 August 2024
[7] https://teara.govt.nz/en/biographies/6t4/te-atairangikaahu-koroki-te-rata-mahuta-tawhiao-potatau-te-wherowhero
[8] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NHgC_ZNhgzo
[9] Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing. Pages 79-80
[10] https://www.treaty.nz/ and https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/508579/act-launches-treaty-principles-bill-information-campaign
[11] https://www.beehive.govt.nz/release/next-steps-agreed-treaty-principles-bill
[12] Online at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/WT/wt_DOC_217933408/Nga%20Matapono%20W.pdf
[13] George Orwell 1945. Animal Farm.
[14] United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf