Constitutional Advisory Panel, Deborah Coddington, Treaty of Waitangi

Non-iwi Kiwis: don't count on Coddington

I was concerned about the implications of the racist stacking of the Constitutional Advisory Panel.

 So I emailed the one panellist I thought I could count on to stand up for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori.

(And also, I hope, a large number of those who are.)

That panellist was Deborah Coddington.

I now realise I was wrong.

I now realise that Deborah, like most, if not all, of the others, has been chosen for her pro-Maori bias.


My first email to Deborah:

From: John Ansell 
Sent: Thursday, 5 January 2012 9:29 p.m.
To: Deborah Coddington
Subject: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

 Hi Deborah,

For some time now I’ve been receiving high-quality info that amounts to a massive coverup of the truth about the Treaty of Waitangi and subsequent actions by a succession of governments, academics and media.

You may be familiar with some of the misinformation that is out there.

I note that you’re also on the Constitutional Advisory Panel. 

Now the very fact that Pita Sharples has allowed you on this grossly unrepresentative panel suggests that you may have some pro-Maori bias that I’m not aware of.

Most, if not all, of the other non-Maori panellists seem to, and of course all of the Maori.

I do recall you taking issue with Don Brash’s assertion that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori. I don’t suggest that that alone amounts to a bias, however the emotion behind the comment did make me wonder.

In the unlikely event that you are there as a ‘wet in dry’s clothing’, then I despair that no one on that panel will speak for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori.

But I hope you will.

I hope you will stand up against the slurs, lies and exaggerations that have been levelled against our forefathers by opportunistic neo-Maoris (really EuroMaoris) and their treacherous ‘make-believe Maori’ collaborators, including the Minister of Treaty Settlements/Minister of Maori Affairs/Attorney-General.

Whatever you may think, I am not a venomous Maori-hater, I just find their leaders’ arrogance and lack of gratitude for the immense benefits they have received from British colonisation breathtaking.

I feel inclined to stick up for the Brits, who far from being brutal oppressors were the most compassionate colonisers ever.

Like the Americans who saved us from the Japanese, the 19th century Brits may not have been perfect, but they quite literally saved the Maori from extinction at the hands of fellow Maori.

Is that not worth a smidgen of appreciation?

On behalf of the much-maligned British (who Maori did not lift a finger to help in building modern New Zealand) I am keen to help to expose the truth — a most unfashionable concept in today’s New Zealand.

If you share that concern, would you be interested in being emailed the  evidence I’ve been sent?

This includes:

Evidence of Waitangi Tribunal researchers doctoring their evidence to suit their political masters under threat of non-payment;

Evidence that the government is deliberately using the wrong version of the Treaty of Waitangi, after the correct English draft was discovered in 1989 (and does not mention forests and fisheries, but does make it clear that the Treaty was with ‘all the people of New Zealand’, not just Maori);

Evidence that it was Maori who first breached the Treaty in the 1860s, and that the Crown’s response was entirely justified against a foe that wanted to drive them into the sea (or in the case of Wiremu Tamihana, butcher every man, woman and child in Auckland) — and a positively mild response compared with the slaughtering and cannibalising that would have been the result had the Maoris won the wars;

Evidence of all Treaty grievances having been settled fully and finally in the 1940s.

Deborah, the truth about Maori issues is not getting out there thanks to a sustained, government-inspired, media-assisted brainwashing campaign, which has proven highly successful.

That truth deserves to be told. If I could afford to take a year off, I’d write a book about it myself.

Failing that, a campaign is required to clarify the issues for the public, so that traitors like Key and Finlayson have an electoral incentive to stop perpetuating the lie.

Failing that, at least it would be good if one or two members of the panel empowered to review our constitution were well enough informed and of sufficient integrity to push back against the tide of tripe that will no doubt be unleashed on that body by its Maori masters.

Are you on-side?



I sent a second email on January 10 and she replied the same day that she had just returned from holiday and would reply as soon as she could.

Nineteen days later I sent my third email:

From: John Ansell
Sent: Sunday, January 29, 2012 11:49 AM
To: Deborah Coddington
Subject: FW: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Hi Deborah,

Are you still planning to reply to my email of 5 January?

Since receiving your acknowledgement email over two weeks ago, I read your Herald column in which you stated:

“In terms of financial wealth, Australia is financially better off, but they could learn something from us in terms of respecting tangata whenua. Yes, the English ripped off the Maori, too, when it came to getting them to sign the Treaty of Waitangi. Henry Williams deliberately mistranslated from Maori to English to protect his land holdings, and numerous other travesties were perpetrated.”

Forgive me if I’m jumping to conclusions, but this does not suggest to me that you bring a neutral perspective to the task of reviewing New Zealand’s constitution.

I would be interested to know where you came by this information, as it doesn’t tally with my understanding, supplied by historians and researchers who have examined the source documents.

I know there are other historians – the Claudia Oranges, Dame Anne Salmonds and Paul Moons – who can be relied upon to parrot the grievance industry line, but when challenged make like climate alarmists and take a haughty stance but cannot support their conclusions.

I find that pattern of response most interesting.

One of the people with whom I’m in touch is Dr John Robinson, a Harvard-trained researcher who has recently published a book detailing how he was once forced by his Waitangi Tribunal employers at Vic to alter his conclusions about the cause of Maori depopulation in the late 1800s.

John’s evidence pointed clearly to the cause being the depletion of Maori breeding stock as a result of 60,000 mainly young Maori men being slaughtered by fellow Maori in the musket wars.

This, coupled with the widespread practice of female infanticide (girls being regarded as uneconomic burdens on the family), meant that there were not enough Maori of parenting age to replace themselves.

But this conclusion was not what the Waitangi Tribunal wanted to hear, so John was told he would not be paid until this conclusion was sufficiently fudged to imply that the real cause was European land-grabbing.

To his shame, in order to be paid, he complied.

He suspects he is far from alone among Tribunal researchers in distorting his findings in this way. Indeed a book by Dr Giselle Byrnes of Vic blew the whistle on this as well, from memory.

Anyway, John kept his secret to himself for some years, until his conscience got the better of him and he published The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview last year.

I blogged on it here:

Deborah, you are an investigative journalist with a good track record for fighting fearlessly for causes you believe in.

No doubt you place great store in getting your facts right before making statements like this. So it could very well be that you have seen documents which I have not.

(I, too, am solely motivated by truth, and I challenge my sources relentlessly when I suspect they’re exaggerating.

But after many months of exchanges, they’ve held up well.

If, however, I find I’ve been misled, I’m not too proud to publicly say I was wrong — as I did with global warming, where I intitially swallowed whole the views of Al Gore.)

Then again, it could be that you, like many others in the media, have just accepted what the Treaty grievance industry has told you, and that their tame historians have written.

I’m hoping not.

And even if you have, I’m hoping you will be genuinely interested in seeing the contrary evidence I mentioned – evidence that points to a gigantic state-sponsored, academia-aided, media-abetted cover-up of the truth of our pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial history.

It seems to me that 85% of New Zealanders who do not worship Maoridom (clearly now a religion, rather than a distinct race) — probably 90% if you include the many principled Maori who don’t want a bar of the grievance industry — deserve to be represented on the Constitutional Review Panel.

If the Panel had been fairly constituted, and not a Key-Sharples jackup, they would, of course, be represented in proportion to their share of the population.

The 50% Maori membership says everything we need to know about the likely outcome of the panel’s deliberations.

Sadly, reading your article, and looking at the other names on the panel, it appears the large European proportion of the 85% may not be represented at all.

Presumably John Burrows can be relied upon to examine the issues fairly.

But will he able to withstand the pressure from ‘Tipene’ (who, revealingly, calls himself Steve in non-Maori circles) O’Regan, Ranginui Walker and the rest?

And if you, as a celebrated investigative journalist, will not look at the evidence that supports the interests of 85% of the population — and exposes the unfair maligning of our British forebears — who will?

If the 85% can’t get satisfaction from this National-Maori Party excuse for a constitutional review, then a public information campaign will have to be mounted to expose the jackup and present the evidence with blinding and unprecedented clarity.

I’m still hoping you are prepared to at least look at the evidence and, if you see what I see, stand up against the deliberate distortion of our history.

I would be grateful if you would indicate your position one way or the other.

Thanks and best wishes,



Deborah replied promptly and we had the following exchange (my reply in italics):

From: Deborah Coddington
Sent: Sunday, 29 January 2012 12:41 p.m.
To: John Ansell
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Hi John,

1.  The reason for the delay in replying to you is that I had a family emergency involving my mother, for whom I am the primary care-giver. This is not an excuse, just a reason.

JA: I’m sorry to hear that Deborah. I have a Martinborough friend whose mother is in the same home as yours. (In fact, she used to run it, but no longer remembers.) I hope things worked out OK.

2. Re the Constitutional Advisory Panel. It is important that you separate my columns from the panel.

JA: That’s a bit hard for me, as you’re still the same person.

I presume you don’t mean you hold different views at different times.

I can imagine your tone changing depending on whether you’re writing for the Herald or representing the government on a panel. But not your views, and it’s those views I’m interested in.

I asked you where you came by your views about English ripping off Maori and Williams deliberately mistranslating the Treaty.

You haven’t answered, but I understand it was from the writings of Paul Moon.

Here’s a view from another Auckland University historian which refutes that:,_No._3/Translating_the_Treaty_Of_Waitangi,_by_John_Laurie,_p_255-258/p1

Now I don’t say my source is better than your source.

But I do hope you’re looking carefully at both sides of this issue, and not just one side.

I’ll do my best to see that you get the other side, which I think you may find enlightening.

If and when, in my Herald on Sunday columns, I write about race relations issues, or Treaty of Waitangi issues, this has nothing at all to do with the Constitutional Advisory Panel and in no way represents the Panel.

Indeed, one of the co-chairs stated that it would be unfortunate were my role on the panel serve to stifle my opinions in my column.

3. Which leads me to explain the role of the Panel, and that of all other 11 members, which is most definitely not to “review New Zealand’s constitution”.

There still abounds a misconception that we are in some way going to ‘write a constitution for New Zealand’.

JA: Yes, the perception is that the panel is a jackup designed to produce a Maorified constitution.

And it’s an entirely logical perception, after the contemptuous way the government (mainly Obfuscator-General Finlayson and his bully-boy Select Committee chair Tau Henare) treated non-Maori submissions to the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill.

Our personal and political opinions will not be influential in this process.

JA: This I struggle to believe.

Why would they stack the panel with avowedly pro-Maori members (both brown and white) and not intend the opinions of the likes of Ranginui Walker and Tipene O’Regan to be influential?

Furthermore, if the Panel’s enquiries reveal that most New Zealanders don’t agree with them and want a colour-blind constitution, will that be what they recommend?

I repeat the questions that you have yet to answer: Will you speak up for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori? And if not, who on that panel will?

If, as I suspect, the answer is “No one” (with the possible exception of John Burrows), then that clearly smacks of another sneaky attempt to achieve Apartheid Aotearoa by stealth — if not surrender New Zealand to the brown supremacist movement.

The role of the Panel is to try and get a debate and discussion going, throughout New Zealand, and canvass all New Zealanders on constitutional issues and New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements, and hear their views on all this country’s constitutional issues and arrangements, not at all restricted to Treaty of Waitangi issues, but anything at all regarding constitutional issues which press their buttons.

That can include the flag, republicanism, etc.

JA: All New Zealanders? Now that would be a refreshing change!

So here’s a question:

If an overwhelming majority of New Zealanders wanted National to keep its 2005 and 2008 election promises and abolish the Maori seats, would the Panel duly recommend that to its government masters?

Or do you think the opinions of its members might insert themselves into the discussion to ensure the exact opposite result?

You last saw me at a meeting in Masterton with Don Brash. As you may know, Don publicly disowned me for my ad “Fed up with the Maorification of Everything?”

But I have great respect for the way Don was prepared to stand up for the majority of New Zealanders on Maori issues.
(The tragedy was that he lacked the political nous to push on when he had the country in the palm of his hand.)

About the only highlight of his recent foray with ACT was his debate with Hone Harawira, when he answered “No” to the question “Are Maori special?”

Now despite his bluntness (what he really meant was “Yes, but no more special than any other New Zealanders”), the next night 81% of a massive 40,000 Close Up viewers paid 99c to vote “No” to the question “Do Maori have a special place in New Zealand?”

Which is a rather long way of saying that if the Panel conducts its enquiries fairly, it’s likely to find that the Will of the People on Treaty issues is radically different from either the Will of the Panel or the Will of the Government.

The people will want a dismantling of the Treaty grievance industry, especially once they’ve seen the evidence that I’ve seen.

Will the Panel have the integrity to reflect the Will of the People?

Fat chance, I’d say.

4. So this is why it is important that people like you, with a strong voice, and a lot to say, take the time to get your arguments together so that when the Panel begins its physical journey around New Zealand this year you, and all the people who support, listen to, or oppose your arguments, will submit your submissions on constitutional issues and arrangements to the Panel members.

JA: People like me will certainly be making our arguments. Whether they’re allowed to be heard is another matter.

Many of us remember the way the Coastal Coalition submitters were treated last time.

We’re not stupid, and we can see from the stacking of the Panel that if we don’t rise up now, New Zealand as we know it could soon be over.

5. For my bit, I will definitely try to keep you informed about the Panel’s timetable, and how it will be calling for submissions and where the meetings, etc, will be held, be that in person, by way of websites, or whatever.

JA: Thank you, I’d appreciate that.

I see there is a debate at Te Papa involving John Burrows on February 2.

I hope it’s better than the climate change debate I attended at Vic, where all 10 debaters were on the same side, and only I, in an auditorium of hundreds, was heard to present a dissenting view (which they rudely and studiously ignored).

On the subject of why I am a member of the Panel – I truly have no idea why I was appointed. It came completely out of the blue.

I doubt I was appointed by Pita Sharples, as you assert.

Bill English phoned me and asked me if I was interested.

I said yes, but warned him I doubted if he’d get it passed cabinet because

a) I regularly criticise politicians, including National, in my column and

b) I am particularly hard on Act and Rodney Hide was in cabinet at that time.

I did say that I would not go away and sulk if the answer was negative and much to my eternal surprise I passed muster.

And the only reason I expressed dismay when Don Brash said vehemently there were no full-blooded Maori in NZ was because

a) I didn’t see why it mattered, unless he was aligned with the One New Zealand Foundation and

b) for someone who prided himself on rigorous research I (who am known to be shaky in that department) knew it to be easily proved wrong.

JA: Do you have an issue with the One New Zealand Foundation?

I’ve seen Ross Baker and Martin Doutre maligned by the usual suspects, and I’ve also grilled them and studied their responses.

I try to torture-test all claims based on the evidence. And their evidence seems to me to warrant respect for the diligence with which it has been gathered, and in nearly all cases its accuracy.

If you’re shaky on research, then I’ll see that you’re well supplied by those who’ve written many books on the subject.

I’m quite happy to be attacked as a racist by people like Willie Jackson who are vastly moreso.

What I can’t stand is the thought of making claims which are demonstrably false.

So if I find my informers are telling me lies, I will immediately disown them publicly and apologise equally publicly.

But in the exchanges I’ve had with those who’ve put in thousands of hours researching the source documents connected with this issue, I’m generally astonished by how rigorously their conclusions stack up against those of the state-sponsored so-called ‘experts’.

All I ask is that you show the same curiosity, examine both sides, and go where the facts, rather than the natural desire to be loved, lead you.

Kind regards, thank you for taking the time to write, and keep in touch.

Deborah Coddington

JA: Thanks. I’m disappointed  you haven’t shown any interest in the evidence, or answered my questions, but I’ll keep in touch too.


She did not address any of my points. Nine days later, I received this email:

From: Deborah Coddington
Sent: Tuesday, 7 February 2012 9:41 p.m.
To: John Ansell
Cc: Isabel Poulson
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Dear John,

I am taking the liberty of copying this reply to Isabel Poulson, Advisor, Secretariat, Constitutional Advisory Panel, Ministry of Justice, who can help you in future with submissions on constitutional matters to the Panel.


Deborah Coddington


A month later, having had no further word, I replied as follows:

From: John Ansell 
Sent: Wednesday, 7 March 2012 2:25 p.m
To: Deborah Coddington
Cc: Isabel Poulson
Subject: RE: Will you stick up for non-Maori?

Thank you Deborah.

I presume this is the most fulsome response I am going to get to my questions, so I too will be taking the liberty of copying our exchange to interested New Zealanders.

It now appears that of all the members of the Constitutional Advisory Panel, only Dr John Burrows can be relied upon to provide any semblance of balance.

The Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ which we both attended the other night — complete with the Radio New Zealand producer’s orchestration of fake audience applause before the ‘debate’ had even begun — was a disgraceful corruption of a word which in my dictionary means a two-sided stoush, not a mutual appreciation society.

If the third speaker, Maori Marxist Associate Professor Nin Thomas, is able to realise her vision, New Zealanders will soon be sampling the delights of the Bolivian constitution, with its fawning over fauna and flora at the expense of such inconveniences as human beings and their precious property rights.

It said it all that Te Papa was happy to give this dangerous revolutionary a platform, while not inviting a single representative of the majority view, lest they poison the spirit of the farce with ‘racist’ notions of racial equality and a colourblind state.

Well, I do not intend to take this planned destruction of my country lying down.

I intend to work full-time, using whatever contacts and resources I can muster, to awaken New Zealanders to this outrageous assault on the core of our national being.

Needless to say I will be thoroughly exposing the perpetrators with all the subtlety for which I am known!



And so I am now fundraising for a major campaign to tell the truth about the Treaty with unprecedented clarity. 

Helping me is a group of concerned and knowledgeable New Zealanders, including eight authors of Treaty-related books.

My evidence will show British-descended New Zealanders that their forebears acted with an astonishing degree of honour and goodwill towards Maori throughout the colonisation process, that they saved Maori from extinction at their own hands, and that they should regard those brave pioneers with pride, not guilt.

I expect these revelations to so enrage the public that the National Party will have no choice but to honour its own policy, end state racism, and create a Colourblind State.

It is time to expose the forty year state-sponsored brainwashing campaign that has deprived a generation of New Zealanders of access to their own history.

I call that brainwashing campaign Treatygate — The Conning of a Country.

To present my Treatygate evidence in places the public will see it, I will need a large amount of money (and I’ve made a promising start).

Please let me know if you can help.


35 thoughts on “Non-iwi Kiwis: don't count on Coddington

  1. I suspect too many wont know what they had until they wake up and realise they no longer have it. Something precious lost it by being apathetic. The insidious but bloodless blitzkrieg take-over of NZ culture and society along with the re-writing of history by a group of malcontents and fifth columnists of all colours is well advanced. Resistance may be fertile. Let it grow.

    [JA: Fertile beats futile, thanks Simon.]

  2. Excellent, John. Thank heavens we now have someone with the spine and will to try and awaken the people of this country as to what is actually going on and how vitally important it is that they support you all the way, whether in monetary or other ways. I personally would only be able to give a meagre donation but if many did this it would soon mount up. I’m willing you to push this matter through to a satisfactory conclusion because we are continuing further and further down a very rocky road which will change the whole fabric of our society if it isn’t halted in its tracks.

    [JA: Thanks, Helen, too true.]

  3. Where do I send a contribution? Please keep it up, it is importance that the N Z public wakes up to what they are likely to lose.

    [JA: Thanks Lindsay. I’ll send you an email.]

  4. I am a first year history teacher in dunedin, not until this year where i have to teach the treaty course have i thoroughly investigated the treaty and the ideas around it which are a farce. i am trying my best to give my students both sides of the argument so they can see how stark the differences are, hopefully they can come to their own sensible conclusion. thank you for psting this information i was starting to think there were not many people ‘in the know’ as everybody i have spoken to is reading in the dark (thanks michael king). any contribution i can make to the ’cause’ im glad to be involved. new zealand needs to wake up.

    [JA: A New Zealand history teacher with both eyes open, well, well. Any more out there like you? Welcome aboard, Peter.]

    1. Hi Peter
      For what it is worth, its great to know there are still real Teachers in New Zealand.

      As you would know there are many links on this site for you yourself to revue and ponder on, watching on as things become more apparent in daily life as more and more evidence surfaces or comes to the light of day that was not there available seemingly yesterday so to speak.

      The boffins are starting to snort we need a serious debate about all this CONstitutional Review stuff, I agree . . . we certainly do.

      It is a bit of a read but . . .

  5. Peter, you have got me very curious as to how you have understood all that you have researched!

    It is wonderful to know there are History teachers like yourself out there who provide the ‘other side of the story’ and without political influence impacting our youths judgment.

    I am agitated with the direction politicians have taken on this issue.

    We were told that once Treaty settlements were accomplished our country could move on from what happened ; Maori and European were going to be New Zealanders on equal footing and opportunity.

    Government have outright lied to us all!

    As far as I can see, Parlimentary members have used the Treaty for their own personel gain and agendas.

    It is the NZ citizens who have shouldered all the consequences of their decisions and no one in any form of power or authority are speaking up for us to bring it all to a halt!

    So, it is up to us to do it.

    How to get peoples heads out of the sand is probably the hardest task ahead of us, along with getting them to wake to the other side of the story that is currently not being told.

  6. Ok Im back – I realised how one sided your arguments will be if I’m not on hand to assit. Brenda, I apologise for my hissy fit – BUT as you state , you mentioned cars and computers, so really throwing in the KFC bit was quite unneccesary. But there you go. We will leave the matter there!

    @peter – “where i have to teach the treaty course have i thoroughly investigated the treaty and the ideas around it which are a farce. i am trying my best to give my students both sides of the argument so they can see how stark the differences are,” – you say you are trying to give your students both sides of the argument. I doubt that as you quite clearly consider one side a farce!

    This says to me that your students maynot be given FACTS from both sides and they need to be.

    @Trina – welcome to the real world where govts lie! Maori learnt that lesson long ago – best you get it in writing and be prepared for a long wait for justice

  7. How encouraging it is to hear of a History Teacher who has actually looked beyond the regurgitated nonsense that is filling the heads of so many of our citizens and found the true facts. Let’s hope there are more of you and you can enlighten our young because the farcical information is becoming ingrained in them all and they actually believe it all.

    Maybe there is hope for us yet if those in education are starting to see how we are all being duped big time. Great to hear from you, Peter.

  8. Truth needs 2 sides Helen, and if Peter considers one side a farce, then he isnt investigating properly. We have already established that there are truths on both sides – so his considering one side only spells a one sided education for his students. And dont you think that is where half our problems come from? too many one sided arguments – I do!

  9. Yes, that’s been the problem for the past 20-30 years – one-sided arguments. However, it’s all out there in black and white for anyone who wants to research it but they must look beyond the revisionist historians of late who have given a very one-sided view on things and especially from anyone connected with the Waitangi Tribunal which is even more one-sided and revisionist.

  10. anakereiti . . . come on girl, lay your cards out on the table . . . what is your opinion on the current claim on water?

    Do you agree with the foreshore and seabed bill?

    Do you think Maori should claim the airwaves?

    Do you think Maori should have as much say over private land through the RMA as they do?

    Do you think our Fisheries should be opened up to all New Zealanders and not just Maori?

    Do you want a colourblind state which means no racially divisive policies or legislations.

    It also means New Zealanders will be able to wipe their hands of the past, pull together and get on life and the running of the country.

    What country do YOU want for OUR kids and grandchildren to grow up in?

  11. Oh Trina darn you…cards on table water claim – darn good try but wont wash pardon the pun. You can actually blame the govt for that forcing the hand with asse t sales. Air waves well I still giggle at that
    Foreshore and seabed I think customary rights are correct. It doesnt give us ownerhip.. Clarify the comment Maori,private land and RMA. examples please. You and I will disagree on racially devisive. I see it as an equalisation.

    I want a country where our children are equal. Where my language and beliefs are as important as yours

  12. Welcome back Anakereiti 🙂 I’m sorry my mention of KFC upset you. I don’t associate KFC with maori the way you described so I had no idea it would mean anything other than just how I meant it, purely as one of 3 examples. Personally I love KFC, and bacon, but I don’t eat either any more because I became a vegetarian a little over 2 years ago. Damn I miss it when I smell it cooking tho *sigh*

    Anakereiti, I don’t quite understand what you mean when you say that you want your language and beliefs to be as important as ours. Do you mean you want them to be as important to all maori, or do you mean you want all pakeha to find the maori language and beliefs as important to us as ours are?

  13. We are a bi cultural society Brenda, you might have noticed the crown on one side, and maori onthe other on our justice symbols etc. Maori is a National language also, as is sign language. These languages should be part of the school curriculum as English also is. The whole of NZ should value the language and beliefs of Maori, as much as the English side of things is.

  14. When I was at school many years ago, we learned a lot about ‘Maori’ in our Social Studies class. I learned a lot and it wasn’t sanitised in those days. We also used to play the ‘Maori’ stick game (have forgotten the name) in our leisure times.

    However, I have no desire whatsoever to learn the Maori language. If I learned any language it would either be German or French (goodness knows why) and I’m not really interested in learning the Scottish Gaelic language of my forbears either. It’s just choice. If those of Maori descent want to learn the Maori language, go for it but please don’t expect it to be a compulsory language in the schools because I wouldn’t want my children to learn a language that would of absolutely no use to them in the wider world. If they later want to learn it, then that would be their choice. I want them to learn useful things at school that will help them in their adult life and the world at large.

    I’m also very fed up with Maori culture being thrust upon us all at every turn. There is nothing opened or shut or anything of National significance in this country that doesn’t have Powhiris, Hakas or something Maori performed. It is totally over done. There are other cultures in this country and I firmly believe that there should be some other means, which incorporates all the cultures, performed at significant events, like a rousing short song or something that we can all join in and sing at the top of our voices – together. Every time I hear the chanting and stomping of the haka now, I totally cringe and block my ears. It’s not that I’m intolerant, it’s just that it’s been done to death and one could say I’m all haka’d out. I would also object to my children learning the haka because I feel the bugging of the eyes and poking the tongue out as far as it can go, sends the wrong message. It is also confrontational and implies a violent statement. I have a marvellous culture of my own from way way back which I am very proud of so what I do know of Maori culture satisfies me but we are a mix of people, and ‘Maori’ is just one of that mix. I certainly don’t expect the wider New Zealand to learn the Scottish Gaelic language and there are probably more people of Scottish descent in this country than any other. They certainly contributed greatly to building this country from the start.

    I know you will accuse me of being a racist, Anakereiti, but nothing could be further from the truth. I’m a New Zealander first and foremost and want nothing more than equality for us all combined with our mixed cultures but no dominant one.

  15. Value? What’s that mean, in this context? Beliefs? Which ones? Would you anticipate that a white Xtian would have to ‘value’ the Maori pantheon of deities such as Io, Tane, Paparangi, etc., and their spiritist subordinates? Where would a Tohunga or maketu fit into this? Very puzzling.

    Once, my European ancestors had strange customs, dress codes, values, etc. Leeches and blood-letting. Powdered wigs. Child labour was commonplace. A low ‘value’ was placed on women – a relic of the Judeo/Xtian Boys Own Book of Beliefs. One aspect was no vote for women. Another was burning witches. Fortunately, that’s all long behind us now. Beyond an historical interest, I place no value on those beliefs at all.

    Language? Well, How’s this: “Ah you base minded wretches, are your thoughts so deeply bemired in the trade of ordinary worldlings, as for respect of gaine some paultry wooll may yeeld you, to let so much time passe without knowing perfectly her estate, especially in so troublesome a season?”

    That’s an example of the way may ancestors spoke. Language usage and comprehension has changed.

    The foregoing are things; nay relics, which belong behind us. We have moved on. Not always progressed, some would say, but we have left many anachronisms where they belong: in the historic past. They no longer have relevance to our present evolutionary place.

  16. Once, my European ancestors had strange customs, dress codes, values, etc. Leeches and blood-letting. Powdered wigs. Child labour was commonplace. A low ‘value’ was placed on women – a relic of the Judeo/Xtian Boys Own Book of Beliefs. One aspect was no vote for women. Another was burning witches. Fortunately, that’s all long behind us now. Beyond an historical interest, I place no value on those beliefs at all.

    nothing much has changed then Simple Simon, except the burning of witches at the stake – powdered wigs, pretty common place amongst our High Courts, still a low value placed on women, employment and salary stats will back me on that – leeches and blood letting, making a come back in the health sector arent they. And really Simon all your proving is that you dont want a country where we are all equal. We are a bicultural country with a multi cultural society.

    What you want is us to all live as one happy society where the only language and culture that is valued is yours. Not ours – yours – and there lies the problem. You expect Maori to be not seen and not heard either.

  17. It’s just nonsense to say this is a bicultural country with a multicultural society, Anakereiti.

    Any logical view of the facts will show that this is a multicultural country with a bicultural minority race: part-Maori.

    Virtually all Maori are bicultural. You, for example, are Irish Maori.

    Me, I’m monocultural: European all the way back.

    My wife is also monocultural: Taiwanese.

    But add us all together and we’re multicultural.

    You refer to the legal status of Te Reo etc. as if it was the will of the people.

    It is not – that was inflicted on us by the Treatygater politicians who I intend to expose.

    If we want to add official languages, change the name of our country, or grant special privileges to one race, that should be done in a referendum, so all the people have a chance to approve it.

    Don’t you agree?

    I plan to give all the people of New Zealand just such an opportunity.

    Then we’ll see how bicultural we are.

  18. I’m afraid the maori language and beliefs will never be as important to any other race as it is to Maori. Maori as a language is only spoken by a minority of people in New Zealand and even fewer people overseas. It’s not spoken in any other country in the world. It is not the language of commerce and trade. It is absolutely of no use to anyone outside of New Zealand, and it is really not needed here either.

    It is being kept alive because culturally it is important to maori. I think that the fact that it has been recognised as an official language of NZ, that there are taxpayer funded Te Reo pre-schools and that it is available for anyone to learn if they want to and you have taxpayer funded maori TV stations and maori speaking programmes on other stations, is already showing it more importance than the majority of the population feel it deserves. I’m not saying that to be nasty. It is just not a practical language to learn.

    To force it on people who will have no use for it is just a waste of more tax payer money and peoples time. I’m afraid I totally agree with Helen and S Simon on this.

    We have our own language. A written language that goes back many thousands of years and is spoken almost world wide.

    As for beliefs – I have to say I don’t know a lot about maori beliefs. What I do see is that in more recent years certain mythological creatures from your belief system have been trotted out to disrupt such things as the construction of highways and railroads, and that they subside into their mythological worlds again once the relevant iwi have been paid a certain amount of money.

    Don’t blame pakeha if we can’t take your beliefs seriously when that is what we see happening. What can you expect? Blame the iwi concerned.

    We have mythological creatures in our culture too. Unicorns, dragons, fairies, elves and gnomes and many others. But we have grown out of them, and now they reside in fairytales and fantasy, where they belong. They no longer serve us in the world we live in today. That is what all cultures do as they advance.

    What do you think would happen if a pakeha group tried telling a local body that they can’t build a road through a certain forest because a unicorn lives there? We’d be a laughing stock. And so are iwi who try the old taniwha trick. We laugh at such obvious misuse of your beliefs but we also feel disgust – mostly at the fools that hand over the money.

  19. Work was halted while iwi were consulted and negotiations were held and it was decided that Transit would build a steeper-than-planned embankment next to the monster’s swamp lair and drainage would be put in place to ensure that the monster’s home stayed nice and moist. Apparently, he likes a leaky home.

    The extra cost to the project was estimated to be between $15,000 and $20,000 – small change really in the scheme of things – and no direct compensation was paid to Ngati Naho.

    Please note last line, and actually as we are sovereigns of our own land its only fair the taniwha is sovereign of his

  20. We close everything on Xmas day in the belief its some mans birthday from thousands of years ago

    We spend millions on buying chocolate eggs in the name of that mans death and “resurrection” (scoff scoff)

    It costs employers millions of dollars in leave payouts for the same reason.

    You have people in churches on sunday eating bread, sipping wine – in the belief its the body and blood of this man –

    but you scoff at Taniwha?

  21. The museum powerfully expresses the total culture of New Zealand, which LEGALLY is a bicultural country. Under the treaty of Waitangi, there are the Tangata Whenua, the people in New Zealand by right of first arrival and the Tangata Tiriti, people in New Zealand by right of the treaty. The two cultures see themselves in a constant process of redefinition.

  22. Really Trina, are you sure about that? I suggest you do a wee bit more research….you maybe surprised – anyhow its a beautiful day, I have some dogs begging for a swim and a walk, so I might be benign and compassionate and take them for both 🙂

  23. Trina is right, our beliefs are not taxpayer funded. And what you are talking about is a religion. Just as your ancestor worship and your various gods are. I didn’t know a taniwha was a god.

    Also, not all pakehas believe or practice religion or Christianity.

    $15,000 to $20,000 may seem like small change to you, but it’s tax payers money used to pay it. It’s a hell of a lot of tax payers money shelled out to appease a creature that doesn’t even exist. It’s totally ridiculous.

    Every bit of money that is shelled out for things like that is less money that could be spent on much more important things like schools and education, hospitals and health care and many other important public services which would benefit EVERYONE in New Zealand.

    And that goes for the millions of dollars paid out to iwi in treaty claims too. It’s no wonder the country is so heavily in debt. I would far rather see taxes being spent on things that would benefit everyone.

  24. Is this tit-for-tat actually edifying? No one is suggesting (as far as I can tell) that any side is blameless. I am enjoying the alternative viewpoints being made, whether or not I agree with them. It is far better to know what the alternative perceptions are. But, all the interesting perspectives aside, Anakereiti said:

    “I want a country where our children are equal. Where my language and beliefs are as important as yours.”

    In what ways are “our children” not equal, presently? For in expressing that sentiment of desired equality, you do almost seem to be agreeing with Ansell’s campaign: equality of opportunity for all, in all things, in the sense that no ethnic origin favouritism exists.

    It is not possible for “our children to be equal” for they will all have differing talents and aptitudes. The best that can be aspired to is equality of opportunity.

    Wigs have long gone from the Court system. Women can vote and own property and are given equal rights under legislation such as the
    Relationship (Property) Act. Do you have any evidence that leeches and blood letting are again commonplace medical procedures?

    No: I don’t want a country where we are all equal. Yes, I do want a country where we all have equality of opportunity in all things, including the law.

    Talking of law, what do you make of Durie’s comments about Maori law? In your understanding, is there such a thing? Is it written down? If so, where? How long has it been in existence? Are all tribes subject to the same “Maori law?” Or was Durie talking about Maori lore?

    BTW – will you be answering this, (from a former post)?

    “Value? What’s that mean, in this context? Beliefs? Which ones? Would you anticipate that a white Xtian would have to ‘value’ the Maori pantheon of deities such as Io, Tane, Paparangi, etc., and their spiritist subordinates? Where would a Tohunga or maketu fit into this?”

    That was in response to your:

    “The whole of NZ should value the language and beliefs of Maori, as much as the English side of things is.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s