elocal, Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Eddie Durie, Treatygate

TREATYGATE Part 2 — Maori Need Honest Ngatas, Not One-Eyed Duries

Fearless owner/editor of elocal, Mykeljon Winckel, has published a second Treatygate article from me, plus two pages of reader feedback from the first story.

Read the words of the story below, or double-click the pics, or check out elocal online.


Grievers Need Achievers As Leaders

Maori Need Honest Ngatas,
Not One-Eyed Duries

by John Ansell

The Treatygate snowball that your brave magazine elocal set in motion last month is already rattling the Griever and Appeaser elites as it builds into an unstoppable avalanche.

A week or so ago I was in the Maori Affairs Select Committee room at Parliament being interviewed by Maori TV.

Gazing down augustly from on high were four huge, hand-tinted portraits of Achiever Maori leaders Sir Apirana Ngata, Sir Maui Pomare, Sir James Carroll, and Sir Peter Buck.

In 1922, Sir Apirana had been honest enough to say this about land confiscations:

“Some have said that these confiscations were wrong, and that they contravened the Articles of the Treaty of Waitangi.

The Government placed in the hands of the Queen of England the sovereignty and the authority to make laws.

Some sections of the Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this, and blood was spilled.

The law came into operation, and land was taken in payment.

(This itself is a Maori custom – revenge, plunder to avenge a wrong.)

It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen.

The confiscations cannot therefore be objected to in the light of the Treaty.” [1]

Sir Apirana could have added that not only did the rebels breach the Treaty, but they did so knowing what they stood to lose.

Governor Grey to the chiefs of the Waikato:

“Those who wage war against Her Majesty  or remain in arms must take the consequences of their acts and must understand they will forfeit the right to possession of their lands guaranteed to them by the Treaty of Waitangi.

These lands will be occupied by a population capable of protecting for the future the quiet and unoffending from the violence with which they have been threatened.” [2]

Same story on the East Coast:

“At Turanganui Mr McLean sent messages by Hauhau chiefs to the rebel sections of Rongowhakaata and Aitanga-a-Mahaki, warning them that unless they came in and made submission to the government they would be attacked and deprived of their lands and homes.

This offer met with no response.” [3]

Faced with insurrection, the government then did exactly what it said it would do.

And for doing it, you and I have just paid over $22 million for wronging Rongowhakaata.

What exactly had Te Kooti’s
Pai Marire 
(meaning ‘good and
peaceful’) Hauhaus done 
that was
so wrong? Just hacked, skewered,
shot and burnt 70 innocent
men, women and children, 
spectacularly the Lavin children,
who they threw
in the air and
impaled on bayonets.

We, in the simpering form of Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson, have also issued a grovelling apology for sullying the good name of the tribe’s poster boy, Te Kooti.

What exactly had Te Kooti’s Pai Marire (meaning ‘good and peaceful’) Hauhaus done that was so wrong?

Just hacked, skewered, clubbed, shot and burnt 70 innocent men, women and children, from babies to the elderly – most spectacularly the Lavin children, who they threw in the air and impaled on bayonets. [4]

Sorry about that, chief.

Sadly, the achiever values of the Ngatas, Pomares, Carrolls and Bucks have given way to the griever values of the Harawiras, Turias, Mutus and Itis.

Supposedly one of the more honest of this motley gang of professional mourners is longtime Waitangi Tribunal chair, Justice Sir Eddie Durie.

In 1999, Durie was remarkably candid about dodgy iwi claimants:

Some Treaty of Waitangi claimants have asked researchers to change findings that would be unhelpful to their cases, says the chairman of the Waitangi Tribunal.

Justice Durie said also that some tribes had even tried to make the payments of researchers conditional on findings being altered.” [5]

But it’s not just the tribes who’ve tried to doctor the evidence.

The Tribunal’s claim negotiator, the Crown Forest Rental Trust, has done the same.

And at least once, it didn’t just try, it succeeded.

The researcher who succumbed, then spilt the beans, was MIT Ph.D Dr John Robinson.

As a socialist, Dr Robinson may have been seen as a safe choice to ‘prove’ the Tribunal’s agenda that Maori nineteenth century population loss was caused by land loss.

Unfortunately, Dr Robinson preferred to study the evidence, and found the precise opposite.

His analysis showed that the overwhelming reason for Maori numbers dwindling in the second half of the century was the slaughter of tens of thousands of breeding-age males in the intertribal genocides of the first.

That plus the customary Maori practice of female infanticide. [6]

Dr Robinson regrets that he agreed to conceal his findings in order to be paid. But once safely retired he made good, telling all in The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview.

Another insider to voice dismay at this uniquely Kiwi kangaroo court was that arbiter of journalistic ethics Brian Priestly, who in 1998 said:

Years ago I attended several sessions [of the Waitangi Tribunal] while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.There was no cross examination. Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question. I should have been.I resigned because I am basically a puzzler after the truth and not a one-eyed supporter of causes.” [7]

And so to today, and Sir Eddie Durie’s latest confession, when tackled about his conflict of interest in claiming water rights for his tribe from the Tribunal he used to chair:

 I believe we as Maori do not have the same luxury to observe the same ethics.” [8]

Since when was ethics a luxury – especially for a judge?

When reminded on TVNZ’s Q&A
programme that by law nobody owns
water, Durie shot back “That’s Pakeha
law. That’s a different law.”

Sir Eddie’s claim that water was more crucial to the Maori than to the British is insulting.

(How quickly the Griever focus has switched from the traditional obsession with land.) [9]

How does he think those landlubbers and their farm animals hydrated their squishy bodies?

With what substance did farmers irrigate their pastures?

What was that big wet wobbly thing that British warships and traders bobbed about on?

When reminded on TVNZ’s Q&A programme that by law nobody owns water, Durie shot back, “That’s Pakeha law. That’s a different law.” [10]

Yet he would know better than anyone that the Treaty says nothing about Pakeha law or “the Maori legal scheme” that he claimed existed, and everything about all New Zealanders having equal rights under one law.

With this outburst, Sir Eddie has become a one-man advertisement for a Colourblind State.

He and today’s other Griever Maori leaders dishonour the memory of Ngata, Pomare, Carroll and Buck.


[1] The Treaty of Waitangi – An Explanation, Sir A. Ngata, Maori Purposes Fund Board, 1922.

[2] Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection, Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1863 Session I, E-05.

[3] The New Zealand Wars, Vol. II, J. Cowan, p.125.

[4] Cowan, p.333.

[5] NZ Herald, November 17, 1999, p. A14.

[6] The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview, J. Robinson, Tross Publishing, 2011, pp.11-20.

[7] Ngai Tahu claim: too little critical analysis, Evening Post, April 3, 1998.

[8] Dominion Post, August 11, 2012, p.C3.

[9] TVNZ Q&A, August 19, 2012, transcript of Sir Eddie Durie – Haami Piripi interview.

[10] Q&A as above.


PHOTO CAPTION: John Ansell calls himself a ‘conviction copywriter’, who hates selfish politicians, and is known for distilling political concepts into the plainest of English.

He created the ‘Iwi/Kiwi’ billboard series for National in 2005, two award-winning radio campaigns for Labour in 1987 and 1993, and in 2011 fell out with ACT over his proposed press ad headline ‘Fed up with the Maorification of Everything?’

He sees the racially-rigged National-Maori Constitutional Review as a major threat to our country and has founded Colourblind New Zealand to see if a referendum reinforced by a hard-hitting public education campaign can succeed where politicians have failed to halt the appeasement of Griever Maori.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Last month’s Treatygate story in elocal launched John Ansell’s Colourblind State campaign to end racial favouritism. View Part 1 online at www.elocal.co.nz and comment on Part 2 on our blog.

Thanks for all the comments so far and for your donations.

Donors large and small have already chipped in nearly $100,000 towards John’s advertising fighting fund of $2 million.

To keep the total snowballing, email john@johnansell.co.nz and follow more of John’s articles at www.johnansell.wordpress.com.


Thanks to Mykeljon for the coverage, Brenda and Rachel for your design skills, to Mike, Ross, Martin, John, John, Jean, Colin, Bruce, David, Trina, Don, Hugh, Caroline, Garth, and Graham for sharing your knowledge, to Iris, Stephen, Jordan, Simon, ‘Simon’, Helen, Mary, Tom, Robbie, Wendy, Basil, Karen, Lyn, Phil and Ian for your support and suggestions, and to all of you concerned citizens who’ve dipped into your own pockets to get this campaign going.

We’ve still got a long way to go, but we’ve made a promising start.

Please spread the word to click this button!

19 thoughts on “TREATYGATE Part 2 — Maori Need Honest Ngatas, Not One-Eyed Duries

  1. What excellent work you are doing, John. I thought I knew a lot about these issues but I’m certainly learning more and more all the time which only goes to reinforce my wish for your Colourblind State to succeed. Hopefully more and more people are opening their eyes, not to say their minds, and FINALLY seeing exactly what is going on and how we are all being duped big time and enormous cost to our country both monetary and race relations. Well done!!

    [JA: Thank you for your support, Helen. Judging by the noxious opposition on left-wing blogs, on Facebook, and in the intemperate blurtings of Finlayson, Flavell et al, we’re starting to rattle a few cages.]

  2. ‘A journey of a thousand miles begins with just one step’ – I wish I knew who said that.

    It seems this campaign has not just taken that first crucial step, it has also got some traction.

    Thank you for standing up and speaking for all New Zealanders who are screaming out for an end to the racial politics.

    It is segregating New Zealanders into racial groups and treating the small working force of our country like flogged mules to appease griever elitists.

    [JA: And thank you, Trina, for fortifying my knowledge with hundreds of 19th century newspaper cuttings. It’s great to be able to read of events as they happened, before the revisionists began revising.]

  3. Enough of Pakeha & Maori bashings. Pointing the finger and accussing each other simply won’t work, all it does is to create more problems,
    this applies to all cultures within Aotearoa / New Zealand. We have to work alongside each other but to make it work properly we need to do away with the corrupt one sided Waitangi Tribunal and set a totally new constitution but this time do it together by having one law for all, everyone treated as equal wherever. More importantly, NO MORE HAND OUTS, that’s a definate handicap for all concerned, our country can no longer afford it instead take the other alternative by working alongside each other, setting an example whilst teaching what needs to be done. As New Zealanders we need a definate pride, a real belief that’s tangable for all concerned, showing the rest of the world what can be achieved where one can be proud to be called a KIWI.
    Why not view: http://www.kindle.com or http://www.smashwords.com for an e-book called BEFORE MAORI NZ’s FIRST INHABITANTS as all the above is mentioned within. Remember the first 20% is a free read so why not take a peek. Enjoy!

    [J.A. Thanks Ross, I think you’ve had a pretty good shot at hawking your book on this site now 🙂]

  4. According to the records of the missionaries, one thousand of the Maori people were murdered by the Europeans in the years prior to the Treaty, and we have also heard of the Maori people murdering Europeans. These were lawless times. Therefore the Queen “was desirous to establish a Government with a view to avert the evil consequences to the Maori people and to the Europeans living under no laws”

  5. The objections should be made in the light of the suffering of some of the tribes by reason of the confiscation of their lands. The wrongs were done by others while lands belonging to others were confiscated. Consequently many tribes suffered through having no lands. Some tribes were too severely punished. It was from these objections that earnest supplications were made to Ministers or by way of petitions to Parliament. While the Government could not defend itself under the provisions of the Treaty, Governments have used the Treaty as a shield against these supplications and claims.

    Further to your quote by Sir A Ngata, John.

  6. That was true in 1922 when Ngata wrote those words, Anakereiti. But it’s hardly true now.

    Governments in the 1930s and 40s bent over backwards to correct legitimate injustices.

    Governments since the 1970s have been bending over forwards. 🙂

  7. Anakereiti, I certainly don’t want to minimise any murders of Maori by Europeans, but could you show us some document that supports this assertion?

    Actually I’ll volunteer one: Ngata’s Treaty explanation. He says the same thing, and I respect his honesty.

    But I haven’t seen these murders documented in the same way that the Maori massacres have been – with names, locations, descriptions and so on.

    Can you point me to any documents – like the records of the missionaries you mention?

    The relevant point that you avoid is that, as you say, those murders by the lawless Brits (escaped convicts, drunken whalers etc.) took place before Britain assumed sovereignty over New Zealand and established British law.

    Plenty of Maori massacres took place in those times too (Marion du Fresne’s crew, the Boyd, the crew of the Harriet).

    But the Maori massacres of innocent men, women and children in Wanganui, at Whitecliffs, at Wairau, at Matewhero and elsewhere happened after law had been established – after the chiefs had pledged under the Treaty to obey the law.

    I am still waiting for evidence of any unprovoked atrocities by the British against Maori civilians after the signing of the Treaty (and indeed before).

  8. Oh but John I was accused of sidelining Sir Ngata as a statesman last week when you copied words directly from the very same article – an explanation of the Treaty of Waitangi – so it would appear its ok to use and accept some of what he says but not anything pertaining to something that opposes your view?

  9. That’s a low blow, Anakereiti, considering I volunteered Ngata’s view to support yours.

    I am not denying the claim, and the fact that Ngata also made it suggests to me that it is almost certainly correct.

    But to be absolutely sure, I would like to see whether it is supported by the same kind of detailed documentary evidence that supports the various post-1840 Maori massacres.

    You say it is supported – that the missionaries reported 1000 murders of Maori by Europeans (which may be where Ngata heard about it).

    Good – therefore it would prove your case beyond reasonable doubt if you can show us where.

    You seem to be accusing me of double standards, yet you will see in my other posts that I apply the same tests to Ngatas more ‘Ansell-friendly’ claims.

    Regarding the wars of rebellion, Ngata said the rebels breached the Treaty, broke the law, and were punished with loss of land – as was the Maori custom, not just the British.

    I didn’t just accept that because it suited me.

    I produced a quote from Governor Grey where he warned the Waikato chiefs that if they waged war on the Queen, they would lose their lands.

    So I think I’m being quite consistent here, don’t you?

  10. What Ansell forgets to mention is that under the Declaration of Independence of 1835 claimed as part of the
    independence the right to create laws, “The hereditary chiefs and heads of tribes agree to meet in Congress at Waitangi in the autumn of each year, for the purpose of framing laws for the dispensation of justice,…”, this was acknowledged and accepted by the king of england.

    Yet at the time of the first gathering the english decided (James Busby) not to call the meeting. Maori, as a people, have since then never been able to create and lay down any of New Zealands laws, they were all created by british. The main cause was private british enterprise in New Zealand blocking any attempt for the country to function (and Maori to rule) as layed out in the Declaration of independence. These private british enterprise caused british rule to be set up. They continue today to control our laws instead of the rightful people as defined under the Declaration of independence.

    Helen, we can see you know nothing.
    anakereiti, “Some tribes were too severely punished”, the britsh were not ‘punishing’ Māori, they were killing and subjugating them as best they could. You can not claim to ‘punish’ people you have no legal rights over, Māori cheifs were the only ones with the right to punish anyone.

  11. What the cunning fox forgets to mention is that the reason the chiefs did not meet as they had agreed to do was that they soon decided they would rather eat each other than meet each other.

    Even the late Maori-friendly historian Michael King poured scorn on the validity of the Declaration of Independence.

    As regards the Maori chiefs being all powerful and the British having ‘no legal rights’ in the 1860s, have you by chance ever heard of the Treaty of Waitangi?

    If so, I recommend that you read it.

  12. Thank you John for all that hard work on behalf of innocent Maori and non-Maori, or even people who find they’re mistaken on key points, but don’t know how to back out; and as in my tribe, Ngai Tahu, who’ve been told to conceal facts by a ‘knight in a daze’, + will face giving huge areas back to the Crown ‘in trust for the public uses of the people here resident’ – from the Royal Charter, Nov. 161, 1840, also concealed !
    Thanks Brenda too. After a while, the worst anger turns into a new hard work – listing, perhaps for publishing, various matters in their own sequences. Being part-Maori under a hapu chairman’s orders to study the law of transition to common law, I found immigrants want to know how their tribes ‘back home’ changed laws and got new freedoms as Maori got. It was called ’emancipation from the Maori rule of chiefs’. Freedoms came step by step, quietly by chiefs’ authority, then councils say so. Could you do something new for us all? Please?
    Find out how England let the general public know they planned a few colonies in New Zealand, and ‘was there any other country that had some claim’ (that should be in N.Z. too). Were there any maps of ‘New South Wales’ since 1787, that showed N.Z. WAS PART OF NSW. WE WERE, TILL MAY, 1841. That’s serious, as land claims are to ‘go back to 1840’. Why don’t we go ‘back to Sydney’s Supreme Court’ for evidence that 2/3 of N.Z. had been sold by chiefs desperate to fill empty spaces, where neighbouring tribes’ chiefs had removed folk into slavery – and refused to release or manumit more than half, just after the Treaty. When repatriated exiles or slaves got ‘home,’ they didn’t fare too well; survivors of original inter-tribal wars treated them badly and concealed tribal secrets..
    But that’s how Europeans and the world’s peoples once treated one another. One day – more. Questions answered.

  13. Actually John everything i just posted is a copy of Sir Apirana’s – You need to read the whole of his explanation – it is actually very clarifying – quite an eye opener – but I think if we just look at the whole thing purely on his understanding, it does neither side of the argument any favours.

    He is actually saying in actual terms of the treaty its the word sovereignty and the maori understanding of the word governance that is causing the problems between us. Also it should be read in its full text, because as is obvious we can both cut and paste paragraphs to suit .

  14. Also it should be noted John, that Waikato Maori werent in rebellion. There were rumors but the soldiers were sent in regardless, this is where the breach was, and Queen Elizabeth (not a representative either) actually apologised personally to the people of Waikato for the illegal land confiscations.

  15. John, thank you for having the guts to shout this message and for standing up for our country – your taking this stand will empower many.

    I, and dozens of ordinary people I have talked to, have had enough of the outrageously biased Waitangi Tribunal.

    A tribunal implies justice but there can be no justice from hearing a one-sided story.

    We want an end to our Government’s endless multi million dollar handouts based on the “Tribunal’s” partisan views.

    And you don’t have to be a “Righty” to feel this way – there’s plenty of Lefties like me who have had enough.

    Enough of the Waitangi Tribunal, enough of our spineless Governments and enough of the Maori Griever industry!

    [JA: Thank you, Kasbar. I know a lot of lefties agree with you. Getting the lefty parties to agree may not be so easy.]

  16. Oh come on, Anakereiti, Queen Elizabeth is nothing but a puppet of the government these days. She was acting under orders.

    As for Waikato, they had threatened to leave no man, woman or child alive in Auckland if they won.

    What would you do if you were governor and heard that?

    Regarding Sir Apirana, that’s exactly why I posted every word of his explanation. http://johnansell.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/the-treaty-beautifully-explained-by-a-wise-and-honest-maori-leader/

    Unlike the Treatygate revisionists, he is happy to define ‘kawanatanga’ as ‘sovereignty’.

    Quoting from Ngata…

    These are the words of the First Article of the Treaty of Waitangi.

    The First Article:

    “The Chiefs assembled including Chiefs not present at the assembly hereby cede absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all of their lands”.

    These are but a few words, but they indicate a complete cession.

    This was the transfer by the Maori Chiefs to the Queen of England for ever of the Government of all their lands.

    What was the thing they transferred?

    What was the thing which they gave away so freely for ever?

    It was the Government of their lands.

    You are somewhat confused with the purport of those words “their lands” as being just a land matter.

    No, their real meaning includes “their boundaries or territories”.

    The English word in the English version of the Treaty: “territories”.

    What is a “Government?”

    The English word is “Sovereignty”. The English word for such a personage as a King or a Queen is “Sovereign”.

    This is the same as the Maori words “Ariki Tapairu” and is referred to as the absolute authority.

    The “Sovereign Power” of the English rests with the King or Queen and his or her Council called Parliament.

    This gives a clearer understanding of the term “Government” as used in this article of the Treaty.

    That is, it is the absolute authority over the people which the article transmits into the hands of the Queen and Her Parliamentary Council.

    It is Parliament which makes the laws for the people, for the land, for health, for sickness, for crime, for good order, and for everything pertaining to the well being of all throughout the world.

    The Ministers of the Government, the officials, the Departments under their administration, the courts, the boards, the judges, the policemen, the inspectors, the surveyors, the schools, the hospitals – all other groups having authority as administrators, upholders of the law, and adjudicators – are all within the laws made by Parliament.

    The laws made by Parliament affect all the people living on the face of this land – the land properly delineated and known as Aotearoa, the South Island and adjacent islands. __________________________________________
    Interesting that even as late as 1922, Aotearoa still evidently meant the North Island, not New Zealand.

  17. I still refer to the South Island as Te Wai Pounamu.

    Of course QE was under orders – but tell me John, how many other countries or Iwi have had personal apologies “under orders” or not. Waikato defiance is not Waikato rebellion, and the colonials went in before rebellion. They breached the treaty.
    Actually Im lauging a wee bit, just have finished reading the Muggeridge essay, and gave Helen a bit of a swerve and as Im writing this reply I thought again of the reply I put on that.

  18. I wonder if you know that the Treaty was only for the Northern Island. It didn’t even include the South Island when it was written. Sovereignty over the ‘Middle and Southern Islands’ was assumed on the grounds of prior discovery and the TOW did not even nominally extend over them. I got this information from an ‘Inquiry into the State of the Colony of New Zealand by the House of Commons 1844’.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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