Catherine Delahunty, Colin Rawle, Treatygate

Delahunty derides again

If you were astonished by Catherine Delahunty MP’s haughty dismissal of Dr John Robinson’s evidence, have a read of this exchange with essayist Colin Rawle.


From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 29  July 2012  1:33 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine Delahunty, I am aware of your correspondence with Ross Baker.

Please find below one small example of real N.Z history by a man who actually experienced important parts of it.

Almost from the start New Zealanders have been shockingly misled.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle.

[Rawle then presents Ms Delahunty with an exhaustive and dispassionate report on the native situation by Major Heaphy, who was there. But that’s not good enough for the Green MP, who only accepts the word of the Waitangi Tribunal, which wasn’t.]


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 30 July 2012  7:30 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Sorry Colin, what is the point here?

Major Heaphy describes perfectly the view of western thinkers of the time and describes the world from that narrow view point.

Please also read the transcripts of the Waitangi Tribunal from the iwi he mentions as they are available on line.

There are many histories that need to be told which do not reach the media and the value of the Waitangi hearings have been the opportunity to tell some stories that most Pakeha never hear, and some do not want to, but they are of vital importance



[Emphasis mine — JA]


Author Bruce Moon points out Delahunty’s majestically blinkered analysis:

She condemns at a stroke all white men’s accounts of historical events they witnessed.

Marvellous – none of it counts for anything in her view (and, one suspects that of many/most of her co-conspirators.) 

Then she can ‘prove’ anything else that takes her fancy — intellectual dishonesty of the highest degree.

It is a blatant piece of racism.

Yet the Waitangi tribunal accepts anything the grievers want to say about the past.

Notice the difference.

I ask: why should anybody else’s (Maori?) accounts be taken as any more reliable?


The exercise in futility continues…

From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 24 August 2012  12:07 pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z. history

Dear Catherine,

You ask me what is the point in sending you Major Heaphy’s Papers Relative to the Native Insurrection.

The point is that Major Heaphy lived contemporaneuosly with the events concerned and was directly involved in them.

He was not so much expressing his personal views, as providing relevent data.

If certain views are to be dismissed simply because they are those of “western thinkers”, then this is racial discrimination ~ pure and simple.

Do you so easily dismiss all western thinking and philosophy ? ~ derived as it is from giants such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, St Thomas Aquinas, Emerson, Montesque, Burke, Eramus, Pascal, Goethe, Schiller, Hegal etc, etc, etc?

You mention the Waitangi Tribunal.

This was the “tribunal” which first described the Taranaki war (caused by rebel tribes who broke the Treaty of Waitangi) as a “holocaust”.

Even Parihaka (wherein not one person was killed) was lumped together with this outright lie.

Here is a quotation from Brian Priestly, a one time member of the Waitangi Tribunal:

“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.”

Like Major Heaphy, Mr Priestly was/is also a man of integrity.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Rawle


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: 24 August 2012  5:46 pm
To: Colin Rawle
Subject: True N.Z history

Thanks Colin but we have fundamentally different views of history. It is not insurrection to defend your homeland.

I am of course not anti-western thinking as that is my proud culture, but I cannot agree with Major Heaphy or yourself and I think Brian Priestly must have expected the Tribunal to be a court of law.

Its is not, it’s a process of historical redress.




From: Colin Rawle
Sent: 28 August 2012  11:22pm
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: True N.Z history

Dear Catherine,

I’m sorry but your reply amazes and horrifies me. You are an adult and a politician, not an adolescent know-all.

Of course it’s not insurrection to defend ones homeland.

However, the tribes to which Heaphy referred were not defending, they were attacking ~ and therewith breaking the treaty of Waitangi.

You have great responsibilities to the people of this country. Responsibilities which ought to be founded upon verfiable historical realties, not personal ideologies.

Just as I have done, you can prove to your own complete satisfaction that the fashionable, politically “correct”, anti-European version of this country’s history is a complete idelogical fabrication.

Will you do it ?

For the sake of the future well-being of New Zealand, I urge you to shoulder your proper political tasks and get to the truth these matters.

It is your responsibilty to objectively and honestly aquaint yourself with the truth of all matters associated with Maori history, the colonisation of this country and the treaty of Waitangi.

(The “version” of the treaty of Waitangi currently being used/exploited is not the correct one and has serious far-reaching omissions.)

One who really wants the truth however, cannot begin their search with the  slightest trace of any agenda. One must let the truth speak for itself.

This requires rigid self-discipline and the willingness to abandon, if necessary , all of ones cherished pet theories.

Are you capable of this ?

If not you should find another line of work as soon as possible.

Just to confound the picture you will certainly have of me,  I’ll finish by saying that I have been a life-long environmentalist, I was a member of the Values Party, and I have always been deeply concerned about social justice issues.

Similarly, I have always been sincerely opposed to racial prejudice ~ and all other types of divisive prejudice.

Colin Rawle


It’s been 19 days, and Delahunty, a previously prompt responder, has yet to reply.


16 thoughts on “Delahunty derides again

  1. I wait, as many do, for responses from Government representatives that not only make sense but include balance, equity and clarity. I fear will will never see such a thing from Delahunty et al, too entrenched.

  2. Dear John. (how cliche` is that?)

    I back you 100% and if I win Lotto I’ll contribute to your (our) cause accordingly. It is a terrible shame that money drives such things as honesty in today’s (NZ’s) world.

    When my grandfather fought in the trenches and my father fought in the North Atlantic and Pacific Fleets there would have been scant regard for spurious claims of any kind. They fought (and many died) for equality.

    Let us not forget that word: Equality.

    My grandfather was gassed in France but survived to tell the tale. He, and much of our family, came to NZ to live in peaceful happiness in the early 60’s. Imagine the difference; mustard gas versus legs of lamb and vegetables on the table! No more London blitz. My mum and dad had some close Polish friends in Newtown, Wellington, who survived the real holocaust. They had numbers on their forearms, I recall seeing those numbers! It makes my skin crawl and I get somewhat aggro hearing about non-holocausts, don’t get me started…

    My point is: my grandfather and father fought for equality and both were awarded medals for their efforts. Neither claimed their medals. Why? After many years we have discovered, from an aged aunt, that these honourable people chose to return to their families, their neighbourhoods, as equals. They did not want to be treated as heroes, they just wanted to get on with their lives; to forget the conflict. A conflict that is now just 60-odd years old, way younger than the conflict of 1800’s NZ, yet my forebears were prepared, willing and able to forget it!

    My father told tales of Russian convoys to Mermansk, where sailors were left screaming for their lives in flaming, oil-laden waters but the ships had to sail through, with the mission taking precedent. It’s not something we can comprehend but they/we have to leave it behind. That was a terrible past but we now have the opportunity to learn from it and make the present and the future a more pleasurable reality.

    Let’s learn from (and get over) NZ’s past, embrace today’s diversity, write a new constitution and settle down. As a nation, NZ could do with a rest before tackling the global market.

    United and equal I think we will exceed.

    Maoridom is like fire; it is as much a powerful friend as it is a foe. Maori are a people with passion and loyalty, with a toughness second to none. New Zealand has much to offer the world, if only it were united and espoused equality.

    To have a Maori cover your back in defence of NZ would be unequalled.

  3. This shows that PC is still alive and gasping for breath rather than well.

    As a Port Graduate Political Science person and avid reader of history, it is very difficult yo
    Maintain one side of a story for long.

    Said individual name Catherine had really better wake up. I am apalled by her dismissal of a two-side record of said event. PC arrogance at its best I believe.

  4. Peter C:
    Thanks for your comments. Especially this:

    QUOTE: Let’s learn from (and get over) NZ’s past, embrace today’s diversity, write a new constitution and settle down. As a nation, NZ could do with a rest before tackling the global market. UNQUOTE

  5. Catherine Delahunty displays arrogance of the highest order. She doesn’t seem to have the power of reason at all. To dismiss the accounts of someone who was actually there against the obviously fraudulent Waitangi Tribunal is beyond the pale.

    Who on earth does she think she is. She shouldn’t be in Parliament and she certainly doesn’t deserve the high salary we pay her. What a waste of money she is.

    Let’s hope she is spending the delay in replying, seeking out the truth but I won’t hold my breath. How can we trust these people when they obviously have their own agenda?

  6. I thought it was only communists that could argue that black was white and white black. This green MP is caught out having opinions and making statements on our history and obviously knowing only recent myths out of the mouths of others. When will we ever have a pariamentarian that will admit that they made a mistake? We can all make mistakes and can be forgiven but first we have to admit it to oneself. Wheres the honour Catherine Delahunty?

  7. I thought the Greens were closet Communists, Don. If so, she is performing true to form.

    I agree they don’t like to admit they make mistakes when if they did, they would gain a lot more respect. Everyone is human after all.

  8. Delahunty’s dismissive responses are ridiculous but not surprising.

    Helen – Support for a Colourblind New Zealand will come from many shades of politics and we can differ politically but still be united on this issue. Generalisations like “I thought the Greens were closet Communists” may serve only to scare the horses.

  9. I’m sure you are right Kasbar and take it back. It is a mistake to generalise and you were right to chastise me. Delahunty is not a good role model for supporting a united New Zealand though. I just hope she’s not representative of the rest of the Green Party.

    1. QUOTE: When will we ever have a pariamentarian that will admit that they made a mistake? We can all make mistakes and can be forgiven but first we have to admit it to oneself. UNQUOTE

      This is the most important point because most MPs are only aftr the high salaries and not making a true diffence

  10. “I am very excited that we are moving into a more sophisticated era under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, and we are moving beyond the limited concept of conservative Pākehā that one man, one vote is the only manifestation of democracy possible in Aotearoa.’

    Catherine Delahunty:

    “I explained that as a Pakeha I had a very limited relationship with the foreshore and seabed but “loved the beach” generally. This did not compare well to the 1000 years of whakapapa and site specific responsibilities that Betty and her hapu maintain to this day. Yet she had been refused a chance to speak. I also waved a copy of Te Tiriti around in a flamboyant manner.

    Betty talked very clearly about her people and their relationship to their foreshore and how Te Tiriti reaffirms their customary rights, therefore the Bill cannot pass. She is 71 years old and has given her whole life to kaitiakitanga. It was a privilege to be beside her. It was also great to have Tariana and Metiria at the table emanating their respect and love for her korero. From the window we could see across to Hauraki and Te Moehau the mountain shining on the horizon as she rises up from Tikapa Moana.

    Then Gordon Jackman, wearing his “qualified archaeologist” hat took the Committee on a journey from a beach of sand and shells through to the 1868 Deed of Cession on the East Coast, wherein the foreshore and seabed were never ceded. He explained how from the archaeological layers they uncovered at the Port of Gisborne, you can see people arriving, establishing manawhenua and adapting to population expansion from within their cultural framework, and then the violent imposition of Pakeha power in that place. Gordon challenged the committee to re assess their limited understanding of the term “ownership” and to recognise that the Bill was a continuation of Crown violence based on a crude and absurd underestanding of the word”ownership” He described the process as part of “democratheid” a word he has coined which describes the majority imposition of racist policy in a democrarcy. He also described the consequences as not civil war in the conventional sense but a long term proliferation of misery, poverty, misunderstanding and injustice.

    “The other MPs except for Tariana and Metiria, trotted out all the favourite myths about “they killed the moa” etc”

    State of the Pakeha Nation:

    It is not rocket science that Pakeha may be a minority by the late 21st century. It is to be hoped that tangata whenua will be the largest cultural grouping in their own country again. However all the demographic changes will be a change for the worst if Pakeha cannot come to terms with being a minority culture.

    Te Tiriti o Waitangi and the Green Party


    You don’t have to look very deeply within the Green Party to see that one of the values that unites us all is an absolute commitment to integrity – both personal and collective. Every aspect of our processes, our policies and our behaviour as Greens testifies to a fundamental commitment to acting in ethical ways.

    The principles of the Green Party Charter are an embodiment of our collective commitment to values like honesty, fairness and respect for one another and for the planet.

    Our Charter also explicitly accepts Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the founding document of this country, recognising Maori as Tangata Whenua. Part of the public discussion that has followed from the recent arrests in Ruatoki and elsewhere citing anti-terrorism laws has been an assertion of Tuhoe’s “sovereignty”. The sense of consternation from some quarters that has greeted this assertion must remind us that this preamble to our Charter is not just a form of empty words but rather a commitment to principle that demands our action.

    We are moving into a new phase of the collective national discussion about the Treaty, and as Greens we have a responsibility both to be an active and ethical voice in that discussion but also to work to equip others to participate in that discussion from an informed and principled basis, rather than sheer short term self interest.

    Discussion to date has focused on the return of usually a small fraction of those resources unfairly taken from Maori as reparation, on reducing inequalities and on the rights of Maori as an ethnic and cultural minority with a threatened language and culture. While some of these issues have been addressed in part through the deliberations of the Waitangi Tribunal, these issues are, in fact, largely unrelated to the Treaty. If there were no Treaty, as there is not in a number of other societies around the world, these would all still be issues that would need to be addressed in a fair and just society.

    The phase of the discussion that we now need to move into is one that that focuses on Maori status as the indigenous people of this country and on the actual content of the Treaty: a statement of the terms and conditions for the presence of non-Maori. The Maori right to self-determination pre-dated the Treaty and was not altered by it. What is at issue in understanding the Treaty are the rights of non-Maori.

    Let us be clear that the meaning of the Treaty must be determined from the Maori text. Those writers of angry letters to the editor who cite the plain cession of sovereignty of the English text and declare “game over” in fact ignore the law, which makes it the responsibility of the party offering a contract to ensure that the party accepting it fully understands it. If disputes arise, interpretations of the contract are to be made according to the understanding of the accepting party rather than the party that drew up the contract.

    This means that the Maori text of the Treaty, and the explanations of the meaning of the Treaty given to Maori before signing, determine the Treaty’s meaning, and the English text is essentially irrelevant. At the heart of this deal, the “tino Rangatiratanga” of Maori would be respected by the British Crown and Maori would have all the right of British subjects, in return for a cession of “kawanatanga”. Kawanatanga was a made up word, based on “kawana” (for Governor). Maori were familiar with this new word because it was the Maori word that had been coined to describe the role of Pontius Pilate in the translation of the Bible. Explanations given to Maori at the time of signing emphasised the role of this kawanatanga in curbing the excesses of Pakeha settlers and protecting Maori. In contrast the Biblical use of Rangatiratanga had been to describe the Kingdom of God.

    It is plain that sovereignty was not ceded by the Treaty, but rather Pakeha were given a basis for establishing government (of Pakeha). No wonder the historical record is of Maori disillusionment and anger since.

    Obviously the case can be argued in much more detail than this, but this is the essence. A typical response from Pakeha at this point is to dismiss this as all in the past, and assert the need to simply move on from where we are now, doing our best to achieve equity of outcome for all citizens, whose rights are to be assumed identical.

    As Greens, this is precisely what we cannot do. Such a position is unprincipled and unethical. Our responsibility is instead to grasp the nettle and, trusting to our integrity and to our belief in ethical process, to work through what a balance of Maori Rangatiratanga and Tauiwi Kawanatanga might mean in a modern society.

    Nineteenth century colonisation worked pretty well the same way the world over: a beach-head of traders and missionaries was established and stalling tactics like treaties used to negotiate a safe space for the colonisers while numerically fewer. The coloniser then increased military strength until it had superiority (sometimes misjudging this, or almost doing so, in fact), at which point the treaties could be set aside and power secured by force.

    In our determination to breathe life into our Charter’s commitment, guilt and hand-wringing are unhelpful. Our particular contribution must be a resolute determination to do what is right and our toolbox of Charter principles that equips us to step into a leadership in this new discussion. Now’s good.

    This article was printed in Te Awa, the Magazine of the Green Party of Aotearoa.
    Same Meteria Turie “decolonisation (also) a priority in a colonised country” and David Clendon and..

    1. I was quoting Green MPs and given the rankings of Metiria Turei, Catherine Delahunty, David Clendon, Kevin Hague (for instance), those views seem to reflect current policy.

      A Green Party Member may be able to explain how those statements differ from current policy:

      Marine and Coastal Area (Takutai Moana) Bill

      METIRIA TUREI (Co-Leader—Green):

      This is one of the more surreal, if not the most surreal, debates I have heard in just about 9 years in this Parliament.

      The arguments made by one side are now being made by the other over an issue that would in other circumstances be quite amusing, but actually is not because, although there is a great deal of shouting going on here, at the end of the day it is Māori who will be the ones who pay for this utter disgrace and this fallacy that is being repeated just a few short years after the first iteration.

      The Green Party has fought this legislation in all its various forms in the last 8 years and we will continue to fight it because the Green Party will never put its name to a confiscation of Māori land.

      We will never put our name to that.

      It is with enormous distress that I stand here listening to colleagues who stood with me in 2004 to say the same thing, and who now agree to put their name to exactly the same confiscation of Māori land.

      Do not get me wrong; I am talking here about Tariana Turia in particular and the Māori Party, which was born out of the opposition to the confiscation that this bill undertakes.

      It is not an argument to simply say the legislation is good because it replaces old confiscation, if all it does is replace it with exactly the same thing.

      That is what is happening with this legislation.

      It is a repeal and replace with effectively the same bill that Labour put up, mixed with the Ngāti Porou negotiations that occurred a few years later.

      Anybody who looks at it can see that that is the case.

      No amount of intellectual “pretzelism” from Māori MPs in this place will change that fact. Just as last time the Green Party held the Labour Māori MPs to account today I need to hold Tariana Turia and the Māori Party MPs to account for their complicity in the confiscation of Māori land.

      Let me set out for the record what the Green Party position is and has been since 2003, when the Court of Appeal first made its decision.

      In our view collective customary title is to be upheld and is not to be extinguished by legislation.

      Public access to all parts of the foreshore whether held in customary title or in private, freehold title should be—and can be—protected.

      In our view we can protect the transfer to freehold title of customary land by a simple amendment to Te Ture Whenua Maori Act and that will ensure that no customary title in the foreshore and seabed land could ever then be onsold.

      “There is a major unresolved issue about what tino rangatiratanga means in the 21st century, and the Prime Minister’s glib comments will inflame rather than inform that debate.

      “The 1987 Lands decision acknowledged that Maori have particular rights, and it is disappointing that 25 years later the Council is again obliged to seek a re-statement of those rights.

      “The Greens sought clarification during the Mixed Ownership Model debate in the house as to what the Te Tiriti clause in the legislation would mean in practice.

      “The Crown held shares are bound by Te Tiriti principles while 49% private interest are not. This results in the removal of Treaty obligations for the power companies and puts the issue of water rights in to question.

      “It seems that this Government has no intention of honouring the implied commitment, but will ride roughshod over the principles and generate more grievances.

      “Developing models of resource management that allow Maori to exercise their rights and responsibilities as kaitiaki and to have a fair claim to any material benefits may not be easy, but is work that must be done in good faith if future conflict is to be avoided.

      “Te Tiriti is valuable to all of us because it protects our collective interests in water,” said Mr Clendon.

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