Constitutional Advisory Panel, Elizabeth Rata

Elizabeth Rata: tribalism is anti-democratic

To give some credit to the Constitutional Advisory Panel, they have interviewed Elizabeth Rata, one of our very finest writers on Treaty issues.

I will give them even more credit if they actually publish her responses. 🙂

This is Elizabeth’s transcript of her January 23rd phone interview by Hinerangi Barr of the Panel’s secretariat.

(Subheadings mine.)

It’s a superbly clear explanation of what a constitution is, and why it would be undemocratic for New Zealand’s to include the Treaty of Waitangi.



How would you best explain or describe New Zealand’s constitution to people who don’t know much about it? 


The constitution is how we arrange the way authority works in New Zealand — who is in charge, and to whom they are accountable.

It is how politics is organised and what sort of institutions and systems we have.

Democracy depends on
humanity, equality, freedom

New Zealand is a democracy.

There are three elements to democracy:

  1. The nation — which is the overall framework and idea we have of ourselves.
  2. The state – this is parliament, and all the institutions and systems of government.
  3. Citizens – who are the subjects of the nation-state, and hold it accountable.

These three elements are held together by the principles of universalism, equality, and freedom.

Humanity trumps race

Universalism is the commitment to the belief that the human being is the political subject.

This means that a person is regarded as human before he or she is seen as a member of a race, religion or other type of social group.

Universalism is the basis of democracy because it justifies the equal status of the citizen.

Constitution about citizenship,
not culture

My first important point is that political status of citizenship is different from  cultural/race identity.

This means that political status, that is, citizenship, is part of the constitution, but race/cultural/religious identity is not.

Take the example of religion.

Many New Zealanders have a religion. But their religious identity is not part of the political arrangements.

Your religious status is not your political status. Religion is kept out of politics.

Race and culture is like religion – it is an identity, but not a political status.

Race/cultural identity cannot be included as a political status in a constitution.

Constitution includes right
to practise culture

What a constitution can include — and New Zealand’s already does — is the right that each individual has to practise his or her cultural identity.

This right is enshrined in legislation, which says that a person cannot be discriminated against on the basis of race, religion, cultural affiliation, and so on.

That right can only exist because of our equal status as citizens — a status that comes from the universalist principle that we are all equal as human beings.

To sum up this point:

Citizenship is at the basis of our freedom, and an essential part of a democratic constitution.

Tribalism based on inequality

My second important point concerns the nature of tribalism as a political system.

Tribalism is a pre-modern system that is anti-democratic.

In fact, the history of the world is the move from tribalism to democracy.


Because tribalism is based on principles of inequality.

Status comes from ancestors

In tribal organisation, a person’s political status comes from the status of his or her ancestors.

In addition, tribalism is unable to include newcomers.

This means that there are many New Zealand families with members who are Maori and members who are non-Maori.

The non-Maori family members can never be full members of the tribe.

This divides families, as well as dividing the wider New Zealand according to race.

To sum up this point:

Race (genetic heritage), not universalism, is the basic principle of tribal organisation.

Treaty in constitution would
divide, not unite

For these two reasons:

  • the fundamental difference between the political status of citizenship, and
  • the fundamental nature of tribalism as an unequal system

the Treaty of Waitangi must not be included in New Zealand’s constitution.

Including the Treaty in a constitution would divide us into two peoples, one of whose political status comes from their genetic heritage or race, and the other whose political status is that of citizen.

It would bring into the constitution an anti-democratic political system – the tribe/iwi.

The total opposition between the two systems would be destructive of democracy.


How does the Maori representation impact on your work/community/all New Zealanders? 


The increasing practice of including Maori representation in our institutions such as education is based on a wrong idea, and cannot be justified.

This is the recent idea that the Treaty is New Zealand’s founding document, and is a partnership with principles.

Treaty ‘partnership’ is illogical.

Only one sovereign

Parliament is sovereign, not two Treaty ‘partners’. There can’t be two ‘sovereigns’.

It is Parliament that makes the laws and exercises authority on behalf of all New Zealand citizens, to whom it is accountable.

It it were true that there was a Treaty ‘partnership’ then iwi would be sovereign alongside Parliament.

This is nonsensical.


Can you give us an example of how our constitutional arrangements in the context of Maori representation at both a government and local government level works in practice? 


The idea of the so-called Treaty partnership has been placed into our institutions and practices — despite it being anti-democratic, and hence unjustifiable.

Bicultural lobby holds power

It is the result of hugely influential lobbying by a small group of powerful biculturalists and iwi lobbyists, but opposed by most New Zealanders.

The Government Constutitional Advisory Panel is a good example of this creeping inclusion.

50% of its members were chosen because of their race.

That is confusing political status with identity – the point I make above.


The latest strategy is ‘co-governance’.

 [JA: For ‘co’, read ‘koha’.]

An example is the proposed co-governance of the Hauraki Gulf with 50% Maori and 50% representation from all the other groups with an interest in the Hauraki Gulf.

This is very, very serious.

It gives one race-based group unaccountable power, and takes justified and accountable power from the others.


Why should New Zealanders participate in the constitution conversation?


Because retribalists and biculturalists are campaigning to have the Treaty included in a constitution.

This must not happen if we are to remain a democratic nation.

New Zealanders must stop the inclusion of the Treaty in our Constitution.

I belong to a Group, the Independent Constitutional Review Panel that includes members from across the political spectrum.

Declaration of Equality

We are currently promoting  the ‘Declaration of Equality’ to oppose the Government’s Constitutional Advisory Panel.

38,000 New Zealanders have already signed the Declaration.

We regard the Government’s Advisory Panel as compromised by Treaty politics.

Its 50/50 race-based membership makes that clear.

Our concern is that the Governemnt Panel has the funding and resources to promote its agenda for the inclusion of the Treaty in a constitution.

A group such as ours has few resources in comparison.


What are your aspirations for the future of Aotearoa New Zealand?


For our democratic institutions to be strengthened.

I would like to see greater equality and social justice for all New Zealanders.

This does not come from recognising race. Biculturalists got it wrong.

Biculturalism has failed Maori

Many believed that biculturalism would lead to social justice for Maori. But this has not happened.

Social equality comes from political arrangements to do with employment, then with politics concerned with housing, health, and education.

All New Zealanders should benefit from such policies.

In education, I would like to see a move away from cultural based education for Maori to a system that promotes higher order knowledge for everyone.


How would you like our country to be run in the future? (What principles/ elements are important to you about our constitution?)  


I would like to see all three elements of our democracy strengthened. These elements are the nation, the government, and the citizen.

Parliament, not Supreme Court,
must be supreme

The way to do this is by:

1. Ensuring that Parliament is supreme.

2. Ensuring that judges, or powerful lobby groups such as the biculturalists and the iwi elite, are under Parliament’s supremacy.

3. Separating the political category of citizen from cultural/race identity so that the political category is citizenship – available to all people.

4. Shifting the practice of culture away from  government institutions to the wider society.

5. Maintaining an unwritten constitution, because:

  • a written constitution would lock us into a certain time, and
  • we would lose the benefits of being able to be flexible as times change.

Democratic principles
preclude racial favouritism

That flexibility must of course be constrained by democratic principles and systems.

Therefore it cannot include the Treaty.

6. Removing all aspects of race from our institutions, such as education, health, social services, corrections, and so on.

This means removing all references to the principles of the Treaty from legislation.

7. Abolishing the Maori parliamentary seats.

8. Funding research that critiques the historical revisionism of the bicultural period — so that NZ’s history is studied according to sound research methods, and not in the interests of Treaty politics, as is currently the case with much Waitangi Tribunal research.


38 thoughts on “Elizabeth Rata: tribalism is anti-democratic

  1. Thank you for such great common sense. Are all the politicians asleep at the wheel? How do we get this to the media? Our country is suffering without clear thinking from all of Wellington.

    1. Well I put it on my facebook page to help spread the word. Actually I got carried away in my impatience and shared it three times! lol Oh well, my friends will know it’s important to me!

  2. Elizabeth Rata speaks and writes common sense. I suggest that the 38,000 signatures on Declaration of Equality petition should be front and foremost on the review panels minds. Given the make up of the panel though I am not confident that they will take any notice.

  3. Elizabeth Rata should be the head of a one issue political party for the next election campaigning on solely these issues. We need more like her, surely there are more out there not afraid to use their credentials to go public on this farce. It has been a classic “march through the institutions” for the biculturalists, i cannot believe they were never challenged and stopped in their tracks.

  4. Well, I would say, Elizabeth Rata has certainly given the Constitutional Advisary panel something to think about.

    Elizabeth Rata has been following and researching the progress of the Treaty Industry and the development of re-tribalism in our country for thirty years, so I consider Elizabeth Rata a very trustworthy source of knowledge.

    I hope upon hope that the wider public are reading her words.

  5. Thank God for Elizabeth Rata and all others who have the courage to articulate the most important political issue for New Zealanders at this time. We cannot be fooled by bi-cultural rhetoric and we simply MUST support the reinstatement of our democratic freedoms. Spread the word.

  6. Of course tribalism is undemocratic you stupid woman. You mean to tell me that you’ve only realised that. Let’s look at this woman’s ridiculous 8 point plan.

    1. Ensuring that parliament is supreme. Dumb idea. That is not democracy. Where are the checks and balances against any possible abuses of executive power? One of those mechanisms that acts against such abuse is the Supreme Court.

    2. Removing the political category from race and cultural identity. That’s not bizaire but also unrealsitc.

    3. Removing all aspects of race from our institutions. Well, that’s what is currently being practiced in Canada, US and Australia with quite terrible consequences for ‘first nation’ people. Which has led to the rise of the ‘Idle No More Movement’ currently sweeping the world.

    4. Abolish the Maori seats. A definite political motive here Elizabeth. That will never happen without support from the Maori people.

    8. Sound historical research. From who? The likes of Marting Doutre and his wacky ‘Ancient Celts’ BS. You gotta be joking Elizabeth.

  7. NN, you originally came up with some credible arguments on different threads. It would appear you have descended to name calling for anyone with a contrary view than you, It would be so easy to call you a F—wit, on an internet site but what would it achieve? Are the 160,000 people who have relocated to Australia, who call themselves maori doing anything to help the aboriginals in Australia? or are they there to work hard and improve the lot of their children by effort rather than welfare? Would not the aboriginals of Australia benefit from the same philosophy, hard work rather than rely on welfare? As a teacher are you in Borneo teaching English? or do you have a captive audience of youngsters who wish to learn the maori language? so that when they travel abroad they may be understood by only a very small percentage of people in New Zealand? No? I wonder why? It is a dying language used by only a very small minority of a minority culture in one country of a big world. Get with reality and modern times, nobody can be really fluent in the maori language, there are so many new words being invented to keep up with modern society in the maori language. Perhaps remembering that just 1point 7 % of people in the whole of New Zealand gave their party vote to the Maori party might give you a taste of reality.

    “One of those mechanisms that acts against such abuse is the Supreme Court.”

    Rubbish, the supreme court is not elected, cannot be sacked if the majority do not agree with the views of the court. All the members of a supreme court in NZ have been exposed to treaty claims in one way or another, so it becomes an incestuous circus. The privy Council was the way we should have stuck to, outside looking in.

    2.” Removing the political category from race and cultural identity. That’s not bizaire but also unrealsitc”

    Not if you are not a died in the wool racist. Democracy is the will of the majority, regardless of race.

    4. “Abolish the Maori seats. A definite political motive here Elizabeth. That will never happen without support from the Maori people.”

    Once again, democracy is the will of the majority, not the will of a racial minority

    8. Sound historical research. From who? The likes of Marting Doutre and his wacky ‘Ancient Celts’ BS. You gotta be joking Elizabeth.

    No, history as presented by people who were there at the time it was happening, such as James Cowan, not historians with an agenda such as James Embelich

    1. I see you’re still coming out with idiotic statements OS. Why should Maori moving to Australia help out with the Aboriginals? It’s not their problem. Maori didn’t create problems for the Aboriginals, European colonization did. Which is why the ‘Idle No More Movement’ is gaining ground in Australia, Canada and NZ. As to Bruneian students learning Maori, that’s an irrelevant point because I’m not contracted to teach Maori, I’m contracted to teach English. Yes, you’re correct 7% of the party vote went to the Maori Party, plus 4 parliamentary seats, less than 1.2% went to ACT and 1 parliamentary seat and only 1% of the party vote went to the Conservatives and no parliamentary seats, Owen. So, what does that tell you?

      Not only are you ignorant about politics but you are also ignorant about linguistics, language continually evolves as society changes, of course new words are being introduced to the Maori language, just as English evolved from the original German and many new words were introduced from Latin, French and Arabic.

      Your rebuttal of my first point again shows your ignorance and your bias. Your rebuttal of my second point again shows your ignorance. Democracy is not the will of the majority. Democracy originates from the Greek word ‘demos’ which simply means rule of the people by the people. Numbers has little to do with it consensus is the name of the game.

      Your last point, James Cowan was a journalist with a bias, not a historian. So, OS I would sooner stick with James Belich, Dame Claudia Orange, Judith Binney, Keith Sinclair, Michael King etc as opposed to James Cowan, Elsdon Best etc.

      1. Once again NN you show your bias. A gentleman by the name of Gregory Wood did a PHD thesis on Revisiting James Cowan. You can read it yourself here I haven’t quoted from it as it is copyrighted but after an exhaustive amount of study he concludes that Cowan was much more than just a journalist and a bone fide historian with research methods ahead of his time. Cowan was also generally quite sympathetic to Maori- is that the bias you are talking about?

  8. And furthermore Owen, your point about the Privy Council makes no sense either, according to your logic. Is the Privy Council also an unelected body?

  9. On what planet was your last election Ngamoko? You state the Maori Party received 7% of the party vote!!??.

    They actually received 1.4% of the party vote, down from a staggering 2.39% in the previous election 2008. Massive support there obviously.

    When you claim that 15%+ of the population is Maori and heading for 30% you utterly fail to acknowledge that none of these are real Maori and most only have a tiny amount of Maori blood.

    The support as above for the Maori party clearly suggests that less than 10% of the people you claim as Maori actually voted for the Maori party. Lets say slightly more than this due to John, sorry Hone also getting a few votes.

    But something like 85% of the people you claim as your own actually appear to want nothing to do with your racist policies.

    I do agree with your comments on the language. Every language changes and morphes over time. English contains vast quantities of words added every era. and some drop from usage. Some like ‘racist’ even get turned around to mean the opposite by ignoramuses like yourself. I don’t have a problem recognising the language. I just think that its official use needs to reflect the percentage of the population that use it. Therefore while I am happy to hear the National Anthem in Maori, the first verse should be sung no more than 1 times out of 10 in Maori and the English version 9 times out of 10.

    1. Mike, that was a typo, it should have read 1.7%. That’s still better than either the ACT party or the Conservatives. Since when has the amount of blood ever been relevant in NZ politics? This infactuation with ‘blood’ sounds eerily of the Nazis. So, who’s the racist now Mike?

      According to official figures as at December 2012 there are 234,470 Maori voters enroled on the Maori roll, about 60% of Maori voters, the remainder are either on the General roll, or not enroled at all. There is a further 160,000 Maori living in Australia who are eligible to vote in NZ, if they enroled on the Maori roll there would be a strong case for the Maori seats in parliament to be increased to 13 or 14. The median age of the Maori population is 22, a relatively young population and growing. The Maori birth rate is higher than European birth rate, so of course the current projection is that Maori will reach 30% of NZ’s population later this century.

      Like ACT the MP is in its death throes and more Maori voters will look towards Hone or the Labour party, just as digruntled Non-Maori are looking towards the Conservatives, who either have to cross the 5% barrier or win a seat. It’s possible that the Conservatives could win Epsom that’s if they can gain some kind of accord with National on that issue.

      1. NN, you say there are 234,470 maori voters on the maori roll, not true, I know of at least 4 white couples that have decided to become maori to get their kids a free education and all the other benefits, none are maori but their kids will benefit.
        Of course the maori birth rate is more than anyone else, but that is because the hated white man pays them to breed.
        Time for some equallity methinks.

      2. Agree with your assessment on Act. Not sure about the MP.

        The thing that really cracks me up with you is how anyone with any % of Maori ancestry automatically becomes a Maori to you.

        Reality check: There are no real Maori. There are only people who are part Maori. They may want to be called Maori for any number of reasons including they feel they identify with what they think it is to ‘be’ Maori, or they want to be part of a racial group having huge resource advantage over other groups.
        But they are no more Maori than they are Scottish, English, Russian, Fijian or whatever else their makeup is.
        Tipene O’Regan used to beat kids up at school who called him ‘Maori’ until he came to realise the racial advantage of it and became as Maori as he could.
        He’s still has the same non-Maori ethnicity he had before.

        So for all your ethnic cleansing and pretending that people with Maori blood are Maori and not what the rest of their ancestry is, they are not.

  10. NN. I understand that you are a teacher (currently working at an international school). When I think back, the teachers that I learnt the most from were respectful of me as a person, fair and even in applying the classroom rules, and marked according to merit not nepotism. What conditions would you seek to establish if your classroom were in New Zealand?

    1. “The thing that really cracks me about you is how anyone with any % of Maori ancestry automatically becomes a Maori to you”.

      No, Mike you’re wrong. I don’t determine who is or isn’t a Maori. It’s the law, anyone who has any % of Maori ancestry may call themselves Maori. There is no legislation that determines who is a Maori, and who is not. We are talking about NZ, not Nazi Germany.

      1. NN, you’re right we’re not talking about Nazi Germany, but if your lot get their way we’ll soon be talking about Zimbabwe.

  11. Irene, what has nepostisim got to do with classroom rules? Parents send their children to school and expect them to be be educated accordingly. The school administration determines broad policies on classroom management and teacher’s manage their classes according to the guidelines. Nepotism doesn’t come into it. Unless you’re referring to National’s Charter Schools.

  12. NN, I believe you deliberately misinterpreted my previous post, perhaps I phrased in incorrectly but try to circumvent this fact.

    Until 1974, and the passing of the Māori Affairs Amendment Act, a Māori was defined as someone with “half or more blood”. However, the definition was rather loosely applied, and did not require persons to provide proof of their “blood quantum” in order to receive whatever benefits were then available.

    “There is no legislation that determines who is a Maori, and who is not. We are talking about NZ, not Nazi Germany.”

    There was until 1974, and that act can no doubt be repealed.

  13. NN. I wasn’t asking you about how schools operate – I think I am reasonably clear on that subject. I have explained to you of some of the values that inspired me in my formative years. I am curious as to your own personal values and how those values would be reflected in your classroom teaching – if you were to teach in New Zealand.

    1. My personal values are that everyone should be treated equally and respect for other cultures. I have always applied those two principals in the classroom throughout my teaching career. Now, before you try and make the quantum leap from my classroom teaching values to what is happening in NZ society, allow me to tell how it was for Maori children in the 1960’s. Generally, Maori children were treated differently, from their non-Maori classmates, you were made to feel inferior and often discriminated against, our culture was ridiculed which had ramifications later in life for many of those children.

      That all changed from the mid-1970’s by then I had already left school and moved on. The sort of views that many on this blog espouse and the views aired by Dr. Elizabeth Rata would wish to take NZ back to the 1950’s and 1960’s. That will never happen because the genie is already out of the bottle. So, Irene I have just shared with you my personal values.

  14. NN. Good to hear that your personal values hold that people should be treated fairly and that you have respect for cultures other than your own. In my view that is important.
    I was not living in NZ when you were a school aged child but am sorry to hear that you personally feel that some negative experiences you had overshadow the positives in the education you received. It is painful to have to deal with insults, put downs or name calling.
    As a person of English/ European origin, I too have felt hurt by racial discrimination in the NZ education system, but that occurred in the 1990’s. It certainly had ramifications for me. And that is the issue. Reverse the racism and two wrongs do not make a right.
    The point about egalitarian / humanitarian values is that we have to try to hold onto them even when our personal experience tests us. That can certainly be a challenge but I think a society underpinned by humanitarian values is worth striving for. I intend to make the effort. Will you?

  15. NN, You say,
    “Generally, Maori children were treated differently, from their non-Maori classmates, you were made to feel inferior and often discriminated against, our culture was ridiculed which had ramifications later in life for many of those children”

    When I went to school, 1945 to 1955, we, for the most part never even knew any difference between kids, Long time ago now but could you elucidate on who it was that made you feel inferior, was it the other kids or the teacher’s? Or was it just your own feelings.of inadequacy perhaps?

  16. NN, you say “of course new words are being introduced to the Maori language, just as English evolved from the original German and many new words were introduced from Latin, French and Arabic.”

    The difference being those other languages never had a committee, to dream up new words, The new words in other languages evolved through usage and different cultures meeting and melding and using common words, even some maori words are in common usage in the English language, and it is still not possible to speak in the maori language without the use of english words at times.

    1. “The difference being those other languages never had a committee, to dream up new words. The new words in other languages evolved through usage and different cultures meeting and melding and using common words, even some Maori words are in common usage in the English language, and it is still not possible to speak in the Maori language without the use of English words at time”.

      Well, Owen you have contradicted yourself there. In the above paragraph you are saying that a committee sat down and came up with new words, then you say “….some Maori words are in common usage in the English language…”. How did that come about Owen? Let me tell you through usage and the two cultures meeting, not dreamed by a committee. If you come to Brunei you will hear many English words used in the Malay language, such as sekolah meaning school, positif meaning positive etc. This has come about through 300 years of British colonial rule. Bahasa Indonesia has many Dutch words also from the colonial period. The Japanese language also has many loan words of foreign origin, here the Japanese use a different script to differentiate foreign loan words from Japanese words, called Katakana for example; ‘pan’ meaning bread derived from the Portugese ‘pao’ and ‘kohi’for coffee.

  17. Ngamoko my MIL is a retired Primary school teacher.

    She emigrated from England as a fully qualified teacher in the 1950’s and was placed in Kawhia, a predominantly Maori community at the time.

    She had a great 2 years there teaching, she loved the kids and for the most part they were eager to learn. She did not try to ‘beat the Maoriness out of them’ as you claim was all that happened over this time. She was interested in the differences in attitudes she found and used the natural interest of the children to broaden their minds to learning and the world outside.

    The community was safe and peaceful.

    Today, after 20 – 30 years of what you claim is a superior system, the educational standard in Kawhia is poor and it is no longer a safe community – witness the recent events.

    During my schooling in the late 60’s and all of the 70’s I do not see any of the behaviour that you claim. There were a number of different ethnicities in my classes, all were expected to achieve the same academic and behavioural standard.

    My MIL spent the last decades of her career teaching in Mangere, Auckland in the 80’s and early 90’s, a predominantly PI and Maori area. The school immersed itself in ‘Maoriness’ – when they had ‘cultural days’ and she taught about English culture she would incur the wrath of the Maori teachers and the kids would be amazed, telling her that they had no idea that there were other cultures, they thought all ‘culture’ was Maori because that was what their families and school pretended. Such is their ignorance.

    She would regularly have kids in her class come to school stoned and spend the day sleeping because they had spent the previous evening watching videos while their parents (or parent and latest partner) spent the evening smoking weed and filling the atmosphere inside the house..

    But hey! They have ‘Culture’ and a better system now eh!

  18. NN,

    Tell me this was not thought of by a committee


    (loan)(noun) car, automobile, motorcar.
    I ētahi wā i mauria rāua mā runga motokā (TP 11/1904:5). / Sometimes they were taken by car. See also motukā.


    (loan)(noun) car, automobile, motorcar.
    Ka hiahia ia ki te hāereere, ka eke ki te hōiho, ki te paihikara, ki te paki, ki te tima, ki te rērewē, ki te motukā rānei, ka haere, ka whakapau i ana moni (TP 10/1903:2). / When he wants to travel about, he gets on a horse, a bicycle, a buggy, a ship, a train or motorcar and goes off wasting his money. See also motokā.

    1. Interestingly enough Owen, motoka is also the Malay word for car. It’s a transliteration of the English word motorcar.

  19. Yes, I suppose it could be called interesting, my question would be why a transliteration? why not just call it a motor car? Because it is a transliteration of an english word does that make it a word in the language it is transliterated into?

  20. Point of interest re teaching Te Reo and Maori customs in schools:

    The “Indigenous Rights” document signed by John Key and Pita Sharples states that indigenous peoples have the right to preserve their own language
    and customs. I am in total agreement with that.

    If we distort things a little and consider that these (Maori) Hawaiikians were “indigenous”, (ignoring the fact that they emigrated from Hawaiiki, and disregarding the fact that they did not originate in this country) then the signed document says that they can preserve their own language and customs.

    It does not say that the “non-indigenous” portion of the population has to carry the cost. It says THEY can do their own thing, not expect everyone else to pay for it.

  21. The purity of the Maori language.

    In an earlier post, perhaps on a related site, I recounted the true event of some 20 years ago when two learned part-Maori gentlemen were appointed to the (well-payed) task of preserving the Maori language.
    They proudly announced that during the previous 12 months they had coined 10,000 “new Maori words.”

    To me, preserving means maintaining in an original state, so what is this convoluted, hybrid tongue being promoted today as “Maori”?

    Around the same time one individual registered on the Maori roll claiming to be 1/264th part Maori.

    Any further re-definitions of who is a Maori might see us all as being eligible for the Maori roll. Then we might be in a position to reclaim some of the $37billion assets that have been amassed with our taxpayer’s money.

    You know, once we were all classed as indigenous, being native to this country, until the word twisters got on to the job (probably the same ones who have re-invented the Treaty of Waitangi) and changed the definition to embrace only the original invaders.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if the government decided that we were all “Maoris”, and let all of us New Zealand natives have unlimited access to the beaches of the country in which we were born and which we used to call our own?

    Let’s face it – the Maori race no longer exists, except in the form of religious beliefs and ancestor worship. (Oh, and as a source of unearned income.)

    Maori is no longer a genetic statement – Maori has become a religion.

  22. I see above that Ngamoko makes the comment, “If you come to Brunei you will hear many English words used in the Malay language.”

    Is that really where he is?

  23. This is sooooo funny. I love stumbling across comic blogs like this one.

    I really enjoy the way you poke fun at Elizabeth Rata. I like the way you mock the use of her married name; which she uses to pretend she has any idea about Maoritanga.

    I also love the way you pretend to describe Aotearoa New Zealand as a democratic country. OMG I laughed for hours at that joke…it’s not so much the joke that is funny, but the clever way you disguise it as a type of truth.

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