NBR, Together New Zealand

53% of NBR readers would consider voting for a ‘One Law For All’ party!

NBR poll - 53% would consider voting for 'One Law For All' Party

Curmudgeons like Matthew Hooton say a single-issue ‘One Law For All’ party would have no show of breaking 5%.

Meanwhile, 53% of NBR subscribers say they would consider voting for such a party.

Over 90% of the people who come to my meetings say the same.

If only 5-10% of voters went into a polling booth in November next year and gave us their party vote, we could hold the balance of power and force the government to dismantle the Apartheid Aotearoa apparatus within six months.

It might surprise you that my preference would not be to abolish the Waitangi Tribunal, the Maori seats, etc. straight away. That would be unfair on Maori, despite being perfectly democratic.

Such a ‘tail wagging the dog’ result would not only cause our opponents to blame us for stripping them of their perks. It would also give a future government an excuse to reinstate the perks.

So that’s not the way to go. A binding referendum is.

My single policy plank would be to force the government to hold a binding referendum on the colourblind state issue within three months of the election (Waitangi Day 2015?), and fully implement the result of that referendum within another three months.

Therefore, assuming we get the usual 80% ‘No’ vote common to all poll questions to do with racial separatism, by the end of May 2015 we should have sent the Treaty gravy train on a one-way trip from Waitangi to Tangiwai.

Congratulations to NBR for being the only medium to respond to my challenge to poll the public. If the other media don’t believe the result, let them now conduct their own polls!

Since I’m proposing a binding referendum to dismantle racial separatism, I’m also thinking we might as well adopt binding referenda as a second policy plank.

I’m open to either the Swiss system or citizens’-initiated. Your thoughts?

Advertisements

62 thoughts on “53% of NBR readers would consider voting for a ‘One Law For All’ party!

  1. I agree. No party can just walk in and demand the abolusion of Maori seats, parties votes, it has to happen over time.
    Also TOW Tribunal cant be abolished but slowly wound down so it can be seen in history that attempts were made to correct wrongs and it was accepted by Maori.

    Despite what some think of me, I also believe the Maori language, culture and heritage is important to all NZ and so while I dont support Maori being taught in all schools, I do believe it should be offered in Te Reo schools and on the Marae and subsitised 2:1 (Maori Iwi: Government) Maori Iwi should be doing something positive with their compensations.

    Right behind this new party.

    1. I’m not interested in slow change. If it’s going to happen at all, I say do it swiftly.

      But also fairly – much more fairly than the change inflicted on the majority by the minority Maori Party.

      Let’s face it, our form of democracy is parliamentary dictatorship. The dictator holds a referendum on all his decisions over the previous three years.

      This is neither fair nor particularly democratic.

      BUT we can use the system to get the dictated to to dictate to the dictator. Like the Swiss do.

      See Amy Brooke’s http://www.100days.co.nz.

  2. It’s a free country Racheal. As long as I do not have to pay for it, maori can teach as many basket weaving and language courses as they want. Then when those unskilled kids become unskilled workers and can’t find jobs, the maori schools and teachers can explain to them why. There are dozens of cultures that keep their languages and cooking and culture alive in NZ with no tax payer funding whatsoever.

    1. I agree, Derejk. I object – as do thousands of other NZers – to having any of my tax being spent on any Maori-only cause whatsoever. That is in fact the whole point of this single-issue movement, is it not ? I also remind anyone who thinks that moves like abolition of the Waitangi Tribunal and Maori seats should take a long time and be approved by Maori, that Don Brash very nearly succeeded in taking National into office based largely on those exact policies, and I don’t recall that he recommended they be done slowly. Overnight ? No, of course not. But gradually ? Definitely not.

      1. Yes John, that’s right, but I would say…. Overnight? Ideally! Gradually? Probably that’s more realistic. These snouts have been in the trough too long. I would also like to see most of the “settlements” returned to the Govt as in the Proceeds Of Crime Act. where lies and deceit have been used to pervert our feeble minded MPs minds.

  3. I do hope that the other party NBR is talking about is Muriel’s. It would be a tragedy if there were several parties potentially splitting the vote and none of them breaking the 5%. Lets hope we can get some consensus and end up with a one law party in the next parliament and hopefully in the next Government.

  4. Now your talking John. My understanding of the Swiss system is that it does include ‘citizen’s initiatives’ at both local and state levels. They have well over 2000 municipalities included in their ‘binding referenda ‘system.
    I would go for nothing less than the Swiss do. They have had about 160 years to perfect what they call ‘Direct Democracy’ (versus representative democracy, which is failing us today). Why re-invent the wheel when any tweaking can be done later?
    There will be much wailing from the current crop of politicians and the nay sayers, however there are some great counter arguments to their
    crys.
    I have put together some pages from the internet, of arguments for ‘Direct Democracy’ wherever it is used, Europe, some states in the US, but particularly Switzerland. I need a little time to proof and edit before I send them to you.
    In my opinion Binding Referenda, first, second and third choice for this country. The citizens’ of this country need to take back the sovereignty from parliament. I say sovereignty for the people.
    This country has been scandalously beggared about by our parliamentarians. The negative stastistics are proof enough.

    , it can always be

    1. The Swiss don’t have Moari. And wishing we were Swiss wont change anything. Stop livening somewhere else and talk to your local M.P.

      1. I don’t understand that at all, Bill.

        The Swiss public didn’t want to be overrun by militant Muslims, so sent a powerful signal by banning minarets.

        There were only about four minarets in Switzerland at the time, so it must have seemed like an overreaction. But the sensible Swiss could see this alien culture of violence spreading through Europe, aided and abetted by the usual useful idiots.

        They had no wish to become another Netherlands or (once-) Great Britain.

        So they used their people’s veto, and stopped Islamisation in its tracks. Their politicians alone would never have done it.

        We do not have to wish we were Swiss to take a leaf out of the book of the world’s oldest democracy.

        And our local MPs have long since blocked their ears to our wishes.

        The only way to get through to them is to bully them hard at the ballot box.

  5. Interesting permutation there Graeme.

    John Ansell – if it eventuates that another party is formed in parallel with yours, and their policy is broadly similar (though, potentially less likely to ‘hold a govt to ransom’ to effect change) would you throw your weight behind them – or attempt to split the vote?

    IMHO, the Highlander principle applies… There can be only one!

    1. If, as you suggest, that party has a weaker resolve, then I would invite those people to join the party most likely to succeed.

      On the other hand, if that party is clearly striking a more resonant chord with the public and can demonstrate evidence of being able to more effectively achieve our common goal, then I would not try to chart a parallel path.

      Whether I would remain involved would depend whether I could make a useful contribution according to my own instincts and skills. I have learnt from my experiences with National and ACT that I am not very tolerant of others trying to do my job!

      Similarly on the question of leadership. If I can see that someone else would be a better leader for our party than me, I would quickly and happily fall in behind that person.

      Even in a party that I founded, I would expect the leadership to be decided in a fair contest by a majority of the members.

      Indeed, it would be hypocritical of me to call for a referendum on the Treaty issue, and not apply the same democratic principle within the party.

      For the same reason, I could not in all conscience join a party that believes in selective equality – equality on racial grounds, but not on the grounds of sexual orientation.

      That would rule out joining forces with the Conservative Party, even though I regard Colin Craig as a friend.

      In the end, I’m not a conservative and I’m not religious (I have a healthy regard for the spiritual dimension, but prefer to think for myself.) I believe in tolerating all but the intolerant and the unfair.

      My instincts are those of a change agent, and I don’t like to wait years for a change if there’s a way to make it happen in days, weeks or months.

      While I agree with Winston Peters on this issue, I do not respect the man’s ethics or his achievements (little to show for decades in Parliament).

      Success for us would depend on persuading a large number of NZ First’s older votes that we would be an honest alternative to the serial promise-breaker and bauble-taker.

      1. Hi John
        You say above that although you respect the views of religious people you don’t feel the need to belong to a religious club yourself. I share that view, but many wont. My view is belong to any club you like but don’t expect me to pay for it. In other words pay your taxes like any other revenue gathering organization .
        The business arm of some religious groups is huge can’t understand the tax exceptions?
        John I think you are to Maori ( and anyone else who think they are owed special treatment ) what Richard Dawkins is to religion . You are continually bringing up points of view that the blind and the deaf can no longer ignore. Superstitions, and religions can only exsist where their is ignorance and fear of the unknown. Keep up the great work, keep the facts coming, re educate the brainwashed. The truth will prevail. Rid NZ of apartheid.

      2. @Bill

        I think you are on very shaky ground when you start elevating people like Dawkins to a status they don’t deserve.

        JA is using ethics and morals and an education gained over several
        millenia of Christian based society and values to expose fraud, corruption and a lack of ethical thinking in the Treaty grievance industry.
        Dawkins uses muddled logic, a lack of ethics and fraudulent assumptions to further his agenda of a society where he (a godless philosopher) is god.

        I think we need to keep religion out of this arena.

      3. @ Mike, I thought Dawkins’s books were good but we don’t want to get side tracked here. Yes, lets keep religion out of it. As an atheist, I have already had this conversation here a few months ago. We will all differ on various topics from religion, football, economics, etc etc. Lets focus on the maori racism first and then beat each other up later! BTW, I am so impressed by the quality contributions from everyone so far. I feel I have found what I have been looking for for such a long long time!

      4. I don’t know any two people who agree on everything, and I don’t think we should expect that we will either.

        Nor do I think we should necessarily suppress our views on other issues if asked.

        I believe we should tolerate our differences, and celebrate our common ground.

        When I think about it, we have a lot of differences.

        Mike Kuipers von Lande is religious, as is Tim Wikiriwhi, my Hamilton organiser.

        I’m not.

        (Mind you, I do absolutely agree that Christian missionaries were a Godsend for Maori, and the Protestant work ethic has been one of the strongest pillars of western civilisation.)

        Chris Trotter is a socialist.

        I’m a capitalist.

        John Robinson is a pessimist for the planet.

        I’m a relentless optimist for our species.

        David Round is convinced global warming is a big problem.

        I’m pretty much convinced it isn’t.

        My Nelson sponsor believes people should be able to own as many military assault rifles as they like.

        I think one is too many.

        Hugh Barr leans left on most issues.

        I lean right.

        Amy Brooke is fiercely anti-abortion.

        I’m OK with it.

        And so on.

        If we form a party to derail the Treaty gravy train, I expect us to be a gloriously disparate bunch on other matters – and to be able to cope with that.

        When I said above that I could not join forces with the Conservatives, I should have made myself clearer.

        I meant I could not join the party, because to me their flagship philosophy is Christian conservatism, which to me preaches inequality.

        And I’m not going to stand for inequality just because someone wrote it in a book thousands of years ago (no matter how much of a best seller that book became).

        But I could happily form an alliance with my friend Colin on the issues we have in common. I have a particularly high regard for Colin’s integrity – one attribute of Christianity that I do admire.

      5. I find myself ticking most of your boxes, John. We seem to be on the same wave length, apart from the Conservatives being a Christian Party. I don’t believe they are.

        Colin Craig may call himself a Christian, as do many people, but I’m convinced his Party isn’t a Christian Party even though the media try to denigrate him by calling it such. I understand Colin doesn’t even attend Church but he does have the Christian principles as a moral code. I’m an atheist but I believe the Christian principles are a good moral code to live by.

        So, if you do decide to unite with Colin, I’m sure you have nothing to worry about in this direction. I have spoken with him on a couple of occasions and Christianity didn’t come up once. He just rolled his eyes when I said the media liked to portray his Party as a Christian one.

  6. Brilliant news. Also great that the NBR conducted a poll. At least they have integrity. I absolutely agree we should imitate what the Swiss have as they would be about the only true democratic country in the World.

    We must have binding referenda and I’m also very much in favour of the 100 Days concept. There is a difference but both are needed. The Swiss have had both for over 140 years and it works perfectly. There are hardly any referenda (contrary to what our politicians SAY they fear!!?) because the politicians know the citizens will use the 100 Days concept or initiate a referendum, so they do in fact listen to the people – most of the time.

    Also they have far fewer politicians, the President’s term is for only one year and the politicians are only part-time. They have full-time jobs elsewhere.

    However, as Doc and others have said, there can only be one such Party. We can’t have different Parties all over the place standing on the same issue and splitting the vote. It would be self-defeating. Somehow they have to all be brought together and be cohesive. Egos and personalities have to be put to one side for the common good.

    I’m starting to feel some hope but we can’t delay.

  7. I managed to find it, Irene, by going into Maxim’s website. Once again the dreaded invented ‘Principles of the Treaty’ were mentioned. I suppose seeing they are in law they should be mentioned but they should also be noted as an invention, not in line with the real Treaty, and should be deleted post haste from all legislation.

    As soon as I see those four words ‘Principles of the Treaty’ I go into melt-down and everything else pales into insignificance!!

  8. TBH, I would have thought that of NBR readers, the percentage would be a lot higher. More like 70-80%. Anyone else feel that 53% seems a tad low for NBR subscribed readers? Don’t get me wrong, I’m pleased its a majority, but only 53%…..

    1. Could it be that the subscribers are mostly business people and may have other issues they also consider important?

  9. Great news John I’m quite excited about this becoming reality. The sentiment of the others I agree with for the most part. My fear is the split vote… However what does give me faith is that, unlike our Maori Party leaders who blinded by power and greed, all want to be leader at the same time, (standard tribal mentality illustrating which is why tribal based leadership can never work in the modern society), we must unite under one Party to drive this concept home.
    Bring it on.. LOVE IT!

    1. I doubt whether there would be more than one party come election time. 🙂

      But before then, there may well be differences on the right way to get the necessary cut-through. Those differences should be tested and resolved well before voting day.

  10. On the news tonight – 2 high profile Conservative candidates at the last election have been referred to police by the electoral commission for filing false election expenses returns.
    Genuine fraud or an attempt by our political incumbents to kneecap an up an coming party?

    I agree with the concept of having a second policy plank, being direct referenda. I am not enough aware of the options to have an opinion on which model is best.

    As far as dismantling the gravy train, I believe that to have any integrity, it must:
    1) Immediately call a halt to further settlements
    2) Signal that all existing separatist policies will be abolished and that all such entities are required to immediately commence planning to carry this out, eg. schools merging back into mainstream,
    3) Abolish the ‘TOW Principles’ law and the concept of ‘partnership’
    3) Suspend the Waitangi Tribunal and establish an investigative body to re-examine all claims from the modern era, ie at least back to the mid 1980’s. Any claimants that are found to have submitted evidence that is false or in significant conflict with known historical facts will have their settlements cancelled and will be required to refund them to the state. Past settlements will only stand if the actions of the state are confirmed to have been malicious and out of proportion and inconsistent to the prevailing processes and expectations of the time they were undertaken. Any judgements and recommendations of the WT that are found to be out of proportion and/or against natural justice are to be overturned with the settlements cancelled and refunded to the state or reduced to a justified level. The full weight of historical events are to be considered in these judgements, including all the actions by tribes that lead to or provoked any confiscations or losses and crown action and warnings by the crown.
    4) Any WT members found to have acted in a manner prejudicial towards the claimants and against the crown to be prosecuted for corruption.
    5) A new WT to be set up with new processes that require full disclosure of all the facts and issues surrounding any claim. The crown is to appear to cross examine claimants and present and defend the crowns position.
    6) Strike out any claim that relies on the ‘partnership’ argument to move forward and hear any remaining historical claims that relate solely to loss of resources due solely to alleged inappropriate and unjust actions by the crown.
    7) Maori to become responsible for maintaining all aspects of their ‘culture’ without any government funding. The only exceptions are: a) Educational funding to reach Te Reo as an option in schools. b) Small scale Maori based ceremonies at times where the event is of national significance and has special historical significance to Maori over other races. (If any).

  11. Did you just see the crap on campbell live? Susan devoy reckons maori live shorter lives due to institutionalised racism and that the failings of the treaty are the fault of the white.

      1. Hugh Barr went to see her shortly after she was appointed and gave her a copy of Twisting the Treaty

    1. Just watched the interview on Campbell Live. Devoy is a pragmatist and has realigned her views to fit the environment she has chosen to work in.

    2. It hasn’t taken her long to be indoctrinated, has it!! Next minute she will be spouting all the inanities of the racist separatists. I thought she was supposed to have some common sense and not to be a pushover!!

    1. I can’t stand Campbell. What a wet left wing lunatic who never asks the real question the majority of NZ want him to ask.
      I feel Dame Susan eschewed what she really wanted to say and answered very carefully. I got the impression she’d say something completely different in the right company.
      She did say the waitangi day was about parnership, almost sounding like the treaty was about partnership, which it’s not.

  12. Well so much for Devoy being a breath of fresh air and speaking out for truth. I had my suspicions. With things the way they are in the country for the last 30 years there is no way a clear thinking non racist person would ever get that job.

    1. I’m going to ask to have a chat to her.

      I actually rang her at home on the day she was appointed, but she was out, and her hubbie let me know in no uncertain terms that it was not the right time.

      Fair enough too.

      1. Hi John
        My son was playing squash at a national level when Susan was world champ. I, like so many had a huge respect for the lady. Believe me she will call it as she sees it . The Susan Devoy I remember takes no prisoners. So a word of advise John don’t push her to the back of the court her drop shot is deadly.
        Susan definitely makes for a better friend than an enemy .

  13. Countering the academics in our universities and post primary , (even primary schools) with the truth of our history, and calling out the unjust awarding of public land and money , “settelments” to the liars at the WT will be sweet justice and i can’t wait for that day to come.
    Waitangi Tribunal is the enemy to all New Zealanders , especially maori as it has filled their heads with lies and the belief of their being some kind of superior citizen that demands everything in life for free.

  14. Agree Mike and Irene. Just watched Cambell live and Susan. Wow with comments like “born out of ignorance comes fear” structual discrimination, unconscious bias, the TW, ( Johnny agreeing on the last “hear hear” ) gulp, equal in partnership. some of the reasons why moari live 7yrs less than other people in NZ and why she would be good in this role. Would be nice JA if you had good air and tv time. What are they scared of? THE TRUTH? We all lived side by side 30yrs ago as 1 Now we are being divided because of the twisting and the manipulation. Sorry Susan i think your being GROOMED. JA the sooner this new party gets off the ground better,as i see them being worried very worried as you start traction. Any chance i can get my 57chev back i sold 30yrs ago? “YEA RITE” i signed it away.

    1. Speaking of Chev’s . . . my partner worked with a guy who told him his story of buying a car off a Maori guy last year or so.

      According to the guy selling it, the car had some mechanical issue and they were selling it cheap as a result.

      My partner’s work mate, being a mechanic looked at the motor and worked out immediatly what the problem was.

      It was nothing much and cheap to fix.

      He brought the car for $2,000, I think it was, took it home, fixed it up and sold it over trademe getting 6 or 7 grand for it!

      Some time later the Maori guy who he brought the car off, got word of how much he sold it for over Trademe.

      The Maori guy contacted him, bouncing over the phone, accusing him of ripping them off and telling him he owed them more money!

      My partners workmate told them to get stuffed (in the proverbial).

      1. With respect Trina (and you know I greatly respect the work you are doing for us), this comment makes me feel uncomfortable.

        If the Maori guy had said, “You ripped me off just like your Pakeha ancestors ripped off my ancestors” then the story would be relevant to Treatygate.

        Otherwise his complaint does not seem to be connected to his being Maori. He’s just another guy who thinks a sharp operator has ripped him off (when in fact the mechanic was just adding his skill and labour to a fairly-negotiated price).

        Of course his story had a lot in common with how the British dealt with Maori (adding massive amounts of labour and skill to land and selling it for a massive profit).

        But I don’t think it’s fair on today’s Maori to assume they all have that in mind when they find themselves in a similar position.

        I hope you can understand the distinction I’m making.

  15. Maori live shorter lives because they abuse themselves and their lives.
    These pathetic excuses for journalists like Campbell are as weak as piss and will forever play poor maori against the majority white oppressors.
    All New Zealand journalist are the same and won’t ask the real questions about the falsification of the re-written treaty to suit maori separatists and pusillanimous politicians who fear them.
    These same politicians put our national army at over 50% maori and a much larger % of the police compaired to the pro rata population. My God if there were an uprising in this country the people with guns and full weight of the law (maori) would have the upper hand.
    How did it get so stupid when they make up less than 14% of the population, and have been for the best part of 30 years radicalised by watching and listening the likes of Willie, Hone, Turia, Sharples and many more separatists telling them how terrible they’ve been treated by the white man.
    I hope there’s only one party that represents the thoughts of most people on this forum, and I hope if and when they get in some sort of power then they dismantle everything that is considered bias and separatist.
    I personally have Key, Finlayson and their ilk arrested and charged for crimes against our country. The maori council, party, whanau Ora and everything else that represents aparthied stripped of all their tax payer empire built wealth and redistributed based on need not race.
    Nai tahu’s wealth would be stripped and all land conviscated by the crown and retured to the people of NZ.
    Yes, I’m afraid it would have to go alot further for me to redress the damage that has been done to this country through reverse racism, bias, and complete shut out of democracy in favour of a very privileged few. The people that perpetrated this on our society would pay the price in a court of law.

      1. I don’t believe that the army is 15% maori at all. I’m not tto far from Burnam Camp and the maori soldiers I see outnumber white soldiers by a long shot. My observations.

      2. Hi Graeme,
        If your figures are right the 30.1 who call themselves NZ er,s must also be Maori. Whenever I see any army maneuvers on tv etc. It always seems to have a healthy Maori content. I’d question that stat.

    1. Bill they are not my figures see the link. Te Ara says that the numbers are sourced from the Defense Force. I would suggest that it is unlikely that those calling themselves kiwis are all Maori, though there may be some. Probably actually a good thing if there are some as it shows that they are New Zealanders first and Maori second, which is what they should all be in my opinion.
      Not sure that too much can be read into what the media show as we know how biased MSM is. Lets not get to worked up over this peaceful solutions are what we want.

      1. Bill 11.29 am, I think that ANY part-maori content in the army is UNhealthy, not healthy. Because I now do not trust them.

  16. well done John it looks like things are moving in the right way. i will be voting in your favour if the check box is available on the voting sheet

  17. John, this is very positive stuff! My spirit has been lifted a bit more.

    Here is hoping more polls are done by others so we can get more of a picture.

  18. Mike Kuipers Von Lande April 18 5:04
    Mike” I do NOT apologogise if my comments offended you because that was not my intention. Scientists don’t generally believe in Santa, fairies, dragons etc. Because they deal in facts and very few would ask you to believe in something they could not prove beyond any doubt.
    Religion will always be afraid of Science for all the obvious reasons.
    Don’t worry Mike I won’t burn you at the stake if you still believe that the world is flat.
    I truly envy those who have a personal God. How wonderful it must be to be able to through any thing you don’t understand in to a God basket.( a million Jews world war two ) don’t feel bad rejoice it’s all part of Gods plan.
    You and I are closer than you think Mike , you are only one God away from being an atheist now if you were Hindu that would be a real problem.

    1. Oh dear Bill,

      you are not doing well with your explanations.

      I did not ask you to apologise, rather I suggested you should keep your opinions on religion out of this arena, as we all should.

      Instead you choose to add fuel to the fire you started. So:

      My religion is not afraid of science. It has done more to support it than any other organisation.
      Why would you think I believe the world is flat? My religion led society in teaching that it is a sphere. Many atheists believed otherwise.
      Why do you attempt to pin the murder of Jews on my religion when
      the responsibility lies with the atheist beliefs you proudly claim to be part of?

      If you are going to criticise my religion you need to at least start from a place of integrity. Instead you show a remarkable lack of education and understanding of what you profess to know.

      Now can we get back to the relevant topic before JA removes us from his site for irrelevance?

  19. 19.04.2013

    From Nick Smith today (in response to a letter we sent him)

    “ …… thank you for yr Email with regards to the Treaty of Waitangi.

    With regard to the Treaty settlements, National is making unprecedented progress on full and final settlements of historic claims.
    A requirement of each settlement is that iwi acknowledge and sign that the settlement extinguishes the historic claim. We also require that a referendum is held amongst claimants to ensure the claims are fully settled.

    I have spent a lot of time studying the Treaty issues and there is absolutely no doubt that there needs to be some redress.

    For instance up until 1960, Maori land was taken under the Public Works Act without payment while others who had land taken under the Act were compensated. As a result roads were often designed across Maori land because it was cheaper, not because it was the best route for the road to take.
    We must remember that New Zealand is one of the few countries in the world that has not had civil war and bloodshed and this can be attributed to the Treaty of Waitangi.
    It is therefore imperative that we work through genuine grievances to allow us to move forward as New Zealanders.
    We must equally be clear as a Government that we have no tolerance for treaty claims like those over the airwaves and water that have little substance.
    I hope that this gives you an idea as to what is happening… “
    ___________________________________________

    Well we thought . . . he was one of the few who responded to our letter and certainly deserves some credit for that – but you can be assured we’ll be responding to both his stated and unstated comments as well.

    It may indeed be true re the Public Works Act (I don’t know) but he overlooks a major point of Treatygate; that as well as grabbing wealth, corporate iwi have been taking slow insidious steps and have been ‘accepted’ into decision-making local bodies and governmental agencies etc and are now on their way to grabbing sovereignty (unless our voices are heard).

    Plus there’s the wee small point that the Freeman draft treaty has been irrefutably confirmed as a false earlier draft treaty with the final ‘Littlewood’ draft matching Te Tiriti word by word. . . . and that the five principles are lawyer driven and have no credence other than that given by politicians for their own reasons.

    Nick Smith (and National) must be incredibly naive if they think they can solve racial disharmony and so-called cultural claims by basing decision making on a false treaty and principles according to rewritten history.

    Can they not see that unless this is reigned in and reversed there could well be a Tribunal hearing Non-Maori Claims in the future to right the very real injustices being perpetrated today?
    Can they not see that they are dividing the country and there will be civil disharmony once the damage they have caused to our country gets widely known?

    Lastly, if National has “no tolerance for treaty claims like those over the airwaves . . . “ why did they decline this claim yet give Maori a ‘sweetener’ of several million???

    Comments anyone?

    (I haven’t mentioned the regurgitation of those ‘empty’ words, ‘Full and Final settlement’, because they make me want to smash a few things and we’re low on crockery!!!)

  20. I agree with you, Carol, especially about smashing things over all this nonsense. I have had much correspondence since 1995 with Nick Smith over this contentious issue. Before he got back into power he agreed with me, like with the Global Warming rubbish. Once in power, he switched completely around.

    He is a big fan of Dame Claudia Orange and we all know what she is about and what a revisionist historian she is. She was involved when they found the Littlewood Treaty and, I’ve forgotten the exact words she used, but she more or less said that if the Littlewood Treaty was acknowledged as the lost draft, it would undo all that they had done. So she is complicit in suppressing it.

    Yes, Nick needs to answer why they always give the ‘Maori’ something every time they ask for something outrageous. Why don’t they just tell them to go to hell.

    There is so much fraud involved in the current Treaty claims. They were all finished in the late 1940’s before the country was handed over from the British. So, why the thousands of claims now? Why has Ngai Tahu had five full and final settlements all over the same piece of land? Why have they now had a top-up – because it was written into their settlement – and why was that? There are endless questions.

    There are going to have to be many wrongs righted for Non-Maori before this disastrous nonsense is finished and many are going to have to give assets back.

    Good points on all the co-governance, go-management, Maori Boards and Wards, decision making in Local Bodies etc, Carol. National is creating a divisive separatist country with people of Maori descent elevated to some special place. It’s got to stop!!

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s