Bruce Moon, Constitutional Advisory Panel

See Bruce Moon address Nelson Constitution meeting this afternoon

I urge all Nelson readers to go to the Kowhai Lounge, Block N, of NMIT in Hardy Street from 1.00–5.00pm today.

Two members of the Constitutional Advisory Panel, John Burrows and Peter Chin, will be holding court on the Constitutional Review.

If there’s any fairness in the process, Bruce Moon will be allowed say the following:

I am very worried about the quantity of misinformation, even straight lies, circulating about the Treaty of Waitangi, much of it emanating from official circles, some alas, from the Constitutional Advisory Panel itself and some of its individual members.

I am also very worried about the credentials of most of the members of this panel for making recommendations to Government on such an important question as the constitution of New Zealand.

Why I am worried about the Panel is answered in chapters 15 & 16 of this book [Twisting the Treaty] which I suggest that all of you should read.

As to misinformation about the subject matter, I confine myself to published statements of the Panel itself, a critique of which has been issued to you at the door today.

If you have not had time to read it yet, do so as soon as you can.

The Panel says: “The Treaty … enabled the British to establish a government in New Zealand and confirmed to Māori the right to continue to exercise rangatiratanga (chieftainship).”

Now what sort of half-truth or less is that??

By Article first of the Treaty, the Maori chiefs surrendered sovereignty completely and forever to the Queen – they did not just ‘enable the British to establish a government’.

There can be no honest doubt about that.  Why isn’t the Panel simply honest enough to say so?

All the chiefs at Waitangi and Hokianga knew this, even those who were initially opposed to it.  I could quote their actual words if there were time.  All the chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 knew this and I could quote their words too.

Now, by Article first, all Maoris became subject to British law, as did Australian aboriginals and Americans Indians to the colonial powers in those continents but the Treaty gave Maoris much more than they got, because by Article third, Maoris received all the rights and privileges of the people of Britain.

Imagine that for the ten thousand or so Maoris who were slaves of other Maoris!  With a few strokes of a pen, from being liable to being killed and eaten at the whim of their Maori masters, they become British citizens in full!

Article second was really redundant because all it did was affirm the rights in law of subjects to own property, a right which had been non-existent under Maori ‘tikanga’. Refer to TtT, Chapter 3.

Moreover this was asserted for all the people of New Zealand, not just Maoris – “tangata katoa o Nu Tirani”.

The word use for ‘ownership’ was ‘rangatiratanga’ because only the class of rangatiras and above owned anything under Maori ‘tikanga’ – the common people owned virtually nothing.

So when the Panel says the Treaty “confirmed to Māori the right to continue to exercise rangatiratanga (chieftainship)” it is making a quite false and misleading statement.

Why does it do that?

So that is the Treaty, ladies and gentlemen, totally and in full.

It conferred absolutely no rights on Maoris or anybody else which were not the rights of all the people of New   Zealand.  All the claims we hear of Treaty-based rights of Maoris to our water, the electromagnetic spectrum, native plants and animals and anything else they can think of are totally spurious!

The Panel goes on to say “Generally legislation refers to principles of the Treaty rather than the Treaty itself”.

Well, yes it does, but this is something else which is quite spurious, disgraceful doings of our politicians.

The phrase “principles of the Treaty” was first inserted in the State-Owned Enterprises Act, 1986 by the misguided Geoffrey Palmer at the behest of the Maori Council.  It is an entirely recent notion which, being undefined, can be twisted by anybody who wants to do so, to “prove” almost anything.

The “principles” are not and never were part of the Treaty.

But it doesn’t end there – it gets worse.

The Panel says “Treaty principles have developed because of the difference between the English and Māori texts, and the need to apply the Treaty to circumstances as they arise.

The Waitangi Tribunal and Courts have played key roles in defining the Treaty, using principles to express the mutual responsibilities of the Crown and Māori.”

It is hard to know where to start in explaining how wrong this statement is.

1. There is no “English Treaty” – there is only one Treaty as there always has been – a document in the Maori language.

The English text referred to here is a bogus document, concocted by Hobson’s pompous secretary, Freeman, after the event.  One of his seven variant versions was signed at Waikato Heads (with a few signing at Manukau later) to cope with a very awkward situation which arose through no fault of anybody.

Again, to find out the details, refer to Chapter 2 of TtT.

2. The Treaty was a document signed at Waitangi by which New Zealand became a British colony and Maoris British subjects.

Since then, of course, we have evolved into a free and independent nation. The Treaty was a step in this process and that was all.  It did its bit in 1840.

It is nonsense to talk of it as a “living document” as Mike Cullen of the Panel and others do.

If you and I sign a bit of paper by which I transfer my car or house to you, then that is that.  It has consequences of course because that property is subsequently in your ownership, not mine but, in itself, it is a done deal.

So was the Treaty of Waitangi.

3. The Treaty does not need “defining” as the panel says.  I have told you this afternoon all that is in the Treaty.

If, as the Panel says, the “Waitangi Tribunal and Courts have played key roles in defining the Treaty, using principles to express the mutual responsibilities of the Crown and Māori” then they have usurped a right, our rights, in doing so.

They have done just that in introducing the false idea of “partnership” which occurs nowhere in the Treaty.  It arises out of a statement by that learned but foolish judge, Robin Cooke, who exceeded his judicial brief in doing so. [I knew him personally so have some grounds for saying this.]

“Partnership” has grown like a cancer upon our body politic and is a sign of a great sickness in it.  Such things should make us all very worried.  They worry me.

You, John and Peter, are highly qualified and experienced lawyers, well capable of looking through evidence and distinguishing the true from the false.  It is imperative that you do so, immediately, and correct the many false pronouncements of your Panel.

If you can’t do this, then your only honourable course is to resign from it.  Your path is clear.

Bruce Moon

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.

Constitutional Advisory Panel, Te Papa Treaty Debates, Treatygate

Big banners for tonight's Te Papaganda Treaty 'Debate'


Thanks to those who’ve volunteered to hold these 3 metre long banners and risk incurring the withering glares of the Smarmy Army as they head into tonight’s Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ on the Constitution.

We were in the middle of printing the ‘Trickery’ banner above when one of my clever-clogs supporters mused that ‘Treachery’ would be a better description of what the appeasers have been up to for the last 40 years.

Damn, I thought, he’s right. So I got that one printed too. The good thing is, we’ve now we’ve got one for each entrance.


Do come along at 6.30pm. (But preferably earlier, lest you be crowded out by the Claudiophiles.)

I’m sure the assembled Constitutional Advisory Panel members will be delighted to chat with you as they enter and leave the building.

I do not intend to disrespect them, but I would like to ask them some questions.

Questions like:

  • Prof John Burrowes: You told me last week that your panel is almost certainly going to meet the general public.  Given that your role is to find out what the public think, why are you treating the public as some sort of afterthought?
  • Sir Tipene O’Regan: Why are you still co-managing a panel charged with examining the core of our national being, when you have also been charged with mismanaging a finance company?
  • Leonie Pihama: You recently tweeted after I appeared on Maori TV (advocating racial equality) that I was a “redneck” and a “racist”. And then you said “We can debate their [racists’] views without them present!”

    Is that the agenda of the Constitutional Advisory Panel — to debate constitutional matters without the majority of New Zealanders present — people you regard as racist?

  • Dame Claudia Orange: How can you call these one-sided discussions ‘debates’ when all ‘debaters’ are from the same side?
Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

Last post spawns TV interview

Red carpet being laid at Parliament

Preparing the welcome mat for yours truly.

Seems the preceding post has piqued the interest of a mainstream TV channel.

They want to interview me for their Waitangi Day leadup coverage, and I have reluctantly and modestly agreed.

I shouldn’t reveal who, when or where, except to say that the place is somewhere you walk up en route to a certain chamber of Chamberlains in Thorndon.

The institution concerned is keenly awaiting my arrival, as evidenced by the two gentlemen above laying out the welcome mat.

You can never be quite sure how these interviews will go, but the reporter seemed very interested in my assessment of a certain advisory panel.

To assist the reporter, I thought I’d suggest a backdrop of one or two of my newly-designed Treatygate banners.

If anyone fancies witnessing the interview of the century, while providing visual support for my message, please email me at

Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

When did we vote to change our name to Aotearoa New Zealand?

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - Aotearoa NZ
Email from the Constitutional Advisory Panel,
arrogantly assuming you support a national name change. 

In its first email of the year, the Constitutional Advisory Panel has already concluded that you want to change the name of your country.

When did you vote on that, you may well ask?

You didn’t? Tough.

In lock-step with all mesmerised Maoriphiles who infest our academo-bureaucratic complex, this faux-neutral, fawningly racist panel has airily decided that the nation founded and known for 370 years as ‘New Zealand’ is now ‘Aotearoa New Zealand’.

The Duplicitous Dozen have nailed their colours to the mast, and those colours are brown.

It’s a decision dripping with irony.

After all, shouldn’t a group of constitutional advisors be the very first people to insist that any tinkering with the most sacred parts of a nation’s identity — such as its name — must first be signed off by a majority of voters?

Shouldn’t the appropriate constitutional vehicle for such a momentous change be a referendum?

Not an email?

So who are these constitutional con artists who want to engage with you with a steamroller?

CONstitutional Advisory Panel - IN ON THE

The rigged panel of Griever Maori and Appeaser Pakeha
charged by the National-Maori alliance with misrepresenting
your desire for a Treatyfied constitution.

They are, from left: Dr Leonie Pihama, Hinurewa Poutu, Emeritus Professor Dr Ranginui Walker, Hon. John Luxton, Deborah Coddington, Sir Tipene O’Regan, Emeritus Professor Dr John Burrowes QC, Professor Linda Tuhiwai Smith, Peter Tennent, Peter Chin, Bernice Mene, and Sir Michael Cullen.

And this is their first progress report on what they amusingly refer to as The ‘Conversation’ So Far.

These people believe in skirting the courtesies of democracy.

In holding themselves in contempt of the court of public opinion.

In overriding the will of the people whose views they are charged with seeking.

And why are they afraid to talk openly with us, the pesky majority?

Because these unelected, unrepresentative political stooges know full well that the vast non-Maori majority do not share their enthusiasm for such things as ditching the only name this country has ever had.

About which I must briefly digress…

New Zealand was Nu Tirani in 1840

Before the arrival of the British, Maori had no collective name for the country as a whole.

In fact, they didn’t even think of it as a country. Because it wasn’t.

These islands were simply a battleground for dozens of violently independent, crypto-communist cannibal dictatorships, whose shared a common hobby:  butchering, enslaving, and eating each other.

When, in 1840, the chiefs very sensibly decided to bury their hatchets and let the British run a proper country, they called it ‘Nu Tirani’ — the closest a language with no Zs, Ls or Ds could get to ‘New Zealand’.

‘Aotearoa’ was the Maori name for the North Island until well into the twentieth century. Apirana Ngata referred to it as that in his brilliant Treaty of Waitangi — An Explanation in 1922.

As Matthew Dentith helpfully confirmed on this blog recently, the proper Maori way of saying New Zealand is ‘Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu’ — ‘North Island and South Island’.

Some (though not Matthew) would say that was a bit of a mouthful for the name of a country.

Repeat, repeat, repeat

But back to the Constitutional Steamroller Panel.

The change management strategy of these and other name-changers is to publish their unauthorised name whenever they can get away with it. Like Hitler, they know that if  they repeat the Big Lie often enough, it will sink into the public mind as fact.

(They know this trick works. They’ve been using it for decades to embed their twisted history of the Treaty.)

Telling evidence of this name-change-by-stealth strategy is provided in the book Scooped: The Politics and Power of Journalism in — you guessed it — Aotearoa New Zealand.

Here’s a sample page where authors Sean Phelan, Verica Rupar and Martin Hirst use the name Aotearoa New Zealand seven times and New Zealand twice.

Aotearoa New Zealand x 7 - Sean Phelan et al

Seven ANZs and two NZs. Mesmerised Maoriphiles
trying to change the name of our country by stealth.

A good analogy for the incremental name change is the ‘merger’ of the ANZ and National banks. (Really a takeover by the ANZ.)

In the beginning, there were two separate banks: ANZ and National — just as there are two (Maori and English) names for our country: Aotearoa and New Zealand.

Then ANZ took over the National — just as the Aotearoans would like to take over New Zealand.

And for a time, to appease the customers of the National,  the ANZ owners considerately shared double billing as ANZ National — just as the appeasers (if not the grievers) now speak of Aotearoa-New Zealand.

ANZ National

As with ANZ National, so with Aotearoa New Zealand?

But then, the inevitable end game.

After everyone had got used to the takeover, the ANZ quietly dropped the National Bank name, Suddenly, it was just ANZ.

And so it will happen with New Zealand, if the Treatygaters have their way.

First, Aotearoa-New Zealand. Then simply Aotearoa.

Look at this stamp, in which our official name has been downgraded to an afterthought. Clear evidence that this process is already underway…

Stamping out New Zealand

Stamp - Aotearoa taniwha

The downgrading of New Zealand has already begun.

Look, I won’t object if we decide to call our country Aotearoa, or Aotearoa Me Te Wai Pounamu, or even John Keyland for that matter.

(I didn’t say I’d like it. But I won’t object.) Not if the change is decided by referendum.

And that’s my point. We, the people — not they, the elite — must decide.

After announcing its new name for the country, the Constitutional Advisory Panel’s email continues with its pretence that it actually cares what you think…

Constitutional Advisory Panel - email - seek range of views

A “broad range of views”?
Not if the Te Papa Treaty ‘Debates’ are any guide.

We’ve got until the end of June to make sure they hear our views — whether they want to or not.

I’ll be contacting them to see if they’re honest enough to front up to a public meeting, as co-chair John Burrowes told me they “almost certainly” would.

I, for one, would engage with them civilly, provided they do the same.

But of that I can’t be confident, given the tweetings of Panellist Leonie Pihama after my appearance on Native Affairs with Joris de Bres and Ella Henry last year…

 Leonie Pihama - racist tweet

After watching me advocating racial equality on Maori TV,
Constitutional Advisory Panellist Leonie Pihama condemned
me as a right wing redneck and racist

Add to that Deborah Coddington, who has been lauding the Treaty ‘Debate’ speech of Matthew Palmer on her Facebook page, and being sarky to anyone who doesn’t favour the Palmer plan to put the Treaty into law.

Meanwhile, I hope you Wellingtonians will join me at the latest Te Papa Treaty ‘Debate’ — this one specifically about the Constitutional Review — this Thursday at 6.30pm.

Those planning to bear witness to the latest farce — and perhaps chat to an Advisory Panellist or two — might like to email me at

Colourblind State, Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

2013 — the year we force the Constitutional Advisory Panel to tell the truth

Welcome to the New Year.

Sorry I was offline for the last part of the old one, and thanks for your patience.

I’m now fully restored, and determined to achieve the following goals:

  • 2013 — make the Constitutional Advisory Panel report to the government that 80%+ of New Zealanders want a colourblind state.
  • 2014 — make Treatygate and racial equality an election issue.
  • 2015 — make the new government repeal all racist laws and create a colourblind state.

A flurry of posts will soon follow, which I hope will get you excited about wanting to help. 🙂

Constitutional Advisory Panel, Treatygate

Red eye patches = one-eyed Treatygaters

The eye patch in this logo represents the pro-Maori-separatist bias of the New Zealand political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial, legal, media and iwi elites.

I intend to put red eye patches on all the con artists from these various elites who have sullied the good names of your forebears, and robbed you and your children of your right to understand your true history.

(Not to mention billions of your hard-won dollars.)

If we don’t do something soon, your one-eyed appeaser government will soon be saddling us all with a written Constitution, based around the bogus English version of the Treaty of Waitangi.

When this happens, New Zealand as you know it will be over. If you lack the required millilitre of Maori blood that entitles you to state favours, you will officially be a second-class citizen.

You may be horrified to learn that this process is already well underway.

The racially-rigged Constitutional Advisory Panel is right now conducting clandestine meetings with groups likely to support their agenda.

And it’s pointedly refusing to have anything to do with that great Griever occupational hazard, the New Zealand public.

Evidently, they will not be holding public meetings because “some people might cause trouble”.

This one certainly intends to.

Colourblind State, Constitutional Advisory Panel, Maorification

OIA EXCLUSIVE: Minutes confirm bias of Constitutional Advisory Panel

Here, courtesy of the Official Information Act, are the minutes of the first six meetings of the Constitutional Advisory Panel.

(My comments in red.)

The Griever Maori agenda could hardly be more obvious…

The staggering bias of this panel is now confirmed. 

To paraphrase the tenets of democracy, its goal is clearly to give New Zealand a government of the people, by Maori, for Maori.

That is ludicrously unfair on the rest of us.

So what can you do?

You can donate money to my campaign to end state racism and entrench a Colourblind State.

This campaign will have both positive and negative phases.

(Yes, it would be nice if we could do it by being relentlessly positive, but without pressure from an angry public John Key won’t listen.)

The positive phase is a referendum on a Colourblind State. 

The results of local body Maori ward referenda tell us that a referendum on doing away with race-based seats, agencies and funding would win the support of around 80 percent of voters.

But that, of course, won’t be enough.

Key showed us with his contemptuous dismissal of the anti-smacking referendum that a mere 80 percent-plus mandate is not enough to make your PM obey the will of his people.

He’ll only do that if he knows those people are mad as hell and aren’t going to take it any more!

If we’re going to stop this parliamentary dictator surrendering more and more of New Zealand to his Maori allies, we’re going to have to make race relations one of his voters’ top 3 concerns.

And what can we do to make race relations one of voters’ top 3 concerns?

Simple: we expose the full extent of the appeasement and brainwashing that’s been going on for the last forty years.

We shock the public with hard-hitting ads about how the New Zealand elites — political, bureaucratic, academic, judicial, legal, media and iwi — have been defrauding them of the truth about the Treaty.

And if media, like the cowardly Dominion Post who banned my fact-packed ACT ad, won’t run our ads, then we’ll go straight into the letterboxes and expose those media as part of the problem.

Hell, we’ll drop leaflets from planes if we need to.

Of course, the elites will fight like mad to stop us, so we’ll need to be well-funded. 

Only with a major advertising blitz will we be able to scare the Nats into halting the surrender of New Zealand to Griever Maori.

If you can donate money, please click this button. (Note: if it’s for more than $100, please email me at the address below — no point losing the 3 percent Paypal commission.)


If you can offer any other kind of support (including moral), please email me at

Constitutional Advisory Panel, Deborah Coddington, Treaty of Waitangi

Non-iwi Kiwis: don't count on Coddington

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

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

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

That panellist was Deborah Coddington.

I now realise I was wrong.

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

Anthony Hubbard, Chris Finlayson, Constitutional Advisory Panel, Maorification, Michael Cullen, Pita Sharples, Sir Tipene O'Regan, Sunday Star-Times, Treaty of Waitangi

Maorification of Constitution begins as Sharples stacks advisory panel

This really stinks.

If you thought the Marine and Coastal Areas Act was a hijack of democracy, it’s nothing compared to what’s coming.

Next on the Maori-National government’s Maorification agenda is an all-out assault on the New Zealand Constitution itself.

Once they’ve had their way with that, New Zealand as we know it will be gone.

The Maorification of the Constitution began on Thursday with the naming of a wildly disproportionate Constitutional Advisory Panel.

In a country where 68% of the people are European and 15% are Maori, the committee is stacked 50-50.

A 50-50 split may be even. But it’s hardly fair.

The only New Zealand population it remotely resembles is our prison population. 

Pakeha capture

What is the smiling tiger Pita-Peter Sharples up to? No doubt he’s planted a tame Pakeha or two in the panel to give him the crucial majority?

Well, looking down the list above, I see two interesting names.

First, Michael Cullen — my ‘Wastemaster-General’ in the Taxathon TV ad of 2005.

This is the former finance minister  who so loved his country that he quite deliberately booby-trapped the economy with a decade of deficits — just to make life harder for the incoming government.

And how does the not-so-Honourable Michael make his living these days?

Why, partly as Principal Treaty Claims Negotiator for Tuwharetoa.

(The tribe to which,  as Treaty Negotiations Minister, he awarded over $100 million of your money in the 2008 ‘Treelords’ settlement.)

Doesn’t that smell a bit fishy to you?

If Cullen is not tame enough, one of the other Pakeha members is former National minister John Luxton.

The panel bio notes that Luxton has expertise in Crown-Maori relations, experience in co-management (as co-chair of the Waikato River Authority) and representing Maori interests.

But at least former ACT MP and investigative journalist Deborah Coddington ought to be a safe bet, right?

I don’t think so. See my UPDATE 3 below.

Hiding the agenda

The consitutional review is  a condition of John Key’s uniquely unnecessary coalition appeasement (sorry, agreement) with the Maori Party.

You know it’s going to be bad when Anthony Hubbard of the Socialist Star-Times tries to snow you that the newly-named panel is  “unlikely to be more than a Mad Hatter’s tea party of unanswerable riddles and pointless in-fighting”.

Yeah right.

The government’s  main agenda is obvious: to elevate the bogus version of the Treaty of Waitangi to the status of official sacred cash cow for their Maori con artist mates to plunder at will.

But look how this lefty journo does his best to keep that news from you.

(Actually you can’t look unless you’ve got the actual paper. His column’s not online.)

First Mr Hubbard diverts your attention to the republican issue.

He pretends that the real reason the committee won’t be looking at ditching the monarchy is that John Key doesn’t want to.

The real reason, of course, is that the Maori Party doesn’t want to. Replacing the Queen could kill the golden Treaty goose. And we can’t have that.

Then he tries to make you believe that the big issues for the panel will be the size of parliament, and the length of the parliamentary term.

And then, and only then — in column six of his six-column column — does he casually gloss over the real hidden agenda:

Some of the other subjects for the committee — the Treaty, Crown-Maori relationships and Maori representation — are contentious in theory but in practice many people find them boring most of the time. New Zealand voters tend to fall asleep when the word “constitution” is mentioned.

Yawn, yawn, nothing to see here, move on.

Boring you to sleep

No doubt the Star-Times, Sharples and Obfuscator-General Finlayson will be pumping out lots of big, boring words to try and keep you comatose for the duration of this constitutional stitch-up. 

But I plan to be doing the exact opposite — stripping their bloated word-carcasses of their fat, and distilling from the layers of putrid gobbledygook their true meaning and hitherto-hidden agenda.

You know where to come for the real truth.

Sharples apparently thinks his Constitutional Advisory Panel is a ‘good mix’.

 Course he does. He’s shamelessly stacked it with a quarter more Maori and a quarter fewer Europeans than their populations warrant.

Ngai Tahu leader Sir Tipene O’Regan and legal scholar John Burrows will lead a government appointed panel which is to lead public discussion on constitutional issues including the status of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Panellists like Sir Tipene (who a friend used to know as Steve “before he became a Maori”. and who told a friend of a friend that he is Tipene “only in certain circles”) will undoubtedly try to lead the public. 

And when he does, I hope by then the public will be savvy enough to push back.

80s Treaty tricks

I hope people like you will ask people like Sir Steve to show you proof that the Treaty is a ‘partnership’ that contains ‘principles’.

Because they won’t be able to.

Unless they’re written in invisible ink, there’s nothing whatsoever in the Treaty about partnerships or principles.

Why not? Because they were conjured up in the 1980s out of thin air.

They were the figments of the activist imaginations of a judge, Robin Cooke, and a prime minister, Geoffrey Palmer (who later regretted it, and who some say resigned because of the damage he knew he’d cause).

Once Cooke and Palmer had cooked up this fake Treaty of Waitangi, it became much easier for guys like Tipene-Steve to extort money from you and me.

There is only one place this panel will try to lead you: away from the truth.

Do not go there.

The real deal

The truth is that the Treaty was a simple deal done mainly because the northern Maori had been begging the Brits for ten years to protect them from three very real threats:

  • Vengeful Maori — tribes plotting utu for Ngapuhi’s musket massacres of the 1820s.
  • Vengeful Froggies — French would-be colonisers bent on avenging the massacre of Marion du Fresne and his crew in 1772.
  • Bad Brits — escaped convicts and other disreputables causing trouble in lawless Kororareka.

Without the Treaty, the tribal musketeer-slaver-cannibals would have slaughtered and eaten each other to extinction by 1860.

(I’m not making this up. Between 1825-40, Maori had already blasted, hacked, boiled and gnawed back their numbers from 120,000 to 50-60,000. That, Tariana Turia, was New Zealand’s true holocaust.)

The Treaty deal was that the British got the country, and the Maori got the same rights as the British.

That was pretty much it.

By any measure, it was an excellent deal for the times.  

I’m working on a series of posts that will spell out, point by crystal clear point, what happened before and after the signing of the Treaty — and how  various conmen have been distorting the truth ever since.

But back to this poisonous panel.

Who will speak for non-Maori?

 At least Dr Sharples, unlike Hubbard, is honest enough to admit the panel’s main purpose:

“An important part of the review process will be consultation with Maori, particularly on the place of the Treaty of Waitangi in our constitution,” Dr Sharples said. 

The most important part, I’m sure he meant to say.

“The members of this are well placed to seek out and understand the perspectives of Maori on these important issues.”

Indeed the five Maori members and one Maori employee certainly are.

My question is: who will speak for the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori?

And will their views count?

The panel will also consider electoral issues including the size of parliament, the length of the parliamentary term, and number and size of electorates and the status of Maori seats

And with the panel overloaded with Maori, guess what they’ll find?

It will also consider whether New Zealand should have a written constitution and Bill of Rights issues.
Dr Sharples said a Royal Commission was considered to carry out the work, “but just selecting people of mana and a range and setting them up under their own authority and giving a lengthy period would have the same effect”

Course it would. Rigging your own panel is much cleverer than expecting a judge to do your bidding.

(Mind you, our judges are biased enough, as we know from Lord Cooke, and the bench that overturned 160 years of settled law with the Ngati Apa decision on the foreshore and seabed in 2003.)

“These guys don’t actually set the kaupapa, it still comes back to parliament. A Royal Commission usually comes up with some golden recommendations and if you don’t take them people question you.”

Well, we can’t have people questioning us for ignoring expert recommendations (like the 2025 Taskforce), can we?

But with Prime Appeaser John Key and Activist-General/Obfuscator-General/Appeaser-General (you choose) Chris Finlayson driving the Maorification agenda, don’t expect critical  questions to be tolerated.

And if Finlayson’s arrogance over the Marine and Coastal Areas Act is any guide — not to mention chair Tau Henare’s rude put-downs of  submitters to the Maori Affairs Select Committee — don’t expect straight answers. 



One of my more abusive commenters has pointed out the difficulty of identifying by race, given that many of us are a mixture of two or more. Certainly, we know that all Maori are.

So here’s an idea: Since we’re such a multicultural lot, why don’t we drop this preoccupation with ethnicity, metaphorically rip off our skins and set up a colour-blind state — with one  law, and one electoral roll,  for us all.

Could work?


We now find that Sir Tipene/Steve O’Regan is being sued by the Financial Markets Authority for his role in the Hanover Finance collapse.

Is it OK for a man being sued by one government agency to preside over another government agency — especially one advising on matters at the very core of our national being?

No Prime Minister, it’s not OK.


I had puzzled at why the notoriously biased Sharples would include former ACT MP Deborah Coddington on his tame advisory panel.

Was it to give the appearance of balance? Or is Deborah really a wet in dry’s clothing?

(Or just a wet, full stop?)

This Herald article confirms that theory, where she happily parrots the views of tame Treaty industry historian Paul Moon:

“Yes, the English ripped off the Maori, too, when it came to getting them to sign the Treaty of Waitangi.
“Henry Williams deliberately mistranslated from Maori to English to protect his land holdings, and numerous other travesties were perpetrated.”

Then we have this ridiculously saccharine account of Deborah’s dinner with the Turias.

Note the priceless ending: “Leaving is like saying goodnight to kin, such is the warmth of Tariana and George Turia.”

And I’ve no doubt the Turias are very warm, hospitable and genuinely caring people, as are most Maori.

(And, for that matter, most humans.)

But Tariana is the leader of an openly racist political party. And Deborah is an investigative journalist. 

Does this totally uncritical restaurant review suggest to you that Ms Coddington can be trusted to fairly represent your wishes?