Bruce Moon, Hongi Hika, Marion du Fresne, Musket Wars, Ngapuhi, Te Rauparaha, Te Waharoa, Te Whero Whero

Bruce Moon: Before 1840

Musket Warriors
This illuminating article by Bruce Moon (no relation to Paul) appeared in the Northland Age last Thursday.


It is a curious fact that there are many part-Maoris today (though certainly not all) who have remarkably good memories about their alleged sufferings since 1840, but completely blank minds about what happened to them any earlier.

It is not hard to work out why this should be.

But it is more helpful, perhaps, to assist them in remembering a bit more about their earlier days.

When Europeans first arrived in New Zealand, Maoris were an aggressive warrior race, ready to attack for the slightest reason, as Tasman found out quickly to his cost. [1]

This happened again when, just over a couple of years after Captain Cook, Marion du Fresne arrived off our shores.

While fishing innocently in calm waters, as he thought, he broke a tapu unknown to him.

His fate was sealed.

He and 26 of his crew were massacred and eaten forthwith. [2]

As Lieutenant Roux, one of Marion’s officers, noted in his diary, the chiefs

“declare war upon the slightest pretext, which wars are very bloody; they generally kill any prisoners they may capture”.

Not content with dispatching Marion, about 1500 tribesmen assembled to attack the hospital the French had set up on Moturua Island.

Greatly outnumbered, the French defended themselves valiantly, using their firearms, of course.

And, with no further losses, they killed about 250 of the attackers, including many chiefs who were very conspicuous amongst them.

From this episode, the tribes quickly learnt two lessons.

The first was an enduring mortal fear of the “tribe of Marion”, confirmed ninety years later by Rev. John Warren. [3]

It was one reason of many chiefs for signing the Treaty of Waitangi (though to terminate the carnage of the Musket Wars which followed, was another).

The second lesson was of the vast superiority of European firearms over their traditional weapons. So bargaining for firearms with visiting ships became a highly important activity.

The culmination was Hongi Hika’s return from a visit to England with several hundred muskets, many exchanged in Sydney for gifts he had received.

This was soon followed by the most intense slaughter of the so-called Musket Wars amongst the tribes.

Hongi’s party returning from England reached the Bay of Islands on 11 July 1821. Shortly afterwards, he began to prepare for his campaign.

On 5 September, two thousand Ngapuhi, armed with one thousand muskets, laid siege to Mauinaina pa at Tamaki.

It was taken with great slaughter – those killed including Te Hinaki and 2000 of his men, as well as many women and children.

The victorious force remained on the battlefield eating the vanquished until they were driven off by the smell of decaying bodies.

It has been noted that “deaths in this one action during the inter-tribal Musket Wars outnumber all deaths in 25 years of the sporadic New Zealand Wars.” [4] (Our emphasis)

In December 1821, Hongi attacked, but failed to take, the Ngati Maru pa Te Totara.

Upon an idea said to be from his blind and bloodthirsty wife, Turi, he decided upon treachery.

A large party of Ngapuhi chiefs went to the pa to offer peace, which was accepted. They received two meres from the Ngati Maru to seal the deal.

In the night, Ngapuhi returned to the unguarded pa and slew those within — except the sons of the senior chiefs, who were taken prisoners.

Hongi drank the blood of one chief’s son while he was still alive.

Proceeding thence to the Waikato pa of Matakitaki, Ngapuhi attacked it with withering musket fire.

Even though the Waikato were led by chief Te Whero Whero, with only four muskets they were virtually defenceless.

Trying to escape, many hundreds were trampled to death in the deep ditch surrounding the pa, or by Ngapuhi firing down upon them until tired of reloading.

Hongi’s opponent, Te Waharoa of Ngatihaua, was equally bloodthirsty.

He is reputed to have been the equal of Hongi, and to have terrified Te Rauparaha and even Te Whero Whero.

Te Waharoa concluded an uneasy peace with the Ngati Maru chief, Takurua.

Then he and his tribe arose at midnight and massacred in cold blood the too-confiding Takurua and nearly every man of his tribe.

Their bodies were devoured, and their wives and property were shared by the ruthless Ngatihauas.

Te Whero Whero, for his part, decided to make war in Taranaki, and attack the formidable pa of Pukerangiora.

When the starving defenders broke and ran, Waikato attacked.

It is said at least 200 escapees died immediately, with Te Whero Whero killing 150 single-handedly with blows to the head.

It was only when his arm grew tired and swollen he was forced to stop.

Those captives with finely tattooed faces were beheaded carefully on a wooden block, so their heads could be preserved.

Later, dozens of slaves were dragged away, carrying the heads of their relatives to be hung as war trophies in the Waikato villages in the north.

It is thought that as many as 1200 Te Ati Awa people lost their lives at Pukerangiora.

Those that stayed behind in the pa watched the awful fate of their whanau unfold before them.

The scene that followed was terrible, with huge numbers of the dead gutted and spit-roasted over fires.

Some Waikato warriors indulged in a feast of such gluttony that they died.

Te Rauparaha was sometimes called “the Maori Napoleon” (but more accurately perhaps “the Maori Genghis Khan”).

He perceived that the Waikato were probably too strong for his Ngatitoa tribe.

So he commenced a long migration south, inflicting heavy slaughter upon Rangitane on the way.

Establishing himself on Kapiti Island, Te Rauparaha commenced an invasion of the South Island. He almost exterminated the northern tribes.

Then he fell upon the Ngai Tahu, first at Kaikoura, then Kaiapohia, and in 1832 upon Onawe, with bloody massacres, cannibalism and slavery in each.

The Ngai Tahu had already been weakened by their own “Kai Huaka” or “eat relation” feud.

These are but a sample of incidents from almost continuous warfare amongst Maori tribes in the decades before 1840.

By John Robinson’s careful estimates, 35,400 were killed in a population numbering around 127,000 in 1800, with more dying from wounds. [5]

The social impact must have been profound.

Paul Moon refers to

  • the “pervasive sense that communities faced the threat of destruction at the hands of their foes”
  • the “heightened state of fear that dominated most if not all Maori communities”, and
  • the “relentless and intense social stresses”.

He suggests that the consequences may still be felt today. [6]

It becomes clear that it is high time that this important part of our history should be recognized, and faced squarely.

It should be borne in mind when facing the substantial social problems which confront New Zealand society today.

Perhaps, for a start, a substantial part of the massive “treaty settlement” which Ngapuhi will undoubtedly be expecting, could be allocated instead to those other tribes which they harmed so.


[1]  Tu-mata-kokiri who confronted Tasman in turn got their comeuppance, being exterminated by Ngai Tahu and Ngatiapa, the last battle being in the Paparoas about 1800.

[2]  For a good account of this episode, read Ian Wishart’s “The Great Divide”, 2012, ISBN 978-0-9876573-6-7.

[3]  See T.L.Buick, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, 1914.

[4]  Many of the details in this account are taken from “The Encyclopedia of New Zealand” and other sources, easily obtained by “googling”. Much is summarised by Pember Reeves in “The Long White Cloud, 1898, republished as ISBN 0-85558-293-6.

[5]  “When Two Cultures Meet”, 2012, pp64-65, ISBN1-872970-31-1.

[6]  “This Horrid Practice”, 2008, pp151-3, ISBN 978-0-14-300671-8.

Alex Nathan, Allan Titford, Iulia Leilua, Maori TV, Mihingarangi Forbes, Mike Butler, Native Affairs, Paul Moon, Ranginui Walker, Te Roroa

How to complain to the Broadcasting Standards Authority – Mike Butler

I love it when Maori TV tries to ambush me and present me as a racist for demanding racial equality.

Each time they do this, we get a little more evidence that helps to convince honest, fair-minded Maori that their ignorant, one-eyed cousins are giving them a bad name.

Most helpfully, the radicals’ rants don’t just unsettle some of their own supporters and enrage all of ours. They also appal and convert lots of mild-mannered neutrals.

My live debate with Annette Sykes and the heckling partisan so-called ‘moderator’ Mihingarangi Forbes has opened a new front for us: a flurry of complaints to the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

One of these I’ll be posting shortly, a complaint about last Monday’s Native Affairs from a teacher.

But here now is a complaint about the previous week’s Native Affairs, from former newspaper sub-editor and author of the new book Tribes–Treaty–Money–Power, Mike Butler.

Mike is also preparing a complaint about last week’s show, but first things first.

It would be most helpful, dear readers, if you would each consider lodging your own complaint about each of the last two programmes.

Bureaucrats respond to numbers, and this state-funded racist channel needs to get the message that there is a difference between criticism and racism, and that they can’t get away with unfairly smearing people like Allan Titford, Martin Doutre and me.

Tying them up replying to numerous complaints, and having to provide redress for their bias, should help them in their quest to understand the meaning of balance. 🙂


Native Affairs BSA complaint


Date: May 26, 2014
To: Paora Maxwell,
Chief Executive,
Maori TV
PO Box 113-017
Auckland 1149


From:   Mike Butler,
[phone number]
[email address]


Re:       Broadcasting Standards Authority complaint about What lies beneath

The Native Affairs item titled What lies beneath that aired on Monday, May 12, 2014, revisited the long story of Northland farmer Allan Titford who bought land at Maunganui Bluff in 1986 for $600,000 and was subjected to a squatter protest from 1987 during a Waitangi Tribunal claim for part of his land.

Titford had no interest in treaty claim matters until a group of bullying hostile protesters occupied his land and wrecked his business.

The occupation, that included two house fires, verbal abuse, stock thefts, intimidation, vandalism, trespass, cutting fences so that stock would wander, shooting stock, sabotaging Titford’s bulldozer, threatening with a gun, assault, looting, stalled a subdivision project and meant he could not refinance or repay a two-year mortgage.

Eventually, Titford sold the farm to the government for $3.225-million in 1995. Little was heard of the issue until last year when a matrimonial dispute resulted in Titford being jailed for 24 years.

One count he was found guilty of was for burning down his house.

What lies beneath is built around an interview with Alex Nathan of Te Roroa.

In the intro, presenter Mihingarangi Forbes set the scene by saying when Titford “accused the Northland iwi, Te Roroa of being greedy Maori who were after his land”, the country rallied behind him.

Te Roroa, he said, were violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

She went on to say: “Fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Reporter Iulia Leilua’s 20-minute two-part feature could leave an open-minded viewer thinking that Titford was finally exposed as evil, that Te Roroa claimants were wronged innocents, and that there exists a shadowy but well-funded very right wing conspiracy out to deny Maori of rights.

This complaint shows that What lies beneath was a biased and inaccurate presentation of the Maunganui Bluff land claim issue, that included unfair treatment of protagonist Allan Titford, along with racist and derogatory treatment of his supporters.

The feature breached standards four, five, six, and seven of the broadcasting code.

1. Failed to present significant viewpoints on controversial issues

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is quite clear under Standard 4 – Controversial Issues – Viewpoints that when discussing controversial issues of public importance in news, current affairs or factual programmes, broadcasters should make reasonable efforts, or give reasonable opportunities, to present significant points of view, either in the same programme or in other programmes within the period of current interest.


a) Guideline 4a says significant viewpoints should be presented fairly in the context of the programme.

What lies beneath presented in the intro what Maori TV presenters considered was the mainstream view 22 years ago, after July 4, 1992, when the Titford house burned to the ground.

That view was that Northland iwi Te Roroa were “greedy Maori who were after his land”, who were also “violent terrorists who burned down his home”.

What lies beneath also outlined in the intro the current viewpoint of Maori TV presenters, that “14 years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down – but some media and lobby groups continue to support him”.

Two opposing viewpoints were presented in What lies beneath but Maori TV presented the viewpoint it disagreed with in a hostile, pejorative manner, meaning that the viewpoint was not presented fairly.


b) A further assessment of whether a reasonable range of views has been presented is described in guideline 4b, which asks whether the programme approaches a topic from a particular perspective.

Maori TV claims to design its programming to deliver a Maori perspective.

It appears that presenters believe that by presenting What lies beneath from the viewpoint of Te Roroa, with Titford being non-Maori they would fulfil the “Maori perspective” role of Maori TV.

However, ifLeilua had asked a few more questions, listened, and looked further, she would have quickly found that Titford’s now estranged wife has Ngapuhi ancestry, and that Ngapuhi leader the late Graham Rankin appealed to the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Margaret Wilson, to help the Titford family.

Rankin’s view was that the Titfords had been unlawfully dispossessed of their farm at Maunganui Bluff, Northland. [1]

For Maori TV to argue that equating the Te Roroa claim with a Maori perspective fails to understand that part of the dispute over land at Maunganui Bluff was a clash between Te Roroa and Ngapuhi.

As a result of the Battle of Te Ikaranganui in 1825 Ngapuhi dominance over the area was achieved.

Te Roroa were allowed to stay in the area under the protection of Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi, whose name was on the Maunganui block sale deed.

Tiopira Kinaki, the other vendor named on the 1876 sale deed, was Te Roroa.

The Titford farm and the area on it claimed by Te Roroa were included in the 1876 Maunganui block sale. [2]

2. Failed to be accurate on all points of fact

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 5 Accuracy, that broadcasters should make reasonable efforts to ensure that news, current affairs and factual programming is (1) accurate on all points of fact, and/or (2) does not mislead.


a) Forbes in the intro incorrectly said: “fourteen years later the truth came out – it was Allan Titford who burnt his house down”.

In fact the house fire occurred on July 4, 1992, which was 22 years ago, not 14 years as Forbes said.

But more importantly, Titford was found guilty of burning his house, an allegation he continues to deny, and a conviction he plans to appeal or seek a retrial on.

Therefore, the truth or falsity of the statement “Allan Titford … burnt his house down” remains unknown except to the perpetrator.

Moreover, viewers were not made aware of the existence of two sworn statements that cast reasonable doubt on Titford’s guilt regarding the arson.

Reporter Leilua was given copies of these affidavits and had all details explained to her, but there was no reference to this in the final edit.

These affidavits existed at the time of Titford’s trial, but were not introduced as evidence.

Ansell recorded footage of the actual interviews because earlier biased treatment at the hands of Maori TV prompted him to take a cameraman along, something that reporter Leilua strenuously objected to. [3]


b) Reporter Leilua said: “By 1876 nearly 90,000 acres of Te Roroa land had been bought by the Crown. However, Te Roroa disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake in the sale arguing that there had been a mistake in the survey”.

The land area quoted by Leilua was incorrect. The Maunganui block upon which the Titford farm was located, was 37,592 acres and the Waipoua block 35,300 acres giving a total of 72,892 acres, which is more than 17,000 acres short of Leilua’s sweeping guess.

Leilua was incorrect to characterize that land as solely belonging to Te Roroa. The Maunganui block was awarded to both Tiopira Kinaki of Te Roroa and Parore Te Awha of Ngapuhi.

Leilua was incorrect to imply Te Roroa at the time disputed the inclusion of urupa, reserves, and the lake. The only dispute at the time of the sale was the Alleged Improper Sale Inquiry 1876 prompted by Tiopira Kinaki when he discovered that Parore Te Awha received an extra £500.

This was nothing to do with what was included in the sale.

Leilua failed to say that the first appearance of a claim for that land, known as Manuwhetai, and another area on a neighbouring farm known as Whangaiariki, was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died.

Neither did she say that the claim was rejected at that time.

Leilua did not mention a special sitting of the Native Land Court investigating a claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki held in Kaihu in 1939.

Neither did she mention a recommendation by Chief Judge G.P. Shepherd to parliament 1942 that:

  • The only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha;
  • Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the deed of sale;
  • Neither were they mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876;
  • The sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale;
  • The deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place;
  • A memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa. [4]

Leilua did not say that nothing further was heard of this claim until 1987, after the Waitangi Tribunal was empowered to investigate claims all the way back to 1840, and when Titford began advertising sections in his coastal subdivision.

Leilua did not look into the evidence Te Roroa cited to support their view that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were left out of the sale because of a mistake in a survey.

Te Roroa claimants cited Plan 3297/8 as “proof” that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki had been taken in error by the Crown.

Apparently unaware of Te Roroa reasoning for their claim, Leilua did not look into facts around that purported evidence.

Titford found that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff.

Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.

Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed.


c) Leilua said: “Under a National government in 1995, after rejecting numerous offers, Allan Titford finally sold his land to the Crown for five times more than he paid”.

While it is true that the sale price of $3.225-million is about 5.3 times the purchase price, Leilua did not say that the $3.225-million included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000.

Neither did she say that out of the $3.225-million, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors.

Therefore, Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier

Leilua collected a comment from academic Ranginui Walker who alleged Titford made “a huge profit”. Far from “a huge profit”, Titford came out $400,000 behind after working nine years for nothing and facing bullying from claimants, inaction by police, and stonewalling by the government.


d) Guideline 5c says news must be impartial.

The selection of sources for What lies beneath, and the extra time allowed to those supporting the theme of the feature, was far from impartial. Bias appeared in the number and frequency of comments for either Titford or Te Roroa.

For Titford, Ansell was the sole representative and featured in a single, highly selective interview. Doutré, who has supported Titford elsewhere, spoke entirely about evidence for Celtic New Zealand. Former MP Ross Meurant spoke for Titford in old footage. Newman’s single comment was neither about Titford nor Te Roroa.

For Te Roroa, claimant Alex Nathan spoke six times, Taua spoke four times, Ranginui Walker spoke twice, and Moon spoke once.


3. Failed to be fair

The Broadcasting Standards Authority is also clear, under Standard 6 – Fairness, that broadcasters should deal fairly with any person or organisation taking part or referred to.

The word “fair” means “treating people equally without favouritism or discrimination”.

For the purpose of guideline 6a, What lies beneath was aired on a current affairs programme, a genre that is expected to be factual.

The feature breached Standard 6 – Fairness in two ways:


a) Fair coverage of the Titford/Te Roroa saga would present known facts on both sides of the dispute.

Instead, after jumping to the conclusion that Titford did burn down his house, reporter Leilua recorded Nathan saying: “We knew that we were right”, and subsequent comments were collected to support this view.

Evidence that raised reasonable doubt as to whether Titford started the fire, such as two sworn statements indicating another party had admitted responsibility, was ignored.

This stacking of comments to support the pre-conceived view of both the reporter and the presenter breaches standard 6, guideline 6a, which requires fairness in a factual programme.


b) Apparently assuming that Titford burnt his house down and blamed Te Roroa, when reporter Leilua was given two sworn statements creating a reasonable doubt as to the accuracy of that assumption, Leilua ignored the affidavits and edited out of the final cut any reference to them by interviewee John Ansell.

This breaches standard 6, guideline 6b, which requires broadcasters to exercise care in editing programme material to ensure that the extracts used are not a distortion of the overall views expressed. [5]


4. Encouraged discrimination and denigration

Under Standard 7 – Discrimination and Denigration, broadcasters should not encourage discrimination against, or denigration of, any section of the community on account of sex, sexual orientation, race, age, disability, occupational status, or as a consequence of legitimate expression of religion, culture or political belief.

The word “discrimination” refers to making “an unjust or prejudicial distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age”.

The word “denigration” means casting “aspersions on, decry, criticize unfairly, attack, speak ill of, speak badly of, blacken the character of, blacken the name of, give someone a bad name, sully the reputation of, or spread lies about”.

What lies beneath breaches Standard 7 because it encourages discrimination against and seeks to denigrate those who criticize the divisiveness of race-based affirmative action and treaty politics.

An encouragement to discriminate against those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the intro to Part 2 of What lies beneath, when presenter Mihingarangi Forbes described Titford supporters as “people who were anti-treaty and anti-Maori, many of whom used their money, time, and connections to push their political agendas”.

The only evidence of support by wealthy individuals of critics of treatyism was an assertion that “rich-lister Alan Gibbs” backed the New Zealand Centre for Political Research that pushes against race-based special treatment.

The feature was silent on the existence of the network of multi-millionaire neo-tribal groups known as the Iwi Leaders Group that pushes for race-based special treatment.

Denigration of those who criticise treaty politics and race-based affirmative action appeared in the title What lies beneath, which captured an implication of a sinister pervasive racist undercurrent, with those drawing attention to the divisiveness of treaty politics castigated as racist.

Smearing a person with the allegation that he or she is racist appears intended to silence debate because it is based on the assumption that no right-minded person would want to speak out for fear of being called a racist.

The denigration of critics of treatyism as racist is in itself racist.


Remedy sought


Native Affairs staff members have shown an ability to investigate complex stories while asking hard questions. So why did they not do so in this 20-minute two-part feature that aired on Monday, May 12?

Errors in this feature may be remedied by a 20-minute clip on Native Affairs that includes:


1. An interview with someone who knows the details of the impact of the occupation at Maunganui Bluff on the Titfords, and the background of the Te Roroa claim for Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki.


2. An interview with Alex Nathan that asks:

a) Is it not true that on August 7, 1987, squatters moved on to the beach part of the section in force and erected signs to frighten away any prospective buyers.

b) Is it not true that on August 16, 1987, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White told Titford that if he gave them the land they would drop their tribunal claim.

c) Is it not true that on December 5, 1987, at 1.15pm, Hughie Te Rore and Huia White arrived at the house and said that if Titford removed the buildings used by squatters they would take revenge within 24 hours and it would be nationwide news.

d) Is it not true that on January 12, 1988, a group of claimants in a green Toyota Corona shot stock in Titford’s paddock. Claimants also arranged for the Historic Places Trust to come in and make the site a sacred area.

e) Is it not true that on January 20, 1988, claimants erected a large carved pole on Titford’s land, an event that local councillors, local non-Maori, Maori Marsden, and TVNZ reporters attended.

f) Is it not true that on March 22, 1988, claimant Hugh Te Rore had Conservation Department archaeologist Leigh Johnson (Mr) visit Titford’s farm. Johnson told Titford he had permission to be there from landowner Hugh Te Rore. Johnson also told Titford that the area was from then on wahi tapu and a reserve.


3. An interview with Ranginui Walker that asks:

a) Is it not true that the $3.225-million the government paid for the Titford farm included 1450 head of stock valued at $750,000 and plant at $50,000?

b) Is it not true that out of the $3.225-million purchase price, $1.8 million went to the National Bank and $425,000 went to other creditors?

c) Is it not true that Titford was left with $200,000 for land he paid $600,000 for nine years earlier?

d) Do you still stand by your comments that Titford made “a huge profit” out of the sale of his farm?


4. An interview with historian Paul Moon that asks:

a) Is it not true that as an historian, past events and old documents are your stock in trade?

b) Therefore, based on your expertise in past events and old documents, is it not true that the only reserve in the Maunganui block provided for in the 1876 sale was a 250-acre eel fishery reserve known as Taharoa for vendor Parore Te Awha?

c) Is it not true that Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki were not mentioned in the 1876 deed of sale?

d) Is it not true that neither were mentioned in the inquiry into the sale held in 1876?

e) Is it not true that the sale deed had a certificate to show that vendors Parore Te Awha and Tiopira Kinaki understood the terms of the sale?

f) Is it not true that the deed had a certificate to show no fraud had taken place?

g) Is it not true that a memo dated February 12, 1876, confirmed that Parore got Taharoa?

h) Is it not true that the first appearance of a claim for land known as Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki was in 1899, after both vendors and all involved in the 1876 sale had died?

i) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 was created by surveyors Barnard and Stephens for a landowner named Wi Pou, of the Ngaitu hapu, as part of a proposal to buy from the government two reserves on the south side of Maunganui Bluff. Those reserves were to be named Manuwhetai and Whangaiariki?

j) Is it not true that Plan 3297/8 remained in government files as a record of a proposal that did not proceed?


[1] Graham Rankin, Letter, June 4, 2001.

[2] The Sale of Maunganui-Waipoua, The Te Roroa Report 1992.

[3] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see

[4] Native Purposes Act 1938.——-10–1——0–

[5] See John Ansell’s recorded footage of the actual interviews see

New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taumaha o Aotearoa, Treatygate

On TV One Breakfast 7.20am tomorrow

TVNZ rang today seeking my views on the renaming of the North and South Islands.

The so-called ‘public consultation’ phase of the NZ Geographic Board’s no-doubt already-decided Maorification process has apparently closed.

Now it just remains for the government fence-sitter in charge of place names, Maurice Williamson, to fly in the face of 80% of the public and announce that our islands will henceforth be known as Tei Ika a Maui North Island and Te Wai Pounamu South Island.

By the time I’d responded to the reporter’s request to appear on the Breakfast programme, they’d already found someone else.

But after I unloaded my none-too-subtle thoughts on this latest attempt to sidestep the will of the people, her producer decided to put me on after all!

I have a little surprise in store.

Catch me if you can. 7.20am Wednesday.

Maorification, Ministry of Education, Oamaru North School

Oamaru North School dumps stone buildings for rock drawings

Education - Oamaru Nth School - rock drawings preferred to Victorian architecture

More Maorification in education, this time the social studies curriculum of Oamaru North School.

Seems the staff went on a Treaty of Waitangi indoctrination course. (Masquerading, of course, as “professional development”.)

And they came back so brainwashed they saw fit to set aside the culture of 70% of the school’s pupils to “meet the needs” of the 15% who are part-Maori.

The subject in question was “the primary context within which the students could examine their relationship with the place where they lived”.

Now I don’t speak Bureaucrobabble, but I suspect this translates into the English expression “the main landmarks of Oamaru”.

For the last 150 years, the town’s beautiful white stone buildings have served in this role. But not any more, according to the indoctrinated indoctrinators of Oamaru North.

Now, Victorian architecture is out, and tribal archaeology is in.

In order to indulge the favoured few, all of Oamaru North’s children are now required to relate, not to the symbols of civilisation that they see all around them, but to primitive Maori cave drawings half an hour out of town. (At Duntroon, 42km north-west of Oamaru.)

Education - Oamaru Nth School replaces Victorian buildings with Maori rock drawings

Sadly, there’s plenty of similar mumbo-jumbo where this came from — the Ministry of Education’s update on the Treaty of Waitangi’s Education Ministry – NZ Curriculum update 16 – Treaty principle

Read it and weep — for your children.

Department of Conservation, Judge Joanna Maze, Treatygate

Judge fines chopper pilot $3750 for gravely offending Mt Cook

Helicopter hovering over Mt Cook

Helicopter gravely offending Mt Cook — according to racist judge Joanna Maze.

Add the name of Judge Joanna Maze to New Zealand’s lengthening list of racist jurists.

Judge Maze actually thought she was being generous in fining a chopper pilot only $3750 for gravely offending Ngai Tahu’s ‘ancestor’ Aoraki (AKA Mt Cook) by hovering over it.

(Sorry, him.)

Maze thought this totally victimless crime so appalling that her “starting point for sentencing had to be the maximum penalty available, a fine of $5000.”

(She eventually let him off with $3750 in recognition of his early guilty plea.)

In passing sentence, Judge Joanna Maze said the offence was “seen as one of sacrilege to those to whom Aoraki/Mt Cook is of central cultural importance”.

“The fact that you did it in the interests of trade … is a double offence,” she said.

Tut-tut, you evil money-grubbing capitalist pilot pig. Don’t you know that only Maori are allowed to profit from showing our visitors the wondrous views of our highest mountain?

You will be unsurprised to learn that your Department of Conservation has been complicit in the judicial indulgence of the now-official Maori state religion.

In the summary of facts read to the court, the Department of Conservation (DOC) said the 3754-metre peak represented, to Ngai Tahu, “the most sacred of ancestors, from whom Ngai Tahu descend and who provide the iwi with its sense of communal identity, solidarity and purpose”.

It may be a fact that the more deranged Maori think they’re descended from a mountain. But that’s no reason for state officials to indulge their fantasy and pretend they’re correct. (Or even sane.)

And yet DOC’s website, without any hint of irony, presents such childish superstition as the God-honest truth.

In the increasingly-irrelevant world of the 21st century grown-up, the only people who descend from mountains do so on foot.

And since — correct me if I’m wrong — Maori had yet to invent the shoe by 1840, I doubt whether their ancestors did a lot of ascending or descending above the snowline, let alone to and from the pinnacle of our pre-eminent peak.

Their inability to get anywhere near the summit of Mt Cook may explain why they held it in such high esteem.

(Though what possessed them to imagine the frozen mass to be a blood relative is unclear. Perhaps the old fern root has more hallucinogenic properties than I thought.)

Just because the white man is able to float above their make-believe ancestor in a one-winged steel bird, doesn’t mean these primitive party-poopers should be able to deprive others of the chance to get up close and personal with it.

(Sorry, him.)

Maorification, New Zealand Geographic Board Nga Pou Taumaha o Aotearoa

81% say don’t rename North and South Islands

North and South Island name change - stuff survey
Not content with ignoring 80% of the residents of Wanganui, the New Zealand Geographic Board Ngā Pou Taunaha o Aotearoa is now planning to ignore over 80% of all New Zealanders and rename the North and South Islands.

Feel free to vote on the stuff poll attached to the story, which a few minutes ago was predictably running 81-19 against the proposal.

This time the racist bureaucracy is using as its excuse the ‘shock discovery that “the English names for both islands had never been formalised”‘.

What bollocks. How many centuries of maps constitute ‘official’?

NZGBNPToA chairman Don Grant says:

“The board will open the decision to the public on whether the English name or the Maori name, or both names together should be used as official names.”

Sure they will.

And when the public tells the Board by a margin of four to one that they want to keep things the same — just as they did over the Whanganui ‘h’ — the Board will close the discussion to the public.

And then the Board will arrogantly declare that the North Island is henceforth to be referred to as Te Ika a Maui and the South Island as Te Waipounamu.

And the Treatifarian minority will cheer. And the vast majority will howl.

And John Key will toss the linguistic grenade to a minister he doesn’t like.

And that limp-wristed minister will pretend to agonise over the dilemma (which should be no dilemma at all) for months.

And then he will announce the inevitable predetermined compromise.

(A compromise between democracy and dictatorship. A compromise, like most National Party compromises, between right and wrong. Why do you National Party supporters tolerate continual compromises between right and wrong?)

Thus, in a few months, our two main islands will be known as North Island/Te Ika a Maui and South Island/Te Waipounamu.

After that totalitarian triumph, the NZGBNPToA’s will feel emboldened to mount its inevitable assault on the linguistic summit — the great socialist goal of the Helen Clarxists now set to be realised under John Key: the renaming of our country as Aotearoa New Zealand.

And the minute they try that, I confidently predict, the whole racial tinderbox will explode.

Polls' Familiar Pattern

The current stuff poll is just the latest in a string of polls (formal and informal) that support my view that 80% of New Zealanders would vote Yes to the following proposition:


I am in the process of planning a professional poll on the above question — and on whether those who answer Yes would vote for a single issue party dedicated to achieving a racially unbiased state.

Anglican Church in Aotearoa, Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand, New Zealand and Polynesia, Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Anglican apartheid

Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia - home page

God’s Own Separatism: the Anglicans’ home page.

The prize for the most misleading use of the word Aotearoa must surely go to the Anglican Church in Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.

Are the best brains of our biggest church really such sloppy punctuators? Or do they really believe that Aotearoa and New Zealand are two separate countries?

In which case, which one is God’s Own?

More to the point, does He really think it’s a good idea for His religion to be promoting racial separatism?

The appointment of a new Pakeha Archbishop reminds us that the Anglicans are running an apartheid system in New Zealand.

Philip Richardson, the Bishop of Taranaki,  was confirmed as Archbishop-elect at a meeting in Wellington of representatives of the  country’s seven Tikanga Pakeha dioceses.

From  May 1, Bishop Philip, who is 55, will become one of three Archbishops leading the Anglican Church of Aotearoa, New Zealand and Polynesia.

As  Archbishop, he will work alongside Archbishop Brown Turei, who leads  Tikanga Maori (the Maori cultural stream of the church) and Archbishop  Winston Halapua, who is the Bishop of Polynesia.

The church’s website doesn’t say where Chinese, Indian, West Indian or Somalian New Zealanders are supposed to worship. Presumably with a less racist denomination.

Which might not include these two…

Presbyterian Church of Aotearoa New Zealand

Presbyterian political correctness

Catholic Church in Aotearoa New Zealand - home page

Catholic capitulation 

While the Anglicans wrongly believe Aotearoa and New Zealand are separate countries, the Presbyterians and Catholics wrongly believe they’re the joint name of the same country.

(Also wrong, but not as wrong.)

Thank heaven for small mercies.

Andy Oakley, Department of Conservation, Ngati Raukawa, Ngati Toa, Te Ati Awa, Te Rauparaha, Whale rights

Te Rauparaha's tribe honours spirit of whale by hacking off jaw with saw

Whale on Paraparaumu Beach

A kaumatua inspects the sacred whale before…

Whale on Paraparaumu Beach being butchered by iwi

…iwi butchers, protected by DOC, hack off the lucrative jawbone.

In the shadow of Kapiti Island, once home of New Zealand’s cruellest cannibal, Te Rauparaha, horrified onlookers yesterday watched the local iwi butcher a beached whale.

The tribe’s sacred purpose: to turn its jawbone into jewellery.

And to hell with anyone who didn’t agree with their traditional take on saving the whales… for themselves, that is.

Stuff bears witness to the gory spectacle:

Police and Department of Conservation staff had to hold back angry and upset onlookers … after those removing a whale’s jaw were left “up to their knees” in blood.  

Grief and anger erupted among the 300 onlookers as Ngati Toa, Ngati Raukawa and Te Ati Awa iwi members took three hours … to remove the jaw…  

Local whale-bone carver Owen Mapp said children were in tears and some of the crowd became angry about  the whale being butchered.  

“There was a lot of blood and guts. Some people were horrified.”

Creating cultural objects or carved artifacts enabled contemporary society to honour the spirit of the whale, he said. “It is a way the whale can live on.”  

I see, so the culturally appropriate way to honour a whale’s spirit is to hack off its jaw with a saw (an evil pakeha chainsaw, presumably), then cut it, gouge it, sand it, and sell it.

Cost of raw materials: nil. (Thanks, DOC.)

Profit: handy.

By this logic, do Te Rauparaha’s descendants also “honour the spirit” of their dead by ripping out and flogging off their sacred gold fillings?

Sounds more like the spirit of free enterprise to me.

DOC protocol allowed iwi first use of the whale.  

Er, shouldn’t that be “exclusive use of the whale”?

Did DOC contact the local Japanese community to see if they wanted to remove the meat?

Did they invite the descendants of New Zealand’s early whalers to “honour the spirit” of their ancestors by rekindling their family’s association with the great mammal of the deep? (See comment below from Andy Oakley.)

And they say there’s no Maori privilege.

Ngati Toa member Nelson Solomon said people complaining about the gory work did not have to watch.  

How thoughtful. Ngati Toa’s manners have obviously improved since Te Rauparaha’s dinner guests were forced to watch their companions being tomahawked, eviscerated, roasted and devoured, while they mentally prepared themselves for their role as his next course.

“We tried to put up barricades to stop the public going in.”  

Yes, how dare DOC’s Chosen People be interrupted in their sacred duty by stupid pakeha clinging to the wimpish notion that the best way to “honour the spirit” of a dead creature is to bury it intact?

“We are sorry if people were offended but we thought we did what was best in our interests.”  

And that’s the thing about tribes. Tribes care about themselves first, and others not at all. Anyone outside the tribe is the enemy.

It’s the same the world over, wherever tribalism has been tried.

(Which is pretty much everywhere. Including, of course, Britain, whose history runs red with the blood and gore of tribalism — Celtic, Roman, Viking and Anglo-Saxon.)

My point is, Britain and other societies have got beyond tribalism. It’s time Maori did too.

Shouldn’t whaler
descendants get first dibs?

Kapiti reader Andy Oakley made this comment on another thread yesterday:

We had a whale wash up on our shore yesterday.

The local iwi were quick to claim it, rope it off, and rip it open for the jaw bone.

The local council’s unelected iwi representative would have had a hand in this.

Surely the descendants of our country’s early whaler settlers had as much, if not more, cultural connection to this whale than local Maori?

New Zealand was founded by these early settlers and their whaling activities.

While there is no history of pre-European Maori whaling at all. (Though they would cut them up if they ever happen to beach themselves.)

But alas, the whaler descendants were never even consulted.

And here is the reason why:

If you are a descendant of a whaler — i.e. somewhere in your family history someone was a whaler — this does NOT give you the right to call yourself a whaler.

Obviously you are not a whaler. You are just a descendant of a whaler.

And you have NO special place in New Zealand.

However, if you are a descendant of a Maori — i.e. somewhere in your family history someone was a Maori — this DOES give you the right to call yourself a Maori.

And you DO have access to the dual set of rights our government attributes to Maori.

Does anyone else see the hypocrisy in this?

I have no problem with Maori culture, I embrace it.

I do have a problem when it finds its way into every part of our lives at the expense of all other cultures.

You and me both, Andy. Good point about the whalers.

Of course, the tide has turned on the business of hunting and harpooning the uber-mammal. That’s because the whale has joined the dolphin in the ranks of the cute, if not cuddly.

(And, no doubt, because we no longer crave lamp oil and whalebone corsets. Or share the Japanese taste for whale steak.)

But if it’s good enough for Ngati Toa to honour the bloodthirsty Te Rauparaha with a stadium in Porirua, it’s good enough for European New Zealanders to “honour the spirit” of the brave whalers and sealers, from whom so many of us (both white and brown) are descended.

Now how do we get DOC to help us make money out of it?

Chris Finlayson, Mike Butler, Ngai Tahu, Treatygate

Runaway gravy train: 11 claims by 1920, over 2000 now

The Dominion Post has published this excellent  letter from author and journalist Mike Butler.

Mike is one of a team of researchers who’ve been advising me on Treaty issues for the past year.

His file of all Treaty settlements since 1989 on Muriel Newman’s NZCPR site is the most comprehensive I’ve seen.

In supporting my Colourblind State referendum, Mike points out that

Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson calls Mr Ansell’s campaign “nuts”, but in his rush to get through a pile of settlements, he seems unaware that major claims were settled before 1960.

and that

With 2034 claims lodged by 2009 but only 11 claims brought to Parliament in 1920, it’s clear that now money is the motivator.

Ngai Tahu’s ongoing rort

  • 1867 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 1
  • 1906 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 2
  • 1944 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 3
  • 1973 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 4
  • 1998 — Ngai Tahu Full and Final Settlement 5
  • 2012 — Ngai Tahu Not So Full and Final 17% Top-up.

Thanks Mike for all your great work and support.

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

Maorification, Sir Apirana Ngata, Treaty of Waitangi

The Treaty, beautifully explained by a wise and honest Maori leader

Sir Apirana Ngata, MA, LLB, D. Lit — the man on our $50 note. (Put there by Reserve Bank Governor, one Donald T. Brash.) If only today’s Maori leaders shared Ngata’s high regard for truth. 



by The Hon. Sir Apirana Ngata
M.A., LL.B., Lit.D.

Published for the Maori Purposes Fund Board

 First published in 1922

Translated into English by M. R. Jones

Spaced out a bit for easy reading by J. L. Ansell

The words that follow are those of history’s greatest Maori statesman…  Continue reading

Colourblind State, Maorification

Time for a Colourblind State

Last night’s Close Up piece on Hone Harawira’s militant nephew shows what happens when a government pursues a policy of endless appeasement.

It’s time this chamber of Chamberlains started running New Zealand as though it were a democracy.

I propose to ensure it does this by launching a petition for a referendum on a colourblind state – a referendum that it can ill afford to ignore.

To ensure that the government listens to the will of the people, I’m fundraising for a major public education campaign to expose the 40-year brainwashing campaign that has denied New Zealanders their right to know the truth about Crown-Maori history.

I’ve spent the past year doing little else but studying this history, and believe me it is a very different history from the one we’ve been forcefed by our schools, universities, politicians and media.

Helping me prepare for this campaign have been nine authors who between them have written over 30 books on this subject.

Very soon I’ll be setting up a site where you can read the documents I have read. Prepare to be amazed – and enraged.

One of these documents is Governor Hobson’s final English draft of the Treaty, missing for 149 years and found in 1989 – but covered up by an embarrassed government and minimised by its tame historians.


Because, like the Maori ‘Tiriti’ into which it was translated, it makes no mention of Maori owning forest and fisheries, and makes it clear that the Treaty was with all the people of New Zealand, including settlers.

Tonight it’s my turn to appear on Close Up — with Hone Harawira and another Maori, Morgan Godfery.

(I’m getting used to these two-on-one ambushes, but will do my best to get a word in edgeways.)

More on the campaign when I return from Auckland.

If you’d like to donate to the very considerable costs of a high-profile advertising campaign, please do so here.

Before long, there will be a trust, Facebook page and website. But the first step is fundraising.

Maorification, Ross Baker, Treaty of Waitangi


This is the first of a series of posts designed to bust the myths created by the Treaty of Waitangi grievance industry — myths shamelessly presented as truths by your government. 

If you think it rude of me to expose these facts, tough. If conmen are going to tell lies about my forefathers, I’m going to tell the truth about theirs.

Much of what you see below is distilled from New Zealand in Crisis by Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation

In the plainest English I could muster, here is the boiled-down background to the drafting and signing of the Treaty:

c.1350 — Maori meet the tangata whenua

  • Maori history tells of seven canoes arriving from Hawaiki in around 1350AD.

  • They find New Zealand already inhabited by people they call the tangata whenua.

  • Maori historian Dr Ranginui Walker confirms: “The traditions are quite clear: wherever crew disembarked there were already tangata whenua (prior inhabitants).”

  • These first inhabitants are either driven into extinction or merge with the tangata Maori (just as the tangata Maori have merged with the Pakeha). 

  • Ranginui Walker: The canoe ancestors of the 14th century merged with these tangata whenua tribes.

  • Thus Maori are not indigenous to New Zealand. 

  • Nor are they the tangata whenua — the first people here. 

  • Indigenous means here from the start — like the aborigines who’ve been in Australia for 40,000 years.

  • Maori have been here only about 650 years — only 300 years longer than Europeans.

  • Maori have never been a united people, with a long history of inter-tribal bloodletting.

  • Ranginui Walker: From this time on [the 14th century] , the traditions abound with accounts of tribal wars over the land and its resources”.

1771 — fighting with Frenchmen

  • In 1771 in the Bay of Islands, Maori kill Marion du Fresne and 24 of his party for ignoring wahi tapu when fishing.

  • In retaliation, du Fresne’s crew kill 250 Maori and torch their village.

  • Ever since, the Maori are afraid of the French.

1820-30 — Maori slaughter 20-60,000 fellow Maori

  • By 1820, the Maori v Maori Musket Wars have been raging for around 15 years. They will go on for about another 25 years.

  • There are around 500 battles in all.

  • In 1820, Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika sails to England.

  • He asks the King for muskets. The King declines, but presents him with other gifts.

  • In Sydney on the way home, he trades all the King’s gifts for 300 muskets and gunpowder.

  • He then leads his tribe on a rampage south. They slaughter 20-60,000 of their defenceless countrymen, out of a total Maori population of 100-120,000. With up to half the population wiped out, it has been called the world’s worst holocaust.

  • In one attack on the Tamaki pa, Ngapuhi kill more men, women and children than are killed in the whole 27 years of the 1845-72 Land Wars.

  • By 1830 the southern tribes have armed themselves with muskets and are planning to head north for revenge.

1831 — Waikato annihilate Taranaki, who slaughter the Moriori

  • The Waikato travel south and attack the Taranaki tribes.

  • They kill one-third and enslave another third. The remaining third flees south to the Wellington area.

1831 – Northern chiefs ask King for protection 

  • In 1831, it’s rumoured that the French naval vessel La Favourite intends to annex New Zealand to France.

  • The French would have two reasons for doing this: as further payback for the killing of du Fresne and his crew; and to protect the French now living in Hokianga.

  • The natives decide to place a British flag on the mission flagstaff. They reason that if the French tear it down, the missionaries will appeal to Britain for protection.

  • Thirteen northern chiefs write to the King of England, asking him to protect them.

  • They tell the King they only trust the British: “It is only thy land which is liberal towards us”.

  • They reveal their fear of the French: “We have heard that the tribe of Marian [the French] is at hand, coming to take away our land”.

  • They ask the King to guard their lands from other tribes and nations: “Therefore we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands, lest the teasing of other tribes should come near us, and lest strangers should come and take away our land”.

  • At the time there are no property rights. To the Maori, might is right — they hold their land only as long as they can defend it.

  • The King acknowledges the chiefs’ request by sending a British Resident, James Busby, to New Zealand in 1833.

1835 – Declaration of Independence

  • New Zealand-built ships are sailing to Sydney.

  • These ships are not registered, so have no flag to sail under.

  • So James Busby introduces to the northern tribes a Declaration of Independence.

  • This gives them a form of identity, and a flag under which New Zealand ships can be registered.

  • In 1835, thirty-four Ngapuhi chiefs sign the Declaration of Independence.

  • This declares their territories independent states. It states they will meet in Congress each year.

  • The annual Congress is meant to make laws to dispense justice, preserve peace and good order, and regulate trade.

  • But, as always, inter-tribal fighting takes precedence over political co-operation.

  • The Declaration is abandoned without one Congress meeting being held.

  • The Declaration can’t give full sovereignty, as the chiefs can’t form a united working government.

  • Tribes only have power over their territories as long as they can defend them.

  • No united political structure exists in New Zealand at this time.

What historians say about the Declaration of Independence

Claudia Orange:

“Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori, who saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation, would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state, there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress.

“However, it did introduce Maori to the idea of a legal relationship with Britain and therefore, five years later, to the Treaty of Waitangi”.

Michael King: 

“The Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand”.

King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the Declaration.

Paul Moon:

“The Declaration represented a regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance”.

1835 — Maori massacre Moriori in Chathams.

  • In 1835, 900 of the Taranaki (Ngati Mutunga and Ngati Tama) who flee to Wellington, want to avoid being harassed further.

  • They commandeer the brig Rodney and sail in two trips to the Chatham Islands.

  • Many are sick when they arrive, and are nursed back to health by the peace-loving Moriori.

  • When they recover, and for the next seven years, the Maori slaughter or farm the Moriori to near-extinction.

  • Historian Michael King: “They were laid out touching one another, the parent and the child. Some women had stakes thrust into them; they were left to die in misery. The rest farmed like sheep over the next few years into virtual extinction”.

1837 – Call for better government 

  • In 1837, inter-tribal fighting worsens in many parts of New Zealand.

  • Busby can do little to stop it, as he has no forces.

  • The settlers, traders and 192 chiefs want more official commitment. They appeal to Britain for a better type of Government.

  • As inter-tribal fighting worsens, the Maori population plummets.

  • Musket- and goods-hungry Maori are selling vast tracts of their land to land-hungry Europeans.

  • Britain is twice asked (in 1831 and 1835), and twice promises, to protect the people and their property.

  • To bring law and order to both Maori and non-Maori, Britain is obliged to take more control.

  • To do this legally, they need to make New Zealand a British Colony.

  • To make New Zealand a colony, Britain has to get the chiefs’ consent to sovereignty over the whole land.

  • For two years, the Colonial Office debates the best way to become involved in New Zealand. The British don’t really want another colony.

  • With extreme reluctance, the Colonial Office sends out William Hobson, a highly ranked Officer in the British Navy.

  • Hobson’s job is to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs that will give Britain sovereignty over the whole land.

  • That treaty will give Britain the legal right to set up a government.

  • A government will bring law, order and protection. It may investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes.

  • The government will act for all the people of New Zealand, settler and Maori alike.

Next: the drafting and signing of the Treaty.

UPDATE: It’s taking me longer than expected to gather my evidence for Part 2. (There’s just so much of it, and I’m also contending with a family illness.)

For now, I urge you to click on the Comments thread below. It has attracted some experts in the field who have spent decades studying this subject. I’m finding their contributions enlightening.

Maorification, NBR

NBR editorial on Maorification

I coined the word Maorification with the deliberate goal of getting it into the language.

When ACT declined to use it, I decided to use it myself.

To me, no word less blunt — no euphemism like the racialisation preferred by my friend Stephen Franks — can do justice to the process by which New Zealand is being taken over by radical Maori.

Every day, I wonder whether it was the right thing to do to use that word.

It goes without saying in this topsy-turvy land that it would get me branded a racist. Anyone who refuses to agree that Maori should own New Zealand out to the 200 mile limit is branded a racist.

And sadly, it was always bound to upset some very good Maori people. (Not to mention legions of cringing white ‘wets’ eager to suck up to Maoridom and disown their Western inheritance at every opportunity.)

But I think it was the right decision. Like it or not, Maorification is the right word.

Because this reverse takeover of the silent (and silenced) majority by a noisy, intimidating minority is real. It’s affecting and infecting every institution in our society.

And it’s speeding up. 

And if we don’t jolt people into recognising the extent of it, it will soon be too late.

And so I was pleased to read this in today’s NBR editorial:

Beware sting in taniwha’s tail

A government plan to dovetail New Zealand into tail-wagging Maorification must be resisted.

If mishandled, the continued insidious encroachment into national affairs of the Treaty of Waitangi, its floating and fanciful “principles,” and craven kow-towing to a tax-draining minority, will impede – not enhance – economic development.

Foreign and onshore investors, as well as trading partners, may think twice when they see a country regarded as multiculturally stable embark on a path fraught with the prospect of racial privilege. Thanks to Maori and appeasing politicians, New Zealanders remain unnecessarily confused and at odds over a myriad of so-called “Maori issues,” including the true status of the foreshore and seabed, for example.

Confused largely and quite deliberately by Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson — champion (when he wants to be) of plain English law.

Conflict continues over ownership of natural resources.

The rabid property demands of Tuhoe – who want their own private fiefdom in the hills – are evidence of a brand of racial separatism that has no place in New Zealand.

This uncertainty for the majority has now spilled over into who may use national symbols such as the silver fern, who may perform a haka and who pays for clipping the lucrative koha ticket.

I prefer to use the true meaning of koha: ‘bribe the tribe’. Let’s be honest, when a sum of koha can persuade a taniwha to return to its lair (as happened with the Waikato Expressway), we are dealing with an extortion racket.

Collectively, various Maori demands have been accommodated to such an extent that the pendulum has swung too far toward a minority at the risk of damaging the national good.

I use the pendulum analogy too. It’s about balance and fairness, and we cannot strike a fair balance when so much of the truth about the Treaty and its signatories remains unknown by the public.

Which is why greater scrutiny is needed over a recently announced 12-member constitutional advisory panel, whose dominant terms of reference are heavily skewed to favour the Maori minority. The ostensible purpose of the panel, which will cost the taxpayer $2 million in its first year, is to conduct a “wide-ranging review of New Zealand’s constitutional arrangements.”

This includes the size of parliament, length of the electoral term, Maori representation, the role of the Treaty and whether a written constitution is needed.

While some objects are worthy of careful consideration on behalf of all New Zealanders, the blatant swing toward matters favouring Maori should give cause for concern.

Maori Affairs Minister and Maori Party co-leader Pita Sharples, for one, sees consultation with Maori and the place of the Treaty in just about everything as a priority.

It is evidence of the strong pro-Maori slant that the panel will report to Dr Sharples and Deputy Prime Minister Bill English.

In the proud National tradition of allowing the Maori Affairs Select Committee to hear submissions into the Marine and Coastal Areas Bill!

While the panel’s musings and recommendations could simply be ignored, this is unlikely given its influential Maori imbalance.

With five “non-Maori New Zealanders,” five Maori, one Pacific Islander and one of “Asian ethnicity,” the panel is, on the surface, stacked against more than three-quarters of the population.

Figures produced in a 2010 Ministry of Social Development report on population ethnicity showed New Zealand’s population to be 77% European, 15% Maori, 10% Asian and 7% Pacific Island. (The same report projected the 2016 population would be 73% European, 16% Maori, 13% Asian and 8% Pacific Island.)

I see they had the same trouble I had with the MSD stats inflating the total to 109%.

The 77% actually includes ‘Other’ and ‘New Zealanders’, so I thought it safer to use the number 68%. But it makes no difference to the point they’re (and I was) making. 

While Vote Maori will contribute $500,000 and the Ministry of Justice $1.5 million to pay for this panel, Maori get a greater say than their representation in the general population.

Economic growth and investment confidence should not be threatened or undermined by the potentially nation-fracturing agenda of a minority.

It’s fair to say most New Zealanders believe the present constitutional structure works, based largely on the proven democratic Westminster system and backed by the rule of law.

And more of them need to say so. That’s why this issue needs to be front-footed. People need to learn not to be silenced by the threat of being called racist. That’s a trick, and it’s worked a treat, and it’s high time it stopped working.

While Maori continue to be over-represented in the unemployment, child abuse, drug using, anti-social and general criminal offending stakes, some hotheads have demanded farcical “rights” over land and citizenship.

These demands, while nothing more than thinly disguised racial separatism, if met would still require all other New Zealanders to pay for them.

While a constitutional advisory panel should act in the interests of all New Zealanders, the racial bogeyman already stalks the land.

Well said. 

And I do like this anonymous reader’s comment:

I dont believe it !
Finally an article with the spine and backbone to tell it like it is…
Is it possible that finally the little kiwi can face up to the reality that enough is enough.
Only last month a Muriel Newman blog article stated “What all of this means is that talk of Maori marginalisation is self-serving nonsense. A recent government report estimated the total value of Maori corporate assets at a whopping $37 billion. Thanks to the generosity of New Zealand taxpayers, the Maori aristocracy has become very rich, and is getting richer. Maori leaders could use their vast resources to lift the performance and aspirations of their people. They choose not to. “

Waiting for the usual chip on shoulder cringe pc set to do the usual in defense of their wallets….But maybe the taniwhas just a worm due for turning.

Thanks to reader Graham for alerting me to the NBR.

Chris Finlayson, John Key, John Robinson, Maorification, Ngati Toa, Te Rauparaha, Treaty of Waitangi, Waitangi Tribunal, Wellington

Appeaser-General to compensate cannibal's tribe for loss of South Island dining rights

Appeaser-General Chris Finlayson wants to pay the descendants of Te Rauparaha $10 million of your money for the loss of their right to capture, kill and cannibalise the Maori of the South Island.

In the words of Dr John Robinson in his book The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview:

Mr Finlayson has made an offer for a Treaty settlement to Ngati Toa, which includes a payment of $40 million, plus $10 million in recognition of Ngati Toa’s former marine empire, $6.31 million for capacity building and an additional amount of $100,000 as claimant funding (the Government also promised to support applications for resourcing from the Crown Forestry Rental Trust).

Ah yes, the CFRT — the agency that refused to pay Robinson for his research on Maori depopulation until he’d reversed his conclusion to echo their politically-correct view of history. 

But how intriguing that Ngati Toa possessed a ‘marine empire’ — presumably patrolled by a blue-water navy. And not exactly for peacekeeping purposes, as we shall discover in a future post.

And how intriguing that the supposedly Honourable Chris Finlayson intends to give $10 million of your money to Ngati Toa for the loss of this marine empire?

I know Chris Finlayson. We were on good terms until I realised that he, along with John Key, were traitors intent upon giving my country back to its former owners, with no payment for improvements.

He is also a master lawyer and self-styled champion of plain English. He has the skills to say exactly what he means with deadly precision. When he wants to.

But this time — as with so many of his pronouncements on matters Maori — he doesn’t want to. So I’ll say it for him.

By ‘loss of Ngati Toa’s marine empire’, Finlayson means the loss of the right of these Taranaki invaders (who wiped out the tribe that had been here for centuries) to paddle across Cook Strait and slaughter, enslave and feast upon the South Island Maori.

Compensating the descendants of their chief cannibal, Te Rauparaha (whose depraved devourings earns him a separate post), for the loss of that right is going to cost you and me $10 million.

And that’s just the appetiser for a much larger Ngati Toa claim.

As part of the package developed to recognise Ngati Toa’s maritime empire, the Crown offers to explore the development of a redress instrument that recognises Ngati Toa’s role as Kaitiaki of Cook Strait and the coastal marine area in Port Underwood and Pelorus Sound… and supports Ngati Toa in developing a statutory plan articulating Ngati Toa’s values in relation to these areas.

While most of us cast our vote and make submissions, the Ngati Toa extended family will have the right to prepare management and planning documents — all because of the warfare of ancestors 190 years ago.

And not just warfare. Also the cruellest imaginable slavery and cannibalism — including the eating of women and children.

And for these despicable acts, plus wrongs done to them by the evil white man that Finlayson has yet to reveal (or should that be invent?) the tribe is to be rewarded. By you.

It is strange and indeed corrupt to make such a generous offer of taxpayers’ money without settling the grounds for the complaint.

As I wrote at the time to the Minister, “The situation as I understand it is in contradiction to common sense and logic. Surely there would be no consideration of a settlement in the absence of a clearly specified wrong.”

Surely not? Yet that’s exactly what’s happening. Finlayson wants to pay $10 million of your money to a tribe for no reason he is prepared to divulge.

Here the truth of what happened in a past century is not to be determined by historians in an open and public debate, but written by the aggrieved party, about to profit from a settlement based on a biased interpretation, behind closed doors and after the settlement is agreed.

Again in the words of Minister Finlayson, “The Ngati Toa historical account is being negotiated concurrently with the rest of the Ngati Toa settlement and will be agreed before the deed of settlement is signed… All settlement redress, including the historical account, is confidential while under negotiation.”

You read correctly. Your head lawyer is rewriting the tribe’s history with the tribe, behind closed doors, in order to concoct a reason to pay the tribe with your money for something your forefathers almost certainly did not do to their forefathers.

What kind of an idiot is Chris Finlayson? Answer: a ‘useful idiot’. 

But look at this next bit:

Even the very little information available shows that the basis of the settlement is wrong. The claimed maritime empire never existed. This was made clear by the Waitangi Tribunal:

“We consider the idea of a sustained ‘overlordship’ to have little basis in Maori customary thinking. … the idea of an overlordship is now seen as the legacy of an imperial rhetoric.”

So even the ridiculously pro-Maori Waitangi Tribunal does not agree with the Appeaser-General that Ngati Toa possessed a blue water navy.

The Maori had the great luck that the colonial power was 19th century Great Britain.

Damn right they did. Imagine if they’d run into the Spaniards. Or the Belgians.

Or, worse, if the tables had been turned and the Maoris had colonised Britain. Imagine that. Would they have treated with the inhabitants — or on them?

(Remember the Taranaki tribes’ discourteous response to being welcomed ashore by the peace-loving Moriori in the Chathams — to capture, enslave or exterminate all but a few of their hosts.)

The concept of citizenship developed through the Cromwell revolution, the Glorious Revolution, the French and American revolutions, and the calls to end slavery (which succeeded across the British Empire in 1833) had become accepted.

The British, like all races, had a bloodthirsty history. But by 1840, they’d put their piracy and slavery behind them.

British politicians and the Colonial Office wanted to work with other peoples and respect their rights. Article Three of the Treaty of Waitangi promises that equality.

That promise of equal rights by the then-greatest civilisation on earth to a population of Stone Age tribesmen was evidence that the British, far from being the bully boys of modern myth, were in fact the most compassionate of colonisers. 

But equality is nowhere near good enough for the Maori leaders of today. They quite sensibly prefer the reverse takeover model — especially as our leaders seem dumb enough to give it to them.

This should be the clear basis for constitutional reform if the country is to move forward together, 170 years later.

Instead there are continuing claims, and settlements, based on bloodthirsty conquest. The example of the fate of the Chatham Islanders is not unique.

The Moriori paid a high price for appeasing the Maori. As will we if the relentless Maorification of our institutions continues.

In the case that has interested me particularly here, concerning the south Wellington coast, we find that Ngati Toa showed no respect for Ngati Ira’s love of the land, customary title or wahi tapu.

They killed them, enslaved them, and drove them out.

Now their descendants demand the rights that were denied the former inhabitants of this land.

Words change their meaning. Culture, tikanga, changes with time as well as differing between tribes. Wahi tapu is said to refer to a few artefacts but is then called upon to justify control of the whole Kaipara Harbour.

And of course Kaipara Maori are using wahi tapu as an excuse to block the installation of power turbines on the harbour floor. No doubt greasing the iwi’s palm with the appropriate bribe will quiet the upset spirits.

Tangata whenua once was established by living in a place so that after just ten years in Wellington Te Atiawa could claim ownership and the right to sell that land.

Ngati Toa and Te Atiawa only arrived in Wellington two decades and one decade, respectively, before the settlers. And yet they demand compensation of many millions of dollars.

Now those who have lived their whole lives in a place, even for several generations, both Maori and non-Maori, are refused that status, which is claimed by descendants of the temporary residents of 1840, no matter where they now live.

Dr Robinson gets to the heart of the matter here:

The focus is no longer on a search for the truth. History is reinterpreted and reinvented to suit political aims. Historical accounts may even be omitted when making settlements, or written by the complainant behind closed doors, out of view of the public whose money and land are being handed over.

It’s time to expose the Maorification scammers, starting with the Appeaser-General who has made it all so very possible.

I’ll be blogging on this and more in due course.

You will read of the astonishing lengths to which Finlayson went to avoid saying the word ‘free’ when pressed by ACT’s David Garrett about public access to beaches during the Marine and Coastal Areas debate.

You will read gory evidence of what a depraved beast was Te Rauparaha,  for whose crimes against humanity you will soon be asked to compensate his great-great grandchildren. (That’s right, you will be paying them.)

You will read about the true history of the Treaty of Waitangi, including its fraudulent reinvention in the 1980s that kick-started the Maorification scam.

By the time I’ve finished, the Treaty conmen will be thoroughly exposed, with no big words to hide behind.

For now, I suggest you get a copy of The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy – A Treaty Overview by John Robinson.

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?

Maorification, Michael Bassett, Waitangi Tribunal

Historian Bassett also called Waitangi Tribunal biased

Another historical rebuff for the impartiality of the Waitangi Tribunal from the academically rigorous Michael Bassett:

Historian Michael Bassett has told the Waitangi Tribunal he does not want to be reappointed.

Dr Bassett has been a tribunal member for 10 years and his existing three-year appointment expires at the end of this month.

Now this again was from 2004. But has the Tribunal changed?

I’ll soon be posting on the balance of the current membership, which is supposed to be a fair mix of Maori and Pakeha. It’s anything but.

In fact, it’s a miracle Michael was ever allowed on in the first place.

The former Labour Cabinet Minister has regularly criticised the tribunal, accusing his fellow members of bias.

His most recent criticisms were of the tribunal’s Tauranga report, in which he recorded a minority view.

In a subsequent newspaper column he accused his fellow members of “inventive arguments” and said it was time to “review the tribunal’s usefulness”.

Thanks to Lindsay Mitchell for alerting me to this. Stay tuned for my analysis of the present Waitangi Tribunal. 

Dr Giselle Byrnes, Maorification, Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, Victoria University, Waitangi Tribunal

Vic historian damns Waitangi Tribunal bias


Dr John Robinson is far from the only academic to voice alarm at the Treaty brownwashing scam. 

This from the Herald archives about historian Dr Giselle Byrnes’ experience with the Waitangi Tribunal.

(Note: the paragraphs below are cherry-picked for easy digestion, not all consecutive.)

The tribunal – one of New Zealand’s more controversial institutions – has become a nursery for the rewriting of New Zealand’s history.

It seems a laudable enterprise. But questions are emerging about the academic validity of the history the tribunal is producing.

In a new book, The Waitangi Tribunal and New Zealand History, Victoria University historian Dr Giselle Byrnes lays damning charges against the tribunal, describing its attempts to write history as a “noble, but ultimately flawed experiment”.

The tribunal, she says, is not writing “objective history”. Rather, the reports it produces are deeply political and overwhelmingly focused on the present. It commits the ultimate faux pas of judging the past by the standards of the present.

Tribunal history also has a strong Maori bias, Dr Byrnes says. Maori characters and stories are given much more emphasis and weight than Pakeha characters and stories. “The reports increasingly champion or advocate the Maori cause.”

This is not the first time an historian has questioned the academic integrity of the history produced by the Waitangi Tribunal. Other historians – including Keith Sorrenson, Michael Belgrave and Bill Oliver – have raised similar concerns.

Other academics are also concerned, but reluctant to say anything publicly, Dr Byrnes says.

“I know that many historians have felt some kind of disquiet about the sort of history the tribunal has been producing over the past few years. They haven’t spoken out about it because most historians have liberal political leanings and they don’t want to be seen as undermining or criticising the whole process.”

“This is an area of energy and activity that is exposing a huge amount about our history. We need to pay it serious attention because the tribunal is publishing these historical narratives and people are buying these books thinking they are truthful accounts.”

Dr Byrnes … believes the tribunal should make overtly clear its inherent bias, otherwise there is a danger that lay people reading tribunal reports will be misled.

“If you don’t read the reports alongside the legislation it does look like it’s very biased history.”

 Her experience sounds eerily similar to that of sceptical climate scientists.

Now this was from 2004. But if you think the Treaty brownwashing process has become more balanced in recent years, stay tuned.

Thanks for this article to Ross Baker of the One New Zealand Foundation.

Chris Finlayson, Corruption of New Zealand Democracy, Crown Forestry Rental Trust, John Robinson, Maorification, Plain English, Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit, Victoria University

TREATY CORRUPTION CONFESSION: researcher forced to rewrite report to fit official anti-Pakeha myth

On Tuesday evening I witnessed an extraordinary confession.

It was at the launch of Dr John Robinson’s explosive new book Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview.

This book is a smoking musket that exposes how the New Zealand state is prepared to lie in order to con the public into believing that its Treaty guilt trip is real and the grievance gravy train justified.

Author Dr John Robinson, a socialist, confessed that, much to his shame, he once caved in to an ultimatum by his state agency clients to doctor his findings on the cause of Maori 19th century depopulation to fit the government’s politically-correct pro-Maori, anti-Pakeha, Brit-bashing myth.

If he did not comply, he would not be paid for his work.

If you’re pressed for time or hungry for the meat, zoom down to the paragraph just below the graph. 

Otherwise, let me tell you a bit about the author…

Dr John Robinson is no ordinary doctor. He earned his doctorate at MIT. (The one in Massachusetts, not Manakau.)

He’s got two Master of Science degrees — in mathematics and physics.

He’s lectured at several universities.

As an interdisciplinary research scientist, he’s penned reports for all manner of respected, if acronymically-challenged, outfits, from the DSIR and OECD to the UNEP, UNU and UNESCO.

He’s researched and written books and papers on social science, energy, agriculture, business, transport, capital, the future, and the history of Wellington’s south coast.

He’s become a sought-after expert on Maori history, most recently writing a book on the Battles of Tapu Te Ranga (the island in Island Bay).

Lest you suspect his European ancestry may prejudice him against Maori, the book is full of evidence that Dr Robinson is a committed lefty, with a history of what the Left smugly call ‘heart politics’.

An example:

As a student in Boston and a lecturer in Rhode Island I travelled to Washington to join in a massive civil rights demonstration… Back in New Zealand I joined in the struggle for equal pay for women.

Not the sort of backstory that suggests racism, I think you’ll agree.

In fact, he seems to me to be a dangerous apologist for Maori gangs, perhaps even worthy of Lenin’s ‘useful idiot’ tag, coined for those who cuddle up to evil in the vain hope of reforming it:

When in the 1980s I interviewed the leader of Black Power in Auckland, he described how they were working to keep their children from a similar way of life, by building a thriving set of businesses to provide useful employment.

I believe the current equivalents are called P labs, John.

The gang problem runs deep, and has been created by successive governments, which … have so demonised these groups of young people that they have increasingly turned to antisocial and criminal activities.

The poor wee things — victims of demonic democrats. Yeah right.

Anyone who believes bureaucrats and MPs are the root cause of these ‘young people’ becoming thugs and drug dealers is asking to be called all sorts of things. But anti-Maori surely isn’t one of them.

Yet this thug-hugging liberal does not mince words when describing life in pre-colonial Aotearoa:

Maori culture was not just dysfunctional but mad, criminally insane.

The consequences of those decades of killing, social disruption, destruction of crops, infanticide, fear and uncertainty was a society in shock.

There was widespread desolation and devastation among Maori communities.

I say it again: this was before 1840, not after 1984.

(Though the author also has much to say about the effect of what he calls ‘voodoo economics’ on Maori in recent times.)

But back to the good doctor’s CV.

Dr Robinson has been hired to research and report on matters Maori by the following:

  • the Faculty of Business Studies at Massey University
  • the Royal Commission on Social Policy
  • the Ministry of Maori Affairs
  • Te Puni Kokiri
  • the Wellington South Coast Historical Society
  • the Treaty of Waitangi Unit at the Department of Justice
  • the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit at Victoria University
  • the Crown Forestry Rental Trust.

And it’s the last of these organisations that he’s referring to when he says:

I was ordered to emphasise a catastrophic social experience that was contrary to the data.

The Crown Forestry Rental Trust was the funder. The client was the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit at Victoria University.

Dr Robinson picks up the story (extra paragraph spacing by me for ease of reading):

Considerable sums are spent on employing academics and researchers to write reports supporting claims before the Waitangi Tribunal.

The Crown Foresty Rental Trust assists Maori to prepare, present and negotiate claims against the Crown, including funding research that is required to support the claimant’s argument.

Total assistance from the Trust to claimants in 2010 was $34.5 million. This is seriously big money and has a considerable impact on the direction of research into Maori history…

…Such directed efforts have a decided effect on the development and viability of university departments, and on the vision of the past that is told to the public and taught at schools and universities.

The subsequent emphasis then influences political debate and the direction of common law in New Zealand

I have worked in that industry.

In 2000 I analysed Maori demographic and land information for the northern South Island.

The data told a simple story. There was no correlation between land holdings and demography.

In other words, contrary to what his state paymasters wanted him to pretend, the decline in Maori population in the late 1800s was not caused by Maori losing their land.

Neither, surprisingly, did introduced European diseases have a lot to do with it.

There is no evidence that disease was a main cause of that decline, although it no doubt contributed.

By far the major cause, says Dr Robinson, was the lack of breeding stock caused by the slaughter of tens of thousands of young Maori males in the Musket Wars of the 1820s and 30s.

So Tariana Turia was right: there was a holocaust in New Zealand. It wiped out around half the population. Its perpetrators made the Rwandan Tutsi-butchers look like conscientious objectors.

But those perpetrators were Maori, not Pakeha.

An interesting and tragic irony was that even after this worldbeating orgy of ethnic cleansing, the male population still outnumbered the female. How could this be?

Seems it was also the custom of Maori to slaughter their daughters — for meat.

They stopped when they found the settlers valued their daughters more highly than they did — as prostitutes. Maori adapted quickly to commerce.

Graph: John Robinson. Red captions: John Ansell.

But this next bit is what really made me sit up…

My report was emphatically rejected by the Crown Forestry Trust. They claimed that it would obscure the true nature of the supposed “cataclysm” which afflicted Te Tau iwi between 1850 and 1900.

However, the data showed that there had been no such cataclysm. In fact, a demographic recovery was evident…

…But before I was paid, I was required to rewrite my report, to argue a deleterious impact from land loss during that period; that message had to be written in.

Extraordinary. Not so much that state standover tactics occur. (I’m told it’s rampant.) But that Dr Robinson has been brave enough to admit his reluctant compliance, on the record, in print.

Needless to say, I am not proud of that work, when I adapted the analysis away from the facts to fit the client’s requirements.

I hope you’re proud of yourself now, Dr Robinson. Because your revelation will, like the Climategate emails, change the way we view our supposedly non-corrupt state.

Significantly, I was not instructed to look further at what the numbers had to say. I continue now with the analysis that would have been followed by anyone free to search for the truth.

And he goes on to detail not just the true cause of Maori depopulation, but a catalogue of the corruption of language, education, politics and the law by the relentless Maorification movement.

And that movement most certainly includes the present Key/Finlayson regime. I’ll be telling you much more about them in upcoming posts.

As a plain English crusader, I particularly appreciate Dr Robinson’s exposé of the state’s deliberate, reprehensible misuse of language:

a lack of clarity and unbiased research has hindered the development of suitable and adequate policy, and continues across what remains of science in current New Zealand.

(And not just New Zealand, if recent climate science skullduggery is any guide.)

I found this sentence about Chris Finlayson’s deliberate obfuscation particularly chilling:

The National-Maori government has rewritten the foreshore and seabed legislation. I wish to be thorough and so tried to understand the text. I failed.

Now bear in mind this is no high school dropout scratching his empty head over the muddle-headed meanderings of some cardigan-clad clerk.

This is a doctor from MIT speaking about legislation crafted by the supposedly Honourable Christopher Finlayson MP, an avowed champion of plain English law.

(So much so that he compered the last Writemark Plain English Awards. I know — I recommended him for the job. I was friends with him. I used to believe he cared about New Zealand, not just Aotearoa. I was wrong.)

So how is it that in Finlayson’s law, according to Dr Robinson:

key words have many meanings and the operative meanings will be defined later by claimants.

That’s right, folks, by claimants. How sneaky is that?

It shows that Finlayson is every bit as naive or as biased (almost certainly the latter) as that other notable white Maori separatist, Doug Graham.

Dr Robinson cites what Graham had to say about legal linguistic precision in his day:

Treaty legislation has long been deliberately unclear. Former Treaty Minister Doug Graham stated in 1997 that this lack of clarity was no accident or inadvertence on the part of Parliament. Parliament has handed over the task of writing law to the courts.

And so it remains fourteen years later. The judges make our laws, and entrench the Maorification of Everything.

To allow them to do so, the Activist-General, formerly known as the Attorney-General, creates the foggiest legislation he can get away with.

He does this so his fellow-activist judicial mates can have free reign when called upon to clarify the confusion.

We’re being conned by a confusion conspiracy, and it’s time it was blown wide open.

Dr Robinson sums up our predicament well:

Modern society is founded on the concept of equality before the law. That principle has been established through centuries of struggle. It is stated in Article 3 of the Treaty and brought freedom to Maori slaves after 1840.

He reminds us that the British did not just end British slavery in 1833. They also ended Maori slavery in 1840.

The advent of law and order also put an end to centuries of Maori cannibalism and decades of utu-based slaughter.

The Jews may have invented the saying ‘an eye for an eye’. But it took Maori chiefs — or should that be chefs? — to make it a culinary reality.

When a tribe had shot and hacked its way to victory over its neighbour, the triumphant chief would go cannibalistic. And it was his rival’s eyes that were the first items on the menu. 

But back to the book.

Final word to Dr Robinson:

But New Zealand is spinning wildly away from equality to race-based privilege and separate development. That terrible evolution must stop.

The book is called The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy — A Treaty Overview by John Robinson. It’s only $20 and you can read it in an evening.

Once you’ve read it, you’ll never believe the government spin on the Treaty and Maorification again.

My apologies for not getting this post done by yesterday, as I intended. Needed the time to get it right.