Michael King, Moriori, Ngati Mutunga, Ngati Tama, Taranaki, Tariana Turia, Waitangi Chatham Islands, Waitangi Tribunal

A genuine Waitangi grievance

Moriori by Michael King - Waitangi, Chatham Islands

Read this and weep.

Not for nothing, you may conclude, does the ‘tangi’ in ‘Waitangi’ means ‘weeping’ or ‘mourning’.

But the Waitangi in this story is not in the Bay of Islands. It’s in the Chatham Islands.

It, too, is a place of grievance.

And the perpetrators of that grievance were not white colonists from England, but Maori invaders from Taranaki.

Reporting on that troubled province, the Tribunal named after the northern Waitangi described as a ‘holocaust’ the Crown’s response to Taranaki tribal rebellion and Treaty-breaching.

Chronic tribal exaggerators like Tariana Turia and Kerry Opae even apply the term to the Crown’s repossession of its own land at Parihaka — after 14 years of asking nicely — where the death toll was precisely zero.

But they’re right that there certainly were Taranaki-related ‘holocausts’ (as in mass murders of innocents) in the 19th century.

And all of them were perpetrated by Maori.

These are the ‘holocausts’ that our one-eyed pseudo-historians forget to mention:

  • the rebels’ burning of the homes of 187 farming families.
  • the cruel, unprovoked murders of settler men, women and children like the Gascoigne family, the Gilfillan family, and Rev. John Whitely.
  • the burning of whole herds of farm animals (‘holocaust’ means ‘destruction by fire, or a burnt offering of animals’)
  • the Waikato invasion of 1831, in which the tribe of Potatau Te Wherowhero slaughtered and ate one-third of the Taranaki people, enslaved another third, and caused another third to flee to the Wellington area. (The future King Potatau I personally bashed in the brains of 150 unarmed captives at Pukerangiora pa at Waitara.)
  • the hijacking in 1835 by 900 of that other Taranaki third, of a ship to the Chathams, and the ethnic cleansing of the peace-loving Moriori.

The bloodiest killing field of those Taranaki butchers (from the Ngati Tama and Ngati Mutunga tribes, that recently received millions in Treaty settlements) was a beach called Waitangi.

Moriori by Michael King - Tariana's Taranaki holocaust

The following account is from Michael King’s Moriori — A People Rediscovered. We pick up the story as the Moriori chiefs debate whether to set aside their pacifism and attack the Taranaki invaders:

Moriori by Michael King - p.62Moriori by Michael King - p.63Moriori by Michael King - p.64

Moriori by Michael King - p.64 women staked on beach

Isn’t this the Waitangi-related grievance we should be most concerned about?

Dominion Post, Judith Collins, Legal Aid, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

Only battered women, criminals and iwi get free legal aid

Legal Aid - Battered Woman, Criminal, Treaty Claimant

You may have seen this recent Dom Post article about Treaty claimants getting $79 million in legal aid over the past six years.

The article reveals the standard perks — or rorts, depending on your point of view:

  • As well as legal costs, Treaty lawyers can claim on travel, meals, accommodation, and the expense of attending a hui to discuss a claim.  
  •  More than $800,000 has also been claimed in travel costs during the past 2 years.  

Nothing too unusual there.

But then we get into some good, old-fashioned Maori privilege (the kind the likes of Peter Meihana would have you believe doesn’t exist):

  • Unlike civil or criminal cases, Treaty claimants can obtain legal aid regardless of their financial circumstances.

Typical, huh?

But if you think that stinks, it’s nothing to what the article doesn’t tell you…

(This comes from a friend who used to dole out New Zealand’s legal aid. Here’s what he just told me…

There are only three classes of applicant that don’t have to pay back legal aid:

  1. Domestic violence victims.
  2. Accused criminals.
  3. Treaty claimants.

You heard it here first, folks. Free lawyers for battered women (fair enough, but why not all violence victims?), crims, and griever Maori.

And it gets worse.

  • While Treaty claims represent a fraction of the total number of legal aid cases, they are often among the most expensive.

Not only the most expensive. Also — by far — the most successful.

What other class of legal aid applicant is so regularly clogging up our legal system demanding millions of dollars from taxpayers — and winning?

(Courtesy of a kangaroo court specifically set up to shepherd their claims past a “see no evil” appeaser government, with no regard for historical truth.)

In other words…

no class of applicant is more able than Griever Maori to afford to pay back their legal aid.

And yet, unlike you and me — even when they win settlements in the hundreds of millions of dollars — they don’t have to pay back a cent.

And unlike criminals, they don’t even have to prove that they’re hard up to get their free legal aid.

Legal aid, remember, is your and my hard-earned cash, handed over to iwi so they can hire lawyers to bring often-bogus cases against you and me, that the Waitangi Tribunal finds any excuse to approve, then gets Chris Finlayson and co. to rubber stamp.)

More points from the article:

  • Of the 75 most expensive cases of 2008-09, 41 per cent were for Treaty claims.  
  • The Waitangi Tribunal is currently handling or preparing 780 separate claims, which are resolved through regional hearings.  
  • In a statement, Justice Minister Judith Collins said she was comfortable with the amount of money being spent on legal aid for Treaty claims.

Disappointing, Judith. I used to think you’d make a strong prime minister.

Kohanga Reo, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

We spend $1 billion on Kohanga Reo and Waitangi Tribunal demands an apology!

Earth to Waitangi Tribunal: you’re a Kangaroo Court, not a Supreme Court.

(And God knows our Supreme Court is biased enough.)

But this jumped-up joke court has the cheek to complain that the Crown — that’s you and me, folks — has failed Kohanga Reo.

And how did we fail them?

By only paying them a billion dollars over the last twenty years to do the job that Maori parents should have been doing.

The Waitangi Tribunal report released this morning found the Government breached the Treaty by not supporting the Maori-language immersion early childhood centres. 

Now I don’t know about you.

But I wouldn’t describe the shovelling of one thousand million dollars of taxpayers’ hard-earned cash into Kohanga Reo’s coffers as entirely unsupportive.

And I see nothing in even the fraudulent ‘Official’ English version of the Treaty to suggest that non-Maori are obliged to pay Maori to learn Maori.

(Especially when most Maori don’t seem overly fussed about learning it.)

The Tribunal … recommended the Government apologise to the trust, promote attendance, and create a policy and funding regime specifically for kohanga reo.

I recommend that the Government tells the Waitangi Tribunal to get stuffed — as its final message just before abolishing it.

Then I recommend that the Government reports itself to the Serious Fraud Office for taking notice of this kangaroo court for the last 37 years, at a cost to the country of many billions.

It also wants an interim independent adviser appointed to oversee its recommendations. 

Like hell it does.

This bastion of bias wants one of its tame Treatygater academics to fill that ‘independent’ role.

Someone, no doubt, like Ranginui Walker or Margaret Mutu.

Or, if they’re too brown, one of the many Pakeha make-believe-Maori who infest our halls of academe. (Not to mention the judiciary, the bureacracy, and all our other thoroughly Maorified elites.)

Dame Claudia Orange, Dame Anne Salmond or Dame Sian Elias, for example.

Rest assured, the Treatygaters live in fear of anyone truly independent — not that they’ve probably ever encountered one.

Trustee Dame Iritana Tawhiwhirangi said after decades of mainstreaming by the Crown, the report proved what the movement knew all along. 

A ruling by the Waitangi Tribunal is hardly proof of anything.

The Tribunal is nothing but an echo chamber and rubber-stamper for Griever Maori greed.

Kohanga Reo is inexplicably linked to the revitalisation of Te Reo Maori. 

Can’t argue with that — but I think she may have meant ‘inextricably’ linked. 🙂

Education Minister Hekia Parata said the Government would consider the report and assess it alongside other work being done on her ministry’s Maori language plan. 

More than $1 billion was directed toward the movement over the past 20 years, she said.

A further $19.1m over the next four years had been set aside for Maori early childhood education. 

Allow me to offer another perspective…

I have a 19 year old Taiwanese step-son. He’s been in New Zealand since he was one.

In that time, he’s never had so much as a minute’s schooling in Mandarin.

Yet despite this, he can speak his native tongue well enough to get by when he visits his grandmother and uncles in Taipei.


Because his mother made damn sure she kept the language alive in him by speaking Chinese at home.

Why can’t Maori parents do the same?

But if they can’t be bothered — if they insist that their fellow countrymen must pay to keep their language alive — why can’t they summon up the decency to say “thanks” instead of “more”?

David Rankin, Eddie Durie, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

How long till they claim the sun?

As I’m sure Eddie Durie or David Rankin will soon remind you, Maori (in the form of Maui) invented daylight saving.

This means their iwi should be entitled to charge for sunlight and heat.

Expect the following hysterical (I mean historical) evidence to be heard and swiftly approved by the Waitangi Tribunal:

How Maui Tamed the Sun

Maui had often heard his brothers talking about how there was not enough sunlight during the day.

Night after night they would sit round the fire and discuss this problem.

No matter how early they got up, still there weren’t enough hours of sunlight for all their village duties and for hunting and fishing.

So Maui thought about what he could do to solve their problem.

Then he announced to his brothers that he had found a solution: ‘I think I can tame the Sun.’

‘Maui, don’t be so ridiculous!’ they replied. ‘No one can tame the Sun.

‘For a start, if you got anywhere near him you would be burnt to a cinder.

‘There  is no way of taming the Sun. He’s far too big and powerful.’

But Maui said, with great authority this time, ‘Look, I can tame the Sun.

‘Get all the women of the tribe to go and cut as much flax as possible — I want a really huge pile — then I will show you how to make a net that will be strong enough to capture the Sun.

‘I will make sure that he won’t go so quickly across the sky in future.’

The brothers obeyed him and when they had collected mounds of flax Maui showed them how to plait it into strong ropes.

He made long ropes and short ropes, and tied some of them together to make a net gigantic enough to catch and hold the Sun.

After many hours of plaiting they finally had enough rope and nets to please Maui.

Then he set off, equipped with his special axe, with his brothers and some men from the tribe and it took several days to reach the Sun’s resting place in the East.

After a short stop they started their preparations.

They found the cave from which the Sun would be rising next morning and they quickly set to work covering the entrance with the net of plaited ropes.

When they were sure they had done a really good job they camouflaged the ropes with leaves and branches.

They also made themselves clay walls as a protection against the Sun’s fierce heat, and smeared the clay all over their bodies.

Then they hid. 

Maui crouched down on one side of the cave and the rest of the men were on the other side.

It wasn’t long before they saw the first glimmer of light from the cave.

Then they felt the scorching heat.

The men were shaking with fear as the light grew more and more blinding and the heat more and more stifling.

They were sure that Maui’s plan would not work.

Suddenly they heard a sharp shout from Maui, ‘Pull! Pull the ropes as hard as you can.’

The net fell like a huge noose over the Sun.

Although the men were terrified that the Sun would kill them all, they pulled and strained as hard as they possibly could so that the Sun could not escape.

The Sun, who was raging at being held captive, struggled and roared.

Maui knew he had to do something more than just hold the Sun in the net so he yelled to one of his brothers to take his end of the rope.

He rushed out from the protection of his wall and, with his special axe raised high above his head, he ran towards the Sun.

Even though the heat was singing his body and his hair, he started to attack the Sun with his axe.

The Sun roared even louder. ‘What are you doing? Are you trying to kill me?’ he screamed.

‘No. I am not trying to kill you,’ answered Maui, ‘but you don’t understand.

‘You go too fast across the sky, and we are all unable to do our daily work.

‘We need more hours of light in our days for hunting and fishing, for building and repairing our village houses.’

‘Well,’ said the Sun, ‘you have given me such a battering that I don’t think I could speed across the sky now, even if I wanted to.’

‘If we release you,’ said Maui, ‘will you promise to slow your journey down?’

‘You have so weakened me that now I can only go slowly,’ answered the Sun.

Maui made him solemnly promise to do what he had asked and then he released the ropes.

Maui’s brothers and the men of the tribe watched as the Sun, slowly and stiffly, began to lift into the sky.

They all smiled at Maui — they were proud of him.

To this day, the Sun travels on his long lonely path across the sky at a very slow pace, giving us many more hours of sunlight than he used to do.

Of course, it remains to be determined exactly what quantum of extra light and heat Maui and his brothers were able to extract from the sun by slowing its passage across the sky.

But no doubt the ancestors of Messrs Durie and Rankin — those who were contemporaries of Maui — will have furnished the two expropriators (I mean experts) with the most compelling oral evidence.

‘Justice’ Durie will, I’m sure, argue that the sun’s rays were more highly prized by Maori than by the British because Maori clothes and houses were not as able to keep out the cold.

Mr Rankin, from the winterless north, will likely point to the sun god Ra’s obvious distaste for white people, since he keeps burning them.

With this sort of authoritative advocacy, Pakeha rights to the Great Golden Taonga should be gone by sundown.

Brian Priestley, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

Ngai Tahu advisor resigned over one-eyed Waitangi Tribunal

Those of you who remember The Fourth Estate TV show from the 1980s will remember legendary media critic Brian Priestley MBE as a relentless seeker of truth and balance.

Mr Priestley had to say about the Waitangi Tribunal:

“Years ago I attended several sessions while advising the Ngai Tahu on public relations for their claims.

It would be hard to imagine any public body less well organised to get at the truth.

There was no cross examination.

Witnesses were treating with sympathetic deference.

The people putting the Crown’s side of things seemed equally anxious not to offend.

In three months I don’t think I was asked a single intelligent, awkward question.

I should have been.

I resigned because I am basically a puzzler after the truth and not a one-eyed supporter of causes.”

Thanks to Colin Rawle for this quote from a story headed Ngai Tahu claim: too little critical analysis in Wellington’s Evening Post of April 3, 1998.

To donate to my campaign to expose the Treatygate fraud and make New Zealand a Colourblind State free of all racial favouritism by 2014, click here.

Taonga, Treatygate, Waitangi Tribunal

'Taonga' as defined by Hongi Hika

The Maori dictionary current in 1840 was the 1820 Grammar and Vocabulary of the Language of New Zealand by Cambridge University professor Samuel Lee.

Lee’s linguistic consultant was no honky with an axe to grind.

It was none other than the great Ngapuhi chief Hongi Hika.

(He loved axes too — tomahawks, to be precise — but was in England looking to upgrade to muskets.)

And Hongi defined taonga as property procured by the spear, etc.

It was purely physical

Hongi Hika’s down-to-earth definition of the 1820s could hardly be more removed from the ‘sacred relic’ status conferred by the Treaty negotiators of the 2010s.

To that corrupt one-eyed kangaroo court the Waitangi Tribunal, taonga now means anything our tribal clients can get their hands on.

Physical or metaphysical, doesn’t matter. If it can turn a dollar, it’s a taonga.

But to Hongi Hika, and Hone Heke and the other 511 chiefs who signed Te Tiriti o Waitangi, their taonga was their stuff. Continue reading

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.

Waitangi Tribunal

Waitangi Tribunal unbiased? You be the judge.

Is the Waitangi Tribunal stacked to produce pro-Maori findings?

According to its website

The Tribunal is a permanent commission of inquiry charged with making recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to actions or omissions of the Crown, which breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi.The Tribunal comprises up to 20 members… Approximately half the members are Māori and half are Pākehā

Sounds fair, doesn’t it?

But actually the present Tribunal has 22 members — 12 Maori, 10 Pakeha. As they say, approximately equal.

But now let’s take a closer look at those 10 Pakeha members. 

It seems only three do not have clear affiliations to Maori in some way.

I list the Maori credentials of the other 7 Pakeha below. You may find them interesting.

You may wonder whether Pakeha so steeped in Maori culture are likely to produce a finding that’s fair to all New Zealanders. 

You may find that the true Maori-Pakeha ratio is not 12-10 at all, but more like 19-3.

Approximately equal? I don’t think so.

Now ideally, all members should view all evidence with no hint of bias. A Waitangi Tribunal member with an interest in Maori culture should be no different from a rugby referee from the home team’s country.

But of course nowadays they have neutral refs. They do that because of a number of questionable decisions in the past that favoured the home team.

Shouldn’t the same apply when deciding on matters which affect the division of a nation’s wealth?

Waitangi Tribunal members 2011

12 Maori members

Chief Judge Wilson Isaac, Judge Stephanie Milroy, Dr Aroha Harris, Professor Sir Hirini Moko Mead, Kihi Ngatai, Josepth Northover, Professor Pou Temara, Keita Walker, Dr Ranginui Walker, Professor Sir Tamati Reedy, Tania Simpson, Dr Monty Souter.

7 Pakeha members with obvious Maori affiliations

Let’s look at these Maori affiliations:

Tim Castle, barrister.

  • Student at Te Kawa a Maui in 2003. Completed Māori 101, having taken tuition in Te Reo Māori.
  • Counsel for the NZ fishing industry when effective injunctions were secured by Māori to introduce the quota management system.
  • Advocating for Māori on a wide range of Treaty issues and the kaupapa of Te Ao Māori.
  • Counsel for the fishing industry in the High Court and Court of Appeal Māori fisheries litigation.
  • Counsel for the fishing industry for the Tribunal inquiries into the Muriwhenua and Ngai Tahu fisheries claims.
  • Legal counsel for the Treaty of Waitangi Fisheries Commission.
  • Advised on Māori customary and commercial fishing rights and interests.
  • Counsel for Māori in their claims before the Waitangi Tribunal.
  • Counsel for Maori before the Māori Land Court and the Māori Appellate Court. 
  • Advised the parliamentary select committee on the Māori Fisheries Bill 2003.
  • Advised the parliamentary select committee on the Foreshore and Seabed Bill 2004.
  • Negotiated significant Treaty settlements for iwi including Taranaki Whanui/Port Nicholson Block Settlement Trust, Tainui Taranaki ki te Tonga, and the Māori aquaculture settlement. 
  • Published dispute resolution protocols for fisheries allocation for Māori.
  • Took part in the first Te Papa annual Treaty debates in 2003–04.

Dr Angela Ballara, historian.

  • Authority on Māori customary history.
  • Written papers for the Journal of the Polynesian Society.
  • Member of the team producing the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and Nga Tangata Taumata Rau. Responsible for the Māori side to this project.
  • Books include Taua: ‘Musket Wars’, ‘Land Wars’ or Tikanga? – Warfare in Māori Society in the Early Nineteenth Century (2003); Iwi: The Dynamics of Māori Tribal Organisation, c1769–c1945 (1998), and Proud to be White? A Study of Racial Prejudice in New Zealand (1986).
  • Academic qualifications include a COP in Māori Studies.

Robyn Anderson, historian.

  • Prepared evidence for the return of railways land to Wellington Māori.
  • Researched projects for the Waitangi Tribunal and for claimants from the Hauraki, Kaipara, and Whanganui districts.
  • Led research and exhibitions for the history and Pacific cultures sections of Te Papa Tongarewa (Museum of New Zealand).
  • Preparing an historical overview report on the history of Tongariro National Park for the Tribunal’s National Park inquiry.
  • Assisting the Wairarapa ki Tararua Tribunal as a consultant historian.

Dr Ann Parsonson, historian.

  • Has been a research associate at the Centre for Māori Studies and Research, University of Waikato.
  • Helped Ngāi Tahu, Ngā Iwi o Taranaki, and Waikato iwi prepare their Treaty claims.
  • Written on Māori history and Treaty history.
  • Was a member of the Turanga Tribunal.
  • Sitting on the Urewera and Central North Island Tribunals.

Dr Richard Hill, historian.

  • His book State Authority, Indigenous Autonomy(2004) examines the history of Crown–Māori relations.
  • Professor of New Zealand Studies at the Stout Research Centre for New Zealand Studies at Victoria University of Wellington.
  • Director of the Victoria University Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit.
  • Worked in the Treaty of Waitangi resolution processes during the pioneering negotiations in the late 1980s.

Sir Douglas Kidd, former politician.

  • Former Minister of Māori Affairs.

John Baird, former managing director.

  • Studying for a bachelor of arts in Māori Studies.

UPDATE: in response to a fair point made by a commenter, I should note that the above are just the Maori affiliations of the Pakeha members.

I don’t mean to imply that either they or the Maori members don’t also have Pakeha affiliations.

(Any more than I mean to disguise the Maori affiliations of the Maori members, which I also haven’t bothered to list.)

Of course they do.

But this is a post about pro-Maori bias, not pro-Pakeha bias.

My point is simply that these seven Pakeha members descend from the 85% of New Zealanders who are not Maori.

Yet they have a high degree of fascination with the Maori culture, practised by only 15%.

And that would be absolutely fine.

Except that they’re employed to advise a government that’s meant to represent 100% of New Zealanders, not just 15%.

Can they be relied upon to be fair to the other 85%?

Or must that job be left to these three:

3 Pakeha members with no obvious Maori affiliations

Dame Margaret Bazley, Joanne Morris, Basil Morrison.

I’ll be having much more to say about the Waitangi Tribunal in the coming days. Outside South Africa, the word apartheid has never seemed so apt.

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.