Claudia Orange, Healing our History, Joanna Consedine, John Robinson, Robert Consedine, Twisting the Treaty

May the best manual win

Healing our History v Twisting the Treaty

You may remember on Willie and JT’s radio show, a woman rang up bemoaning my grasp of Crown-Maori history.

She had, it seems, been to university. And knew better.

Quite what a history course at one of New Zealand’s bastions of biculturalism had to do with actual history, she didn’t say.

She did, rather tellingly, point out that, of all the authors featured in her university library, only one — Stuart Scott — would have taken issue with the world according to Jackson and Tamihere.

Which says it all about the impartiality of our state education system. I was surprised there were as many as one.

(How Scott’s excellent The Travesty of Waitangi got past the bicultural commissars is a mystery.)

I commended to her the works of half a dozen other authors that she should read for balance — a concept her professors would not have understood.

She commended to me a book by Robert and Joanna Consedine called Healing our History — The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi.

By a stroke of luck, I told her, I happened to be reading that book at the moment.

I was also reading the new bombshell volume Twisting the Treaty — A Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power.

And it occurred to me that these two books, with their oddly symmetrical titles, really serve as manuals for their respective sides of the Treaty debate.

Then Dr John Robinson, one of the authors of Twisting the Treaty as well as The Corruption of New Zealand Democracy and When Two Cultures Meet — told me that he, too, was reading Healing our History.

I asked what he thought of it. This was his reply.

(Photo, caption, and type layout by me.)



by Dr John Robinson


The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi

by Robert and Joanna Consedine

This book has been referred to as the definitive Treatyists’ manual.

Reading it took me back to the last time I attended a seminar at the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unit at Victoria University, more than a decade ago.

That seminar, on the Treaty of Waitangi as presented by the Treaty bus then touring the country, took the form of a true believers’ revivalist meeting, leaving me extremely uncomfortable.

Healing our History - Claudia Orange endorsement on front

Sealing the sales of Healing our History:
praise from the Treatifarians’ patron saint Claudia.

The speaker preached the dogma, and there was no intelligent comment. That was far from a true university, where questions are asked and information is tested.

This book has the same credulous feel about it, as if preaching to the converted. But when questioned, much of the argument is seen to be specious.


Dr John Robinson on the Treaty of Waitangi Research Unity at Victoria University:

That Unit depended on the goodwill of the Waitangi Tribunal and the Crown Fisheries Trust for funding, and Director Richard Hill had to keep in their good books to assure his employment and promotion to Professor. We were all expected to join in the Church of Treaty Grievance.

This is a sad book, for Robert Consedine is a fine person, who has done much to aid people in need.

But he is credulous, and too ready to accept unquestioningly any opinion that supports the grievance thesis that:

  • Maori have been hard-treated and cheated by colonisation
  • colonisation is always the same, and always an unmitigated disaster
  • all non-Maori (but not Maori with European blood) should carry a guilt trip.

Along with that is an acceptance of the recent rewriting of the Treaty of Waitangi.

This has been transformed from a document setting up a united nation to a blueprint for separatism and partnership between two divided races — with different laws for each, and different rights.

I comment on some of the points in the book that supposedly build the case for a belief in white wrongdoing, with its severe critique of colonisation.

These illustrate the Consedines’ habit of accepting anything that suits their cause.


The simplistic treatment of an always-bad colonisation intermingles some five centuries of actions by different peoples, as if this was a uniform continuity, and all Europeans the same.


“The colonial era began towards the end of the fifteenth century with the rise of European powers built on the spoils of conquest of America, Africa and Asia”

together with the claim that:

“The economic motivation behind colonisation was unchanged.”

(Pages 42 and 43.)

Here the British actions in 1840 are confounded with the horrors of other colonisations, such as Cortez in Mexico, Pizzaro in Peru, and the later Belgians in the Congo.

The Age of Enlightenment and the British fight against slavery are ignored.

That evolution of an enlightened and inclusive policy is outlined in the chapter ‘British Society at the Time of Meeting’ of  When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience.

We should be proud of British colonisation, how it was carried out, and what was achieved.

Consedine, an Irish Catholic, is intent on complaining loudly of the wrongs of the British in the land of his ancestors, with six sections on Ireland:

  • ‘Ireland: The Patent Figures Lied to Us’
  • ‘The [Anti-Catholic] Penal Laws’
  • ‘The Potato Famine 1845-52’
  • ‘The Creation of Northern Ireland’
  • ‘The Discrimination Continues’ and
  • ‘An Economic Issue’ (where he says that: “On the surface the Irish troubles are always presented as a religious issue, but in fact they are an economic issue.’)

The history of New Zealand and of the Treaty of Waitangi has nothing in common with the much longer and particular story of the British in Ireland.

The Consedines’ aim here is to blacken the name of the British as “the colonisers”, with stories of claimed wrongs in other places, and not to tell the real story of what British intentions were in New Zealand, of Maori hopes for peace, or of the complex events leading up to and following 1840.


The Consedines correctly quote (their page 117) the New Zealand Institute for Economic Research Māori Economic Development, Te Ōhanga Whanaketanga Māori (2003), who say that

“While Māori households indeed receive $2.3 billion (see Table 3) in fiscal transfers, this is offset by a tax contribution of $2.4 billion from the Māori economy.”

Indeed, this is true, as according to the numbers in the table Maori households contribute more in tax than they receive in benefits and other fiscal transfers.

But taxation is for a lot more than that, for a wide range of services (hospitals, police, schools, etc.) — not only for benefits.

And that considerable range of services is NOT well supported by Maori.

The great majority of the taxes from Maori are taken straight back by benefit payments – $2.31 billion of  $2.40 billion, or 96%.

The result is that Maori provide (after benefit payments are returned to them) $92 million of general cost taxation, compared to $20,982 million from non-Maori.

Maori (10% of the population or more) provide just 0.44% of non-benefit taxes for governance and public services.

That is not a fair share.

Another way of commenting on the numbers is that Maori take back almost all of their taxation in benefits, and make a negligible contribution to the cost of government services, which they receive, and which are almost completely financed by non-Maori.

The NZIER claims that such “conclusions transform the frequently promoted myth that Maori are a drag on the New Zealand economy”.

Surely this shows the very opposite.

There are many such examples of ridiculous statements that are readily accepted and repeated until they become part of the new history.

In this, as in so many ways, the Consedines do a great disservice by failing to question such spin.

Too many ‘authorities’ get away with telling porkies, and are well paid for doing so.

Population and intertribal war

The killing by Maori of around one-third of the Maori population in the horrific intertribal warfare of 1800 to 1840 is downplayed.

“Lawyer R D Crosby estimates that between 50,000 and 60,000 Maori were killed, enslaved or forced to migrate from 1810-1840.

“However, demographer Ian Pool, on whom Crosby partly draws, points out that ‘100,000 persons would have expected to have died in that thirty year period in the ‘normal course of events’ with or without war.”

(Page 83)

Pool’s suggestion that the killing of around one-third of the population in that savage warfare in 30-40 years (with a considerable proportion in the one decade of the 1820s) had no great impact on population or life style, is simply incredible.

But if an authority figure says so, it must be true to the credulous believers.

I have dealt with this at some length in my When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience. Not because such nonsense should be taken seriously.

And not because Pool makes any cogent argument. Or because the real point is difficult to grasp. (That the loss of one-third of men, women and children has a great impact on population both immediately and in the future.)

But because Pool has been believed without any question raised.

From an examination of the data, and many eyewitness accounts, it is easy to determine the consequences of that killing — which was a great demographic imbalance that had an impact throughout the remainder of the eighteenth century.

The cause of Maori population decline through the whole of the eighteenth century was that intertribal war. Not colonisation.

Indeed, the Treaty and assertion of British sovereignty brought an end to widespread intertribal warfare — as well as to slavery, cannibalism and female infanticide.

The desire by a number of Maori chiefs to put an end to that warfare by the introduction of a powerful central force was, in fact, a significant reason for the welcome given to the Treaty of Waitangi — and repeated at Kohimarama in 1860.

Health and life expectancy

We find Pool again in a claim that:

“In the eighteenth century Maori life expectancy equalled that of the wealthier inhabitants of Europe and ‘was well above that of countries such as Spain and Italy’.”

(Page 81.)

This would suggest that any Maori poor health was a consequence of colonisation.

It is false.  Life expectancy for Maori was about 25 years before colonisation.


The considerable effort by the British to determine land ownership fairly is an important, and significant, part of our history.

The troubles were substantial, with claims by existing residents, returning freed slaves, returning warriors, and recent conquerors.

While one person would own the land, a chief might insist that traditional control should continue.

(Which, if allowed, would remove the right of the willing seller to be able to act as a free British subject who was no longer beholden to a former overlord.)

This is what happened at Waitara, where the disagreement was the consequence of a long-lasting feud among Maori.

Thus Kingi wished to overrule Teira because Rimene had some years before seduced the wife of Ihaia.

The full, complex and fascinating story is well reported in historical accounts.

I have summarised much of this in When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience, drawing on two very informative and comprehensive historical accounts.

(Cowan New Zealand Wars and the Pioneering Period, Volumes 1 and 2, 1922 and 1923, and Wells The History of Taranaki, 1857.)

Here we find the paper-thin modern version, trimmed down so as to have become quite misleading:

“A series of events starting at Waitara in 1860, where the Crown attempted to take land that Maori leadership refused to sell, quickly led to a period know as the Land Wars.”

(Pages 93-94.)

The Crown did not “take land”. It purchased from a willing seller, Teira — who even Kingi recognised as the owner.

The rewriting of history cheapens a human story, and robs us all of a fascinating and often dramatic historical birthright.


The standard modern version as given by the Consedines presents Government (called the Crown) action at Parihaka in 1881 as shameful.

Yet the settlement of Parihaka under Te Whiti’s leadership was clearly illegal, as the land had been properly and legally confiscated — as punishment for rebellion.

(In accordance with both British law and in Maori culture.)

And many attempts had been made to negotiate with Te Whiti.

As with Waitara (above) and the writing of the Treaty of Waitangi (below), the full story is far more fascinating than the simplistic fabricated version, which was used by the Waitangi Tribunal to describe those events as “the pillaging of Parihaka” and an example of “the Maori holocaust”.

The one casualty was a boy whose foot was trodden on by a horse.

And far from being pacifist, there was at Parihaka a stockpile of around 250 weapons including breechloaders, Enfields, revolvers and a variety of ammunition.

A comprehensive account is given by Bruce Moon in the chapter ‘Parihaka — The Facts’ in Twisting the Treaty –A Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power.

Treaty of Waitangi, shared sovereignty

The Consedines include (in Appendix 2) Te Tiriti o Waitangi 1840 in Maori, together with a translation into English, and “The Treaty of Waitangi: an English version 1840”.

The translation is by Hugh Kawharu in 1973.

It differs significantly from the many other translations in and after 1840, including that in an article by Sir Apirana Ngata in 1922.

Kawharu altered the meaning of words, which were formerly clearly understood and agreed upon by all.

There is no such thing as “an English version”. There is only one true version of the Treaty, and this is in Maori.

The “version” given is a draft prepared by Hobson’s secretary, and dismissed by Hobson before the final English draft was prepared and then translated into the Treaty.

That secretarial draft is a confusing document, and is internally inconsistent.

  • On the one hand, British law is to apply.
  • On the other, Maori are given control of “fisheries” — that are not privately owned in British law.

How could Hobson have spent several years discussing and being advised on this Treaty, and then come up with such a mess?

The answer is that he did not.

The full story is given by Bruce Moon in the chapter “Real Treaty: false Treaty, the true Waitangi Story”, in Twisting the Treaty — A Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power.

Healing our History — The Challenge of the Treaty of Waitangi is a lazy work, parroting the new accepted dogma of colonial guilt and blameless, hard-done-by Maori.

The reality is far more complex, richer and more interesting.

These and other important points have been treated in depth by the six authors, and the editor, who have contributed chapters to Twisting the Treaty — A Tribal Grab for Wealth and Power, which is essential reading for anyone with an interest in the Treaty of Waitangi.

Healing our History, Twisting the Treaty - front covers, open

Don’t believe me or John Robinson:
read both of these books.

Thanks to John Robinson for another valuable contribution to the debate.

If Robert and/or Joanna Consedine (or their endorser, Dame Claudia Orange, for that matter) would like to write a review of Twisting the Treaty, I’d be more than happy to run it!

And if you haven’t grasped the hint from all my links, don’t forget to order your copy here.

Catherine Delahunty, John Robinson, Treatygate

The one-eyed worldview of Catherine Delahunty, MP

For a fascinating insight into the thinking of a Pakeha Appeaser of Griever Maori, I commend to you this email exchange between Green Party MP Catherine Delahunty and author Dr John Robinson.

I urge you to read it all, particularly Delahunty’s second email, and Robinson’s reply.

As you read, and perhaps weep, remind yourself that Catherine Delahunty is a member of our Parliament, to whom we are paying over $140,000 a year.


From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:00 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi Catherine,

I was forwarded your comments on the Treaty, which I believe are mistaken.

The promise was kept and it was some Maori tribes who broke the compact by revolt against the government and many peaceful tribes.

I hope that you will read this historical account.

With best wishes,


[Dr Robinson pointed Ms Delahunty to his new book, When Two Cultures Meet — The New Zealand Experience, and the back cover blurb, which includes:

“The account, based on a wealth of information from many scholars and participants, shows how Maori played an active part in the colonisation by Britain, and benefited from the end of bloody war and social destruction, with the end of slavery, tribal attacks and cannibalism, together with improvements in lifestyle, health, food and tools.

This direct attack on revisionist historical accounts exposes the immense damage done to New Zealand society by the recent move away from the promise of 1840 – “now we are one people”.”]


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 3:49 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Sorry John, I could quote you many historians who totally disagree.

Colonisation is a divide and rule strategy and there is interesting literature on how the English Crown recorded strategies that worked on the Irish and then consciously applied them in this country.

If you are interested in historical accounts from a tangata whenua perspective I hope you are reading the Waitangi Tribunal summaries, they have brief but clear accounts of how land was alienated and people disenfranchised in a myriad of ways.

They are a source of inconvenient truths from the people who lost everything except their will to survive and to uphold a Treaty which shared this country.

But I suspect we will not agree and I respect your right to this view even though cannot agree.

The colonisation process did not bring health and well-being to these people and a quick study of statistics shows this to be true.

They are at the bottom of our heap and it’s too convenient to claim we are the civilised people, we are at least as war like and in many ways barbaric.

I love the quote from Gandhi when asked what he thought of western civilisation he said it would be a nice idea.

There are many views in this world but when we speak for others and define their culture and how much our culture has supposedly done for them , I get quite concerned.

Best wishes



From: John Robinson
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:13 p.m.
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

God almighty!  How on earth can you be so definite about what I say when you have not read the book?

I certainly disagree with many revisionist historians, and I comment directly on such issues.

The point is not to be made in a one-liner and there is much therein, with careful references.

Why not read and see whether there is any sense there?  Then debate, knowing what has been presented.


From: Catherine Delahunty
Sent: Thursday, 16 August 2012 4:39 p.m.
To: ‘John Robinson’
Subject: RE: When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience

Hi John,

I am not rejecting the idea of reading your book but when you talk about “tribes revolting against the Government” it is clear message that your world view of colonisation and indigenous rights is one I was brought up with and taught me little about the perspective of indigenous people.

I read when I can and I prioritise learning from indigenous historians and then Pakeha views which I was brought up with.

[The bolding is mine. While I like to correct people’s obvious errors, I can’t do much to tidy up the first para, because I can’t understand it — JA.]




From: John Robinson
Sent: Friday 14 September 2012 7:55 a.m..
To: Catherine Delahunty
Subject: an indigenous account

Dear Ms Delahunty,

I recall that you sent me an offensive and racist email saying that you read and consider the writings of ‘indigenous’ historians first, that being your criterion for the truth.

I wonder then if you have read and thought about Life and times of Te Rauparaha, written by his son, Tamihana Te Rauparaha?

It described features of Maori culture. Like:

“The Ngati Tama cut up the bodies of the slain and carried them to their pa to be cooked, as was the Maori custom.” (page 19).

“About 500 were killed in the battle, four pas were captured and a thousand women and children were slain.” (pages 30, 32)

“Three pas were captured and 200 men and 800 women and children were killed, while others were brought to Kapiti for slaves.” (page 33)

Yours sincerely,

Dr Robinson


Tamihana Te Rauparaha, to whom John Robinson refers above, was, by all accounts, a fine man — the polar opposite of his monstrous father.

He proposed the motion to endorse the Governor and the benefits of British colonisation at the Kohimarama Conference of chiefs in 1860.

He also travelled round the South Island apologising for the depraved deeds of his dad.


COMING SOON: An email exchange between Delahunty and essayist Colin Rawle, which shows the Green MP to be even more one-eyed.

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.

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.