9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Amy Brooke

Initiator and Convener of the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement – www.100days.co.nz

Commonwealth award-placed columnist, socio-political commentator, founder of the highly regarded Summersounds Symposium and writer of real, much-loved children’s stories, Amy’s concern for the need to restore democracy in New Zealand, so that New Zealanders themselves make the decisions concerning our directions, has led her to found the 100 Days… movement. 


This reinvention of pseudo-Maori has penetrated every section of our society, with even the national anthem now prioritised in Maori. It is all a great con, presented as authentic; deliberately fabricated for political advantage; but underpinned by empowerment politics foisted upon children and teachers in our schools, replacing subjects of genuine importance already struggling for a foothold. Demonstrably, racial preferment has become a Trojan horse.....
Read Amy Brookes’ full article here > www.spectator.com.au/2019/10/made-up-maori/


Can Ardern really be ignorant of the fact that there is absolutely no doubt that New Zealanders as a whole - whatever their ethnic background - are now fed up with the increasing polarisation of society along the lines of a deliberately promoted Maori superiority?

Is she ignorant, naïve - or does she have a more concerning aim in mind?

According to the usual part-Maori activists, Maori names must now appear first. In city streets, throughout national and local government agencies, signs are being rewritten at considerable expense to the whole country so that Maori - in many cases, of course, predominantly reinvented Maori - is to take precedence. Any English must appear in much smaller lettering underneath.

This is not only insulting to the majority of New Zealanders: it appears to be an extraordinary insensitive promotion of resentment, of a kickback against the massive, never-ending payouts of now hundreds of millions of dollars in supposed “compensation” by a generation today which had absolutely nothing to do with any wrongs committed nearly 200 hundred years ago. Moreover, a one-sided emphasis on these has been allowed to hold sway for too long.

Add on the nonsensical assertion that what is now an overwhelmingly fake language should be compulsorily inflicted upon the country…with attempts to pass it off as “the language of the land”, and the inevitable backlash is gathering momentum.

Someone needs to tell the present Race Relations Conciliator this claim of hers is sheer gobbledygook. The land has no language. The land cannot speak. Faced with an inexorable logic, even if one were deluded enough to literally put one ear to the ground, one would have to admit a failure in any attempt to listen to the land speaking…

Moreover, if the land today had a language it would be English – the international language overwhelmingly necessary for communication both within and outside this country…the language which new immigrants must learn to assimilate...the language which by far the majority of those of Maori descent also prefer to speak. And any attempt by the politically correct to try to gain more mileage for a language stretched well past its original authenticity will be resisted by New Zealanders who have far more important things to do - and who resent the ongoing virtual squandering of scores of millions of dollars each year on a now inauthentic, largely made-up language which has no relevance to them. But it provides lucrative jobs for the boys and girls pushing it…

In fact, it can be argued that it is not only farcical to claim that a genuine Maori language has the words for, say Inland Revenue Department, Ministry of Social Welfare, economy return flight tickets to Afghanistan… Accident and Emergency Department… but that it is a basic con to claim that this largely reinvented language is authentic.

So why is this happening?

We are also well overdue to ask – who is Maori?

It’s past time for a scientifically based definition of Maori. We should now be insisting upon this from this government, because the lack of any definition allows today’s opportunists, those with their eye to the main chance, to claim to be Maori for any economic or preferential advantage going.

There are no longer any genuinely full-blooded Maoris in this country. And the most prominent iwi opportunists are those who are predominantly certainly not Maori - but to whom the constant rejection of the largest proportion of their genetic inheritance pays great dividends – given today’s corruption of our vote-seeking political parties.

Remember Donna Awatare? A convicted fraudster, together with her husband, she was found guilty in 2005 and sentenced to 2 years nine months in jail. They were convicted of stealing $80,000 from a trust fund she had formed to improve literacy among under-performing Maori children. Since being released from jail, she has held several roles including deputy chair administration for the New Zealand Māori Council.

In 2014 she represented the council in presenting the Māori claim for water to the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues. And Jacinda Ardern’s government has now appointed her Maori Climate Commissioner.

How many will have been incredulous at this news?

It is not surprising, but it is ominous, that our major newspaper syndicates, obligingly changing their mastheads to switch to Maori-derived names, have now severely cut back, or completely dispensed with, the ability to comment on the major socio-political articles of the day.

Why do you think this might be? Could it possibly be related to the fact that most commentators have voiced their concern, even their anger, at the views of the majority of New Zealanders now being completely discarded.

One correspondent‘s view, that the Treaty of Waitangi has become a stranglehold on the rest of the country, is now reflected the length and breadth of the country.

Another expat’s comments represent the thinking of many. Having left New Zealand because of the increasingly toxic atmosphere caused by our political parties sell-out
of democracy along racist lines, he writes, “It seems the will of the people in a democratic vote is not respected if the minority don’t like it. This I find very worrying,
as voting is the basis of democracy.”

Individuals who feel powerless in the face of this increasingly racist reorientation of New Zealand do have a remedy. And it’s a very easy one.

Each of us can indeed stand up to be counted. You don’t have to despise yourself for doing nothing (an essentially cowardly choice which diminishes us as human beings, as Jordan Peterson points out ) - or for feeling powerless in the face of this virtual steam-rolling over the majority of New Zealanders.

When did you last put a quick call through to Parliament to the appropriate office - that of your local MP? - or the office of the leader of a political party. They claim they really want to hear from you - then why don’t you make sure they do?

A correspondent has contacted me to say she has done just that. She rang Jacinda Arden’s office to politely state that she completely disagrees - as do majority of New Zealanders - with the racist lines Jacinda Ardern is promoting... She asked her views to be taken into account - to be taken back to the Prime Minister.

Everything in the end depends upon individuals. Why don’t you do the same? And no - it’s not like knocking on the headmaster’s door! We employ and pay our political servants. We will be genuinely beginning to claim back this country when we act upon this actual fact.

Parliament’s number is 04 817 9999. Ring and ask to be put through to the appropriate office. Every call counts - as does doing nothing… We do have a choice.


Maori “great conservationists”? Why is this distorting nonsense being peddled? Maori, after all, blithely burnt whole forests and wiped out numbers of species. Who profits from this constantly trumpeted, quite wrong claim?

For example: Within a couple of hundred years of settling in NZ, Maori had wiped out more than forty native species, including every one of the nine species of moa.

Isolated for millions of years, New Zealand’s plants and animals were very vulnerable to the impact of humans. When the ancestors of Māori arrived around 1250–1300 AD, bringing rats and dogs, they started a wave of extinctions that continues today.

Maori also had a significant impact on the archipelago’s fauna: nearly forty species of birds, a bat, three to five species of frogs and numerous lizard taxa became extinct during the pre-European Maori era. Factors leading to the extinction of these species were direct hunting, predation by or competition with introduced dogs and rats, human disturbance of nesting sites, and habitat destruction (mainly through burning).

Summary: Polynesian settlement of New Zealand (c. 1000 yr B.P.) led directly to the extinction or reduction of much of the vertebrate fauna, destruction of half of the lowland and montane forests, and widespread soil erosion.

For millions of years, nine species of large, flightless birds known as moas (Dinornithiformes) thrived in New Zealand. Then, about 600 years ago, they abruptly went extinct. Their die-off coincided with the arrival of the first humans on the islands in the late 13th century....he is not surprised that the Polynesian settlers killed off the moas; any other group of humans would have done the same, he suspects. “We like to think of indigenous people as living in harmony with nature,” he says. “But this is rarely the case......


What, Ms Devoy, do scientist and columnist Dr Bob Brockie, MNZM; conservationist Bud Jones, QSM (recognised for years of faithful service - and with a distinguished career as a professional musician); Neil Hayes, QSM, who was awarded a QSM in recognition of his 34 years of continuous involvement in attempting to save the rare and critically endangered NZ Brown Teal (Anas chlorotis) from extinction – have in common? Neil is a Royal Chartered Environmentalist. Add in, among other highly regarded New Zealanders, the eminent Bruce Moon, the first person to install a computer in a New Zealand University. The answer? They all have been warning what you should be well aware of, in your position, but apparently aren't. Or are you just keeping your head down? Whatever; this just isn't good enough, and your dogmatic utterances are helping to foster divisiveness and dissent.

In a recent Dominion Post column, Bob Brockie brought to public scrutiny the shockingly racist bias and tribal centre-staging which has wormed its way into what should be completely independent centres of learning in this country. What has long been imposed by neo-Marxist activists within the Ministry of Education, blatantly targeting schoolchildren with their damaging propaganda, has now taken an even stronger foothold within our higher institutes of learning.

Dr Brockie highlighted the fact that what was once Britain's top scientific organisation, the Royal Society - morphing here into the Royal Society of New Zealand – (which is supposed to foster scientific research and provide independent advice on scientific matters, free of political commercial or cultural bias) - is now doing nothing of the sort. Transferring itself into "an academy" in 2010 it appointed representatives of the humanities to its councils - at which stage the alarm bells should have started to ring...because of course these artistic and literary " councillors" (from both the government-funded arts and literary circles) have long been thoroughly partisan and biased – and very much controlled by the politically correct.

Granting themselves an obscure title in the newly invented, inauthentic and ponderous Maori-speak, these advisers called themselves Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi, and brought with them the inevitable baggage load of cultural and political activism from the humanities - the centre of subversive activity within our universities in recent decades. As Dr Brockie points out (inheriting the essential madness of the French nihilist philosophers, Derrida, Foucault and their disciples) these have long argued that there are no such things as facts - that everybody's opinions are of equal value - "whether those of a quantum physicist or a Stone Age nobody". I recall, for example, Oxford's then Marxist English Professor Terry Eagleton maintaining that the novels of Barbara Cartland equalled in value the works produced by the actor, Shakespeare (or, more likely, the 17th Earl of Oxford - cf. Joseph Sobran's brilliant and scholarly "Alias Shakespeare" - offering a much-needed intellectual challenge to the sheer laziness of a great part of the regurgitated research offered by university humanities departments in recent decades).

It was primarily our universities, particularly the English and Education departments, abandoning their traditional description as faculties, who so thoroughly embraced the sheer fatuity of political correctness, maintaining that people's beliefs and opinions are of equal value - (unless of course, they are Christian, in which case they must be disparaged and ridiculed) - and that "decontextualisation" - the meaning of which defies comprehension - should rule, in literature, rather than what a great writer actually wrote.

At any rate, the real scandal is that this year, the Te Whainga group, whoever they are and whatever this means, are now claiming that the Royal Society, via its current president, Richard Bedford, ”needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally, and bring alongside that inequity and adversity issues in a holistic manner." As Bob Brockie points out - this is outrageous. The Treaty, whose real meaning has been so usefully distorted, reinvented and "reinterpreted" by today's radical propagandists, assisted by lawyers with their eye to the lucrative work involved, "has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society's agenda beggars belief."

Dr Brockie is right. Moreover, he points to something equally shocking - that Otago University recently proclaimed that the aggressive neo-tribe, Ngai Tahu must be consulted "about all areas of research" before scholars begin their work. "All proposals must be submitted to the office of Maori development". Staff and students were warned that consultation may take time, so they were advised “to start well in advance of preparing your proposal." He points out that Otago researchers are looking into everything " from zeta functions, quantum physics, logistics, dental technology and Roman Law to compositions by Brahms - and rightly asks what expertise Ngai Tahu have in evaluating these research proposals. He also points out that "Ngai Tahu run several commercial companies (with a surplus of many millions annually) and could turn down research that questions or challenges its business motives or motivations.”

Moreover, most of this research is simply not Ngai Tahu's business. Not only do they have no expertise in judging the value of such research - it is quite appalling that Otago University has acquiesced, as Dr Brockie points out, to such proscriptive, inquisitorial demands". Shame on my former university......

Read on at > wp.me/pRVIl-eF


People protesting against both the concept and practice of authoritarian government has now become a worldwide phenomenon. It seems high time therefore to turn our attention to considering what have been, or are, examples of best practice democracy in action.

In The March of Folly, Pulitzer prize-winning historian Barbara Tuchman, reviewing crucial decisions in world history from the Trojan War down to the US involvement in Vietnam, stated as an historical phenomenon that ‘governments get most issues wrong’.

If so, it would seem we should reflect on this before we fling ourselves into the trap of constitutional reform, an issue pushed by radicalised in-groups particularly keen in New Zealand to lock preferential rights and special privileges into any reform process, to favour individuals with a Maori genetic inheritance – no matter how minimal. The fact that there are apparently no longer any full-blooded Maori in New Zealand, and that after 200 years of cohabitation, not only has the Maori economy, well funded by treaty settlements, reached $50 billion, but part-Maori have successfully taken their place throughout the professions, the trades and industries, argues against such racist provisions. That the benefits of the taxpayer-funded treaty settlements were, arguably, unwisely handed to the powerful neo-tribes with no requirement for accountability, so that these wealthy, virtual corporations have neglected an underclass of disadvantaged Maori, is no argument for any constitutional reform locking in a virtual apartheid.

Our 1985 Labour government’s ill-thought proposal to re-visit a then century and a half‘s conflicting claims of tribal ownership dating back to the signing of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi has been described as unbridled folly. The Maori gift of oratorical persuasiveness produces powerful rhetoric, acting upon governments which appear to have been both emotionally labile and historically under-informed. A speech, for example, by Doug Graham, when Minister in charge of the negotiations, was staggeringly simplistic, infantilising the facts of history. For example, consider the claim that pre-European Maori ‘had a well-developed societal structure, well understood the need for ecological and environmental considerations, and no doubt would have happily carried on had not the ships arrived with settlers with quite different cultural backgrounds and understandings’. This Pollyanna picture of a stable, cohesive group of happy-ever-after people is far removed from the reality. Social instability, hunger, slavery and violence were endemic, with marauding clans locked into cyclic utu (revenge-seeking) extreme cruelty and cannibalism. Far from being protectors of the environment, pre-European Maori set fire to forests to hunt the giant moa and other birds to extinction. The pre-European, Maori way of living offered no permanent right to land, life, or possessions.

It is all too easy to be wise after an event. Sir Geoffrey Palmer, prominent in his legal activism, claimed that the setting up of the Waitangi tribunal ‘has been an enduring contribution to the constitutional position of Maori in this country’. However, even at the time, well-founded concern was that that the tribunal would act as an over-powerful, partisan body. Inviting comparison with a star chamber, it excludes from genuine representation the majority population with a substantial stake in its findings.

Moreover, most New Zealanders, including many of Maori descent, do not concur with court decisions granting racial preferment and privileges to part-Maori. The public largely thinks that the government and courts, drawn from and influenced by the politically correct cultural cliques of the day, have by no means been free from judicial activism. Moreover, there is widespread disappointment that the reportedly ‘bottom line’ pre-election undertaking by the Deputy Prime Minister Winston Peters that the removal of the racist Maori seats in Parliament would be a requirement for the support of his party, New Zealand First, has been abandoned. Public cynicism and the distrust of politicians have reached probably an all-time high in this country, too.....

Read on here > https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/best-practice-democracy/

The growing push towards racial separatism in this country is deplored by most New Zealanders - including those with partial Maori ancestry who do not benefit in the slightest from what now corporatised iwi continually pressure government to contrive - advantages for themselves only.

The former principle of equal rights and protection for all - in a genuine democracy - regardless of colour, race, gender or creed, has never been bettered. But our vote-buying government is steadily selling us out - and damaging social relationships - as well as our economy.

The Maori economy is now worth over $40 billion - courtesy of taxpayers' pockets - (very little of which has reached any but powerful iwi ) - as a result of treaty settlements which were intended to help those genuinely disadvantaged. Instead, pseudo-tribes which actually manage to avoid paying any tax at all are constantly chasing even more money and power - and flexing their muscles. Pressure is being put not only on local government organisations for undemocratic, special representation - but universities and other institutions are giving way to moneyed iwi pressure to demand that scholarships be directed preferentially towards supposed Maori benefit - or given only to Maori - and that students be required to demonstrate "cultural sensitivity" before they are allowed to graduate!

These are quite shocking examples of cultural bullying - with complete disregard for the "cultural sensitivity" of all others - those who want their own very real values - their wish for a genuine democracy - to be prioritised.

The petition below deserves all our support. And we need to recognise, as individuals, that it is up to each of us to help claim back this country - and to object to our government, our political parties, our own MPs - about this growing apartheid - which it basically is. Apart from signing below, we can text or call our own MPs, our local body councillors, Ministers, the PM or write to our local newspapers - to object to these damaging policies. Or we can do nothing....

Petition here > https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-abolish-auckland-council-s-maori-statutory-board

The government's now damaging identity politics?
It's past time for more NZErs to wake up to the fact that our politicians have long been causing considerable damage to the country. And they will be no help at all to us with regard to the new radicalised, but smooth-talking attempt to entrench a basically activist and damaging constitution for Aotearoa (the radicalised name a giveaway in itself). This proposed, oh-so-necessary move is also basically designed to assist iwi to have special racist rights over the rest of the country.

Like rust, those plotting away behind the scenes - (and using Lenin’s well-meaning “useful fools” from among our lawyers and bureaucrats) never sleep… Why for example, are our new banknotes headed Aotearoa New Zealand - which is certainly not New Zealand’s official name - and never was? However, Aotearoa is increasingly used as part of a radicalised attempt to prioritise the Maori language as having more “authenticity” than English - which is demonstrably untrue – but taken up by feel-good NZers with no idea of the issues at stake.

In fact, right throughout all our institutions, a now thoroughly inauthentic “Maori” is being forced on those working there - including in our schools (as well as the universities) where one by one good teachers are resigning, over-whelmed by the proliferation of never-ending compliance issues forced on them by the well and truly radicalised Ministry of Education. Many not only thoroughly disagree with these, but find it now impossible to get worthwhile, genuine teaching time. Moreover, the basic dishonesty of claiming that the now many thousands of newly invented Maori words being forced upon the country as authentic Maori needs to be challenged - (its relation to the previously genuine spoken Maori is minimal) - as does the thoroughly politicised move to trap young part-Maori into segregated te reo schools. These serve the purpose of radicalised iwi, anxious to increase tribal adherence, but cheat these children, too, of anything approaching a quality education......

Read Amy’s full article here > https://100daystodemocracy.wordpress.com/author/amyjbrooke/


 Moreover vital evidence was withheld. Early reports from reputable historians who knew Ngai Tahu well in the late 19th century described the tribe then as lazy and negligent, “no longer cultivating their food as it required too much care.” The evidence from the Rev James Stack’s 1872 observations, for example, that was that “kumara, pumpkins, melons, turnips, etc. all favourite articles of diet were no longer cultivated, the reason given that they required too much care….Though very fond of milk and butter, no household provided itself with these – “everyone shirks the trouble’ he said.”

None of this direct reportage regarding the tribe’s practices was ever presented to contradict NgaiTahu’s claims that the tribe had insufficient land. “Stack felt that one reason for the neglect of agriculture ‘was the facility afforded for the idle to live on the industrious’. In 1879 he noted that the prevailing practice of leasing land to Europeans fostered the habit of depending on others. He said ‘Neither the pressure of want, nor the prospect of gain, nor the advice of friends, prevailed to induce the Maoris here to cultivate the lands.’”

As Hampton noted, Crown witnesses not only failed to advance this material, but also ignored an earlier report by Alexander Mackay, friend to the tribe at the time, commenting on its “constitutional indolence.”

Given that these witnesses had been told that their evidence was “not to be put forward in a matter partial to the Crown, and that they must not act as advocates for the Crown”, fair representation of the Crown and therefore of New Zealanders who would be required to pay for the outcome of this flawed process was doomed from the start. Moreover, it is almost impossible, when considering the findings of Wellington historian Alan Everton, which were impressively researched and published at the time of the Ngai Tahu claim, not to concur with his assessment. “The inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the records is that the tribunal did not get at the truth, and any settlement of Ngai Tahu’s claims based on its report will be nothing short of a fraud.”.....

Questions are still unanswered about why at the time Ngai Tahu were given sole monopoly rights to whale watching. It was not Maori, but the early Europeans, who first hunted whales. Maori, lacking the technology, were restricted to using beached bones for carving.

There has been no answer to date, too, about why the thinly scattered, numerically small Ngai Tahu tribe were at the same time inexplicably given sole rights to South Island greenstone, which it did not even discover. The Ngati Wairangi tribe traded greenstone from Westland to the North Island long before Ngai Tahu journeyed to the South Island. Reportedly, as early as 1510, greenstone was conveyed by canoe to the Maoris of Napier and Poverty Bay.....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2631/the-fu

Claims of conflict of interest are consistently raised when it is pointed out that some tribunal members appear to be wearing two hats. An expectation of impartiality and balance should be fulfilled in any semi-judicial hearing making recommendations to government involving multi-million-dollar handouts to tribes. However, known radical activists, advocating strongly for their own tribes, are periodically members of the tribunal.

The research of the one New Zealand Foundation’s Ross Baker has uncovered a Department of Lands and Survey file, as far back as November 1985, pointing out that during the District Maori Land Advisory Committee Tour of Northland “a Mr Ned Nathan seems to be the leading local person pursuing this claim and he also sits on the Waitangi Tribunal in place of Sir Graham Latimer when he has an interest in the land under consideration” (italics mine). In other words, Ned Nathan, the main Te Roroa claimant and a plucky World War II veteran who’d managed to resist Gestapo torture, was also a member of the Waitangi Tribunal hearing the Te Roroa claim – a clear conflict of interest in my view that would not be permitted in any other New Zealand court.

It is not the first time that claimants have been judge and jury – or that members of the tribunal sitting to consider claims have had a relationship with the tribe whose claims they were hearing. The District Field Officer at the time, Mr. L.G Fraser, stated that although the claim received verbal support “naturally” from the majority of the Committee, “the Department of Lands and Survey has already investigated this claim and was of the opinion that it could not be sustained.” He went on to point out that “the information presented to the Committee with the documentation presented to them was very lightweight and they would be on very shaky ground making a recommendation decision on that information.”

This reminder is particularly relevant in connection with the Te Roroa claim, as the present Minister for Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, has been responsible for authorising payment of $9.5 million of taxpayer funds in connection with this claim. In reply to a March 2010 query by Ross Baker to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the One New Zealand Foundation asking if taxpayer funding has now been provided to compensate Te Roroa for their “alleged” but unproven claim and if so why, a partial answer only was received from the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, to whom the query was forwarded. Finlayson confirmed that the Te Roroa Deed of Settlement, originally signed on December 17, 2005 had now provided land and financial redress to the value of $9.5 million as part of the settlement package.”

However, to an impartial observer, all would not seem to be well. Not only had chief Judge Shepherd found there was no evidence to support this claim in 1939, and it was further rejected by parliament in 1942, but the select committee of which the now Minister of Treaty Negotiations was then a member, contained members who, through intermarriage and genetic inheritance, have tribal affiliations. How have we arrived at a situation where a less than impartial committee may report back to Parliament? It might well trouble the impartial observer that of its eight part-Maori members some were related to Te Roroa , and Georgina Te Heuheu was a member of the Waitangi Tribunal that actually heard the Te Roroa Claim. Pita Sharples, the present co-leader of the radicalised Maori Party, was also one of its members. This matter was apparently brought to the attention of the Speaker of the House at the time, but nothing was done. Its National Party member Tau Henare subsequently claimed to Parliament that the One New Zealand Foundation submission had not been heard – when, in fact, the committee had indeed heard it.

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis

Similarly, the recent Tuhoe settlement is yet another instance of taxpayers once again being compelled to make very dubious “compensation” – this time to the tribes of the Central North Island – when there is well-documented evidence, recorded at the time, to show that the Tuhoe were paid at a very good rate and were well satisfied with the compensation they received for marginal land subsequently planted in forestry by the State – land for which they themselves have managed to receive a further recent large payout. Claims were made by Tuhoe which, arguably, on the evidence of the times, were simply untrue. However, at the convenience of government, such important facts are ritually ignored. For example, apparently Tuhoe did not have 24,147 ha of land confiscated. The true figure supplied by the One New Zealand foundation was 5700ha, and, contrary to Tuhoe’s always highly emotive representation, this land was not confiscated without good reason. An article by Stephen Oliver published in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography leaves little doubt that the government of the day had every right to confiscate land from Tuhoe.

Moreover, it has also been stated that Tuhoe was not subsequently compensated for this land. But in Richard Hill’s, Justice Department record for the Lange government in 1989, page 11, clause 31, Tuhoe were as shown to have received $200,000....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis

Underpinning all this disquiet has been the Waitangi Tribunal. Public perception now is that not only is the tribunal biased in the way it operates, but the fact that that some of its members come from radicalised backgrounds and have close links to tribes whose claims the tribunal hears cannot possibly contribute to impartial hearings. Moreover, it has been wrongly allowed to operate as if it is a genuine judicial authority – when it is nothing of the sort.

Both these realities bring into question its very existence, as well as the fact that majority New Zealanders – including very many part-Maori who are not organised into activist neo-tribal groupings – are disadvantaged by the tribunal’s links to tribal and government representatives – given the now compromised Maori vote-buying governments of the day.

It is hard indeed to avoid the conclusion that the abolishing of this highly divisive body with its arguably damaging recommendations is well overdue.....

Read more here > http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/2634/abolis