9 Blogs‎ > ‎

Muriel Newman

Dr Muriel Newman is the founder and Director of the New Zealand Centre for Political Research - a public policy think tank she established in 2005 after nine years as a Member of Parliament. Her background is in business and education. A former Chamber of Commerce President, she currently serves on the board of a children's trust.


Calls for race-based laws and greater taxpayer funding are all part of an ambitious power grab by sovereignty activists who want to see the governance of New Zealand pass to the Maori tribal elite.

The problem is that most people are completely unaware of how far this dangerous agenda has advanced.......

Read Muriel’s alarming NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/dangerous-agendas/#more-32404


And what were the protests really about? It seems unusual that an incident in the United States would lead to such large-scale demonstrations here.

On the face of it the local protesters were acting in solidarity with Americans rallying against the killing of Minneapolis man George Floyd. While some were advocating that cause, the reality is many, perhaps most, were protesting other causes. There were vigils for victims of racial injustice, condemnations of institutional racism, protests against police violence, and opposition to the arming of police – the so-called ‘militarisation’ of the New Zealand police force.

Others claimed to be marching against ‘white supremacy’: “The same white supremacy which has led to disproportionate killings of black people in the US exists here in New Zealand.”

While the protests themselves were peaceful, the messages that many were conveying about New Zealand are alarming and show there is a rising tide of resentment, principally from young Maori conditioned into believing they are victims of white supremacy.

This is the narrative of Maori separatists, whose agenda has inexplicably been embedded within the state sector and our educational institutions. As a result, while every adverse statistic is now blamed on colonial oppression and institutional racism, the real reasons for Maori deprivation, namely poor education, single parenthood, and intergenerational welfare dependency, rarely ever get a mention.

Those fostering Maori sovereignty are even proposing to extend their race-based indoctrination to new immigrants. The Green Party MP Jan Logie has drafted a law change to force Treaty propaganda and the Maori sovereignty agenda onto all new citizens.

While her private members bill, the Citizenship (Acknowledgement of Te Tiriti o Waitangi) Amendment Bill, has not been drawn from the ballot and so is not presently being considered by Parliament, it is nevertheless indicative of the divisive intent of the Green Party, since members bills can only be submitted with the approval of the whole party.

Jan Logie’s bill would amend the Citizenship Act 1977, so that after swearing the oath of allegiance to the Queen, new New Zealanders would be informed: “In becoming new citizens of New Zealand, you are joining a nation whose foundation is a Treaty between the indigenous tangata whenua (people of the land) and the Crown. This Treaty, Te Tiriti o Waitangi, offers citizens the opportunity to participate in the ongoing journey towards honourable relationships that are founded on the articles of Te Tiriti agreed to in 1840”.

They would then be given the details of local tribes, to no doubt facilitate their on-going ‘education’.

The reality is that radicalism in all of its forms is extremely dangerous. Not only does it detract from a cohesive society that looks to a progressive future, but it fuels the anti-establishment subversion that was on display at the “Black live matter” march.

It requires courage to stand up to this destructive influence........ 
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/a-covid-farce/#more-32292


The “Maori world view” has, of course, already been well entrenched into the education system. Young minds are indoctrinated with Treaty partnership propaganda almost from the time they first enter pre-school, and teachers are required to undergo cultural competency training as a condition of their employment.

The “Maori world view” is also alive and well in local government, where the undermining of democracy is plain to see in many parts of the country. There, weak councillors have caved in to the demands of iwi leaders who want their unelected representatives appointed onto council committees with voting rights. Once there, they engineer greater influence – as can be seen in the Otago Regional Council where two iwi representatives are in the process of upgrading their status from advisors to “partners”; and in Whangarei, where an unelected Maori advisory group is attempting to become a full council committee with voting rights.

In the health system, while the “Maori World view” has already been adopted through cultural competency and cultural safety requirements for workers, changes are now underway to give Maori priority health treatment - in effect enabling them to jump to the front of the queue on the basis of ethnic background instead of clinical urgency.

Such shocking racism should be condemned as an outrage. The fact that it isn't, exposes the gravity of the situation – that racial privilege in New Zealand is now being normalised......

Read Muriel’s weekly NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/democracy-under-threat/#more-32240


So here we are, almost 20 years later, facing multiple tribal claims for the country’s entire coastline.

Last year the Attorney-General reviewed each of the 200 High Court applications for the coast and came to an initial view that the existence of overlapping claims meant that applicants could not meet the ‘exclusive use and occupation’ test in the law: “To the extent that there is any overlap with any other application, the Attorney-General says such overlap is inconsistent with the applicants’ claims to exclusive use and occupation of the application area without substantial interruption since 1840.”

As a result the Attorney-General came under attack from claimants attempting to restrict his role to that of an observer in the claims process rather than representing the public interest.

This challenge to the role of Attorney-General became a matter for a pre-trial hearing late last year. Fortunately a member of the public, worried about the consequences for the entire claims process if the Attorney-General was sidelined, mounted a defence – in the public interest.

The QC engaged to defend the Attorney-General’s role was the former Attorney-General Chris Finlayson, who had represented the public interest in 2016 in the only coastal claim to have been determined by the High Court.

Chris Finlayson explained to the Court that it was Parliament’s intention for the Attorney-General to stand up for the public interest the High Court process – as noted by Judge Churchman:

“Mr Finlayson referred to the adversarial structure of proceedings in the New Zealand Court system and submitted that, for a proper hearing to occur, cases generally needed to be opposed. He noted that, in relation to many applications under the Act, there may be no individual person or entity for whom the interests at stake from success of a particular application would amount to enough to justify the costs of formal intervention, particularly where interested parties, who are not applicants, do not have the benefit of funding from the Crown. He suggested that this was an example of where the Attorney-General could and should fullfil this role by considering every application and, where necessary, challenging evidence and offering a contradictory argument where one would not otherwise be offered to the Court.”

The Judge found against the claimants, with no restrictions imposed on the Attorney-General.

Later this year, the first of the claims are scheduled to be heard in the High Court. In August it is the Edwards claim for a stretch of Bay of Plenty coastline south of Opotiki and out to the edge of the Territorial Sea. And in November it is the Clarkson claim in the Southern Hawkes Bay for the coast from Whangaehu to Cape Turnagain.

In light of the fact that it became evident early in the claims process that with many taxpayer-funded lawyers arguing in favour of awarding control of the coastline to tribal claimants, and few – if any – voices opposed, the Landowners Coalition registered as an Interested Party in the claims to help oppose them in the public interest. The Coalition is now working with the law firm of former MP Stephen Franks. They intend hiring a QC to challenge these first two claims on the basis that the judicial determination of the meaning of “exclusive use and occupation” decided in these claims will likely have a precedent effect on all others.

They will maintain that “exclusive” means what it says, and does not mean “shared” use and occupation, which is what the overlapping claimants will argue – especially in the first Edwards case, where there are more than 20 overlapping claims.

If you would like to support the Landowners Coalition to help ensure the public’s voice in the High Court claims process is as strong as possible, please click here > https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/NZCPR-Coastal-Campaign-Fundraiser.pdf

The Landowners Coalition is also working with locals in the claimed areas who understand only too clearly the opportunistic nature of the claims that have been lodged.

If you or anyone you know has information that would help refute the claims in the Edwards or Clarkson cases that the applicants have used and occupied the claimed areas “exclusively and continuously since 1840”, then please contact us on claims@nzcpr.com .........

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/judicial-activism-2/#more-31378


With With an American mother and Kenyan father, former US President Barack Obama, understood only too well the destructive influence of tribalism. He warned:

“Ethnic-based tribal politics has to stop. It is rooted in the bankrupt idea that the goal of politics or business is to funnel as much of the pie as possible to one’s family, tribe, or circle with little regard for the public good. It stifles innovation and fractures the fabric of the society. Instead of opening businesses and engaging in commerce, people come to rely on patronage and payback as a means of advancing. Instead of unifying the country to move forward on solving problems, it divides neighbour from neighbour.”

And that’s the problem with tribalism in New Zealand. It not only divides the country along racial lines, but this race-based class system has become a trap that is holding back tens of thousands of Maori families. They have been persuaded by the iwi elite – who make huge profits from the system – that colonisation is to blame for their hardship and that Maori sovereignty will be their salvation. Tribal leaders assure them that if they were given ultimate power and control, everyone’s lives would be so much better. While most people realise such claims are absurd, to those trapped in a destructive cycle of failure and conditioned to believe the racist proposition that Maori are the victims of white settlement, it is a lie worth supporting.

Yet in spite of billions of dollars in taxpayer funding being funnelled into tribal hands to address Maori disadvantage, the money rarely reaches those in need, instead largely ending up with those privileged few who sit at the top of the pyramid.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR weekly newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-dangers-of-tribalism/#more-31328


“We should not think of ourselves as Maoris or pakehas, but rather as one people.”
– Labour Prime Minister Walter Nash, Waitangi Day 1960.

With Waitangi Day coming up on Thursday, it is interesting to look back at its chequered history.

The first official commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi on February 6 occurred in 1934, two years after the Treaty grounds were gifted to the nation by the Governor-General Lord Bledisloe.

During the 1940 centennial celebration of the signing of the Treaty, newspapers described Waitangi as the ‘cradle of the nation’ and the Treaty as the ‘foundation of nationhood’. Prime Minister Michael Joseph Savage emphasised national pride and unity.

While there were annual celebrations at Waitangi, it was not until the passing of the Waitangi Day Act in 1960 that the 6th of February became ‘a national day of thanksgiving in commemoration of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi’. Although there was no public holiday, regions were encouraged to recognise Waitangi Day using their existing public holidays.

It was during the 1972 election campaign that Labour leader Norman Kirk promised February 6th would become a national holiday.

In his first speech at Waitangi as Prime Minister in 1973, Norman Kirk said, “Tonight I want to say that we weld together in New Zealand, not a society which demands that some give up their identity in the interest of a majority but we each preserve our culture and our identity and concentrate on building a society in which we have equal opportunity to participate in the benefits and responsibilities of New Zealand.”

In that spirit of unity the Prime Minister insisted that the day of celebration should be called New Zealand Day – a day for all New Zealanders to observe our different identities and the sense of nationhood that brought us together. He wanted to ensure the day was owned by everyone, irrespective of race or heritage.

He thought of New Zealand as a nation of people of different backgrounds, all bound together by our common citizenship and love of our country......

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/new-zealand-day/#more-31280


Oxford definition of propaganda: information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.

The Prime Minister and her government coalition partners have opened the classroom door to vested interest groups to spread their propaganda.

One such group that has found strong support within Labour is the Maori sovereignty movement. It is engaged in an ambitious strategy to gain governance control of the country. This agenda is being pursued against a backdrop where both of the main political parties regard the support of the tribal elite as crucial to their own political ambitions.

Having decimated the Maori Party at the 2017 election, the Prime Minister will be highly motivated to retain all seven Maori seats within Labour. She will want to avoid the risk that a kuia-led resurgent Maori Party may regain one or more of the Maori seats, along with list MPs, since they are more likely to back National than Labour.

Likewise, National would welcome an erosion of Labour’s base and the emergence of a potential coalition partner.

It’s this political self-interest that muted the response to the calls by sovereignty activists to make their version of New Zealand ‘history’ compulsory in schools. As a result, we will have the bizarre situation where, in our self-managing education system – with a curriculum designed to give schools the freedom to choose which subjects they teach to their students – New Zealand History will be the only compulsory subject.

Such is the hypocrisy of politics that it won’t be compulsory to teach children English or Maths, but it will be compulsory to teach them the Government’s version of New Zealand history.

This is alarming on a number of fronts. Realists know that activists will control the curriculum content. They will rewrite history to portray Maori as peace loving folk with an established system of government prior to the colonial invasion and era of oppression. They will promote the fallacy that all of the misfortunes of Maori are due solely to the suppression of their culture.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s alarming NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/shaping-impressionable-minds/#more-31216


The medieval Dark Ages refers to the thousand year period in history between the fall of the Roman Empire around 500 AD and the beginning of the Renaissance in 1500 AD. It was a time of feudalism and the Crusades, when society turned its back on science and reason. Superstition ruled.

A question that is increasingly being asked these days is whether we are now heading into another ‘Dark Age’, where common sense and rational thinking are again being replaced by fanaticism and superstition.

The symptoms of such a retreat from reason are all around.

Universities, founded on the principles of academic freedom, are now muzzling academics who challenge the view of radicals.

The Labour Government’s newly appointed Chief Justice is instructing the Judiciary – the upholder of the Rule of Law which ensures that all citizens are treated as equals – to embrace Maori ‘tikanga’ and embed race-based privilege and spirituality into our judicial system.

A new National Research Charter – being developed by the Royal Society of New Zealand – could force all publicly funded research undertaken in this country to abide by the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi, which themselves are not defined.

Cultural competency ‘training’ is being widely used to indoctrinate the State sector with an agenda that promotes Maori privilege. But that is not enough for the Medical Council, which has recently issued a new directive requiring all doctors to meet ‘cultural safety’ standards as well.......

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-dark-age-of-political-intrusion/#more-31068


Earlier this month the Executive director of the taxpayer funded Maori Council, Matthew Tukaki, attacked Pope Francis, calling on him to apologise to Maori for colonising New Zealand: this shameful blight on our history “fuelled white supremacy” and supported “dehumanisation, dispossession, murder, and forced assimilation”.

While the Pope no doubt has more pressing concerns than irrational radical activists from New Zealand, the roots of such fanaticism can be traced back to the ideas of the Italian Communist leader, Antonio Gramsci, in the 1920s. Described as the greatest Marxist strategist of the twentieth century, that accolade does not adequately portray the extent of his subversive influence.

Attempting to understand why the great socialist uprising of workers predicted by orthodox Marxism had not eventuated, Gramsci realised that for most people, family, faith, and country, meant more than communist ideology. He therefore reasoned that the path to power lay in undermining those cultural pillars of civil society.

His blueprint for a successful Marxist takeover of the West centred on a “long march through the institutions” that shaped minds – schools, universities, seminaries, the arts, cinema, theatre, and the media. He believed that one by one, they could be converted into ‘agencies of the revolution’.

Gramsci urged Marxists to form allegiances with Western intellectuals, who shared their contempt for society. He predicted a cultural revolution that would change the political structure as its final act. He believed such a movement could not be resisted by violence and once it took hold would spread rapidly, engulfing laws, institutions, and social structures.

Group rights were used to create change – feminist rights to undermine the family, while ethnic rights in the name of biculturalism would divide the Church and demonise patriotism.

A key tactic was to blame social deprivation on discrimination – such things as failing health, unemployment, and criminal offending became symptoms of persecution and victimisation, rather than a lack of personal responsibility: a failure to stop smoking, go to the doctor, get immunised, get a good education, find a job…

Professor Elizabeth Rata from Auckland University recounts how, in the sixties, the movement was spearheaded by a radical and political academic elite. Their drive for social justice, which focussed on improving outcomes for Maori, was eagerly adopted by a new professional middle class. Within two decades they succeeded in their primary goal of embedding Maori leaders within government institutions – to change policies and practices from within.

“For us it is more insidious, more subversive because we’ve gone further in the inclusion of ethnicity as a political category. You get inside a system and subvert it. Destroy from within.”

Professor Rata describes how the institutional recognition of Maori rights, “became a veritable march into the heart of government. The re-interpretation of the treaty as a so-called ‘partnership’ is providing the mandate for the march into the institutions to become a march into the constitution. We see the assumption that ‘co-governance’ is the natural next step.”

She worries about the implications for New Zealand’s parliamentary democracy......
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/powerful-forces-threaten-our-future/


Some candidates felt compelled to use the opportunity to highlight their serious concerns by standing on a principle with little expectation of success.

One of those was Michael Coote, who stood for the Auckland Mayoralty. He wanted to give Aucklanders, concerned about the rise in race-based privilege, the option of lodging a protest vote for racial equality. His campaign statement in the voting booklet said:

“Multi-ethnic, multi-cultural Auckland City must be a society of strict racial equality for all. Auckland Council must respect this fundamental principle of modern liberal democratic civilisation. There is no justice in Auckland Council granting, enabling or facilitating special rights and privileges, or providing separatist treatment, for any part of Auckland’s diverse community on the basis of racial or ethnic affiliation. For example, Auckland Council’s plans, policies, procedures and structures should not discriminate in favour of Maori members of the community over any others, but should apply equal status, validity and opportunity to all Aucklanders as residents and ratepayers. Any aspect of Auckland Council which does not conform with racial egalitarianism should be abolished, as too should be entities such as the Independent Maori Statutory Board, which places voting members on Auckland Council committees who are unelected by the general public. If you agree, please vote for Michael Coote.”

And 5,530 people did agree, voting Michael 7th out of the 21 candidates in the Mayoralty race. While he is not able to personally promote this cause from within Council, one hopes that his stand will encourage those who have been elected to speak up for racial equality.

And it’s not just in Auckland where councillors need to take a stand, but all around the country.

Especially, it seems in Otago, as this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator former Regional Councillor and MP Gerry Eckhoff explains:

“Just prior to the Local Government election, the Otago Regional Council voted to appoint two representatives of Ngai Tahu with full voting rights onto the Policy Committee, which deals with the allocation of fresh water. This decision – in the final days of the ORC’s train wreck tenure – was as wrong as it was predictable. It is an affront to representative democracy as we expect it to function.

“The question as to why we the people were never consulted over this appointment is obvious. Reserving seats for Ngai Tahu to the full council would have opened up the council up to a petition to hold a referendum of the people of Otago – which could easily have been included in the Local Government election process.”

The question for the new council is whether they will revoke the anti-democratic decision made by their predecessors that unelected and unaccountable iwi would sit at the council table with the same voting rights as elected councillors. While elected representatives swear an oath requiring them to act “in the best interests of this region”, the allegiance of appointed Ngai Tahu representatives is solely to their Iwi.

With the committee they joined being responsible for the allocation of freshwater in the region, and with Ngai Tahu Corporation operating many businesses that rely on freshwater, their conflict of interest is plain to see.

When the matter was debated by the former council, Councillor Michael Laws opposed the appointments saying they were “racist” and “undemocratic”. He was concerned the appointees would focus solely on benefits for Ngai Tahu, rather than the best interest of the Otago region.

Now that Cr Laws has been re-elected, he should be encourage to table a motion to revoke the previous council’s decision on the basis that it was undemocratic and that the people of the region were not consulted.....

Read Muriel's full article here > https://www.nzcpr.com/local-democracy-2019/#more-30614


The Minister’s denial of a positive contribution made by Captain Cook was echoed by Waikato University’s senior research fellow Dr Arama Rata, who labelled the HMB Endeavour a ‘death ship’, saying, “…the replica death ship, the replica of the Endeavour, is literally on the horizon and will be arriving any day now to re-enact the invasion of Maori whenua. This mentality that Cook brought over, and the project here was to really eliminate Maori, to dispossess Maori, and to replace Maori with Pakeha settlers.”

What she and other Maori supremacists are seeking is a radical transformation of New Zealand’s constitutional framework to replace our present system of governance – which she claims is based on “settler colonial ideology” – with one that transfers authority and control to Maori.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Contributor Chris Trotter is one of the few political commentators who really understands the sinister agenda of radical Maori, describing the ‘death ship’ attack as a ‘Maori nationalist assault upon the meaning and reputation of Captain James Cook’:

“What Maori nationalism seeks is a reversal of political fortunes: the creation of an Aotearoa-New Zealand in which Pakeha will no longer call the shots.

“A radical revision of New Zealand and, indeed, of global history, is crucial to achieving this political reversal. The cultural and scientific achievements of the European peoples, especially their dramatic expansion into practically every other significant land mass on the planet, must be re-cast as an horrific tale of murder, rape and theft – undertaken by that global human scourge which Dr Rata calls ‘white people’. Only when the general perception of European civilisation has become one of technological prowess unmitigated by compassion or restraint, and the colonisation process is presented as uniquely oppressive and destructive of land and people, will the nationalist cause enter its next and most important phase – that of radical constitutional transformation.”

Chris believes that, “If Maori nationalist historians can seize control of the new, soon-to-be-compulsory, history curriculum, then the necessary ideological preparations can be made for a radical constitutional transformation.”

Through the unprecedented denigration of Captain Cook and other historical leaders as “white supremacists”, and the malicious vilification of the colonisation process, the scene is now being set for the next phase of this power grab: the indoctrination of children through fake history.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/fake-history/#more-30544


Appointing Maori representatives onto freshwater commissions would not produce better outcomes. It would simply embed racism into the RMA.

This would conflict with New Zealand First’s election commitment to remove separate rights based on race from the RMA, not introduce them.

Public feedback on the Government’s proposed regulation of freshwater closes on Thursday 17 October – full details including the schedule of public meetings can be seen HERE

Labour’s freshwater proposals came hard on the heels of the Waitangi Tribunal’s final report into Maori claims for freshwater. The inquiry, which began in 2012, found that Maori had rights to freshwater akin to ownership, that they should be given a percentage of all water rights allocations around the country or royalties, and that the RMA should require all freshwater bodies in New Zealand to be co-governed and co-managed by Maori.

The Tribunal also recommended that iwi leaders take a claim to the High Court to determine whether native title to freshwater exists in New Zealand’s common law.
For the record, as retired Judge and former Law Lecturer Anthony Willy explained: “At common law land including the land underneath water was regarded as a commodity that could be owned and transacted. Water was never regarded by the common law as a commodity in that sense. The courts recognised that water like air is not only vital to the survival of all species on the planet but is something in which humanity has no hand in creating. It therefore, like air, occupies a unique status in the eyes of the common law – it cannot be owned by anybody.”

The Waitangi Tribunal’s finding reinforces the fact that since its establishment in 1975, this taxpayer funded commission of inquiry exacerbates racism and division. It should be disbanded and its gravy train shut down.....
Continue reading here > https://www.nzcpr.com/questions-of-credibility/#more-30318


Such is the power of the seven Maori seats held by Labour, that in modern-day New Zealand even absurd ideas have every chance of shaping our future laws.

The journey to this racist report began last year, when the Government held a Criminal Justice Summit to explore options for the future reform of the justice system. While 200 of the 600 attendees were Maori, Maori leaders complained that the “Maori voice” was not strong enough. As a result the Maori-only Hui was convened by the Government and held in April to develop a Maori plan for overhauling the criminal justice system.

Their report demands that the Government ‘shares’ power with Maori by honouring the Treaty “partnership” – even though we all know the claim of a partnership is a fabrication.

The Treaty of Waitangi was a contract that established the Queen as our sovereign, protected private property rights, and gave Maori equal rights of citizenship. It did not elevate Maori rights above those of other New Zealanders, and nor did it raise the tribal elite to the status of a sovereign.

If they ever succeed in gaining half of the power through a ‘co-governance’ partnership arrangement, the tribal elite would control government decision-making in New Zealand. Under such a scenario representatives of the 15 percent of the population who identify as having Maori ancestry would rule all New Zealanders. ‘Power sharing’ would no doubt entail half of all taxpayer funding being allocated to Maori......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR column here > https://www.nzcpr.com/race-based-power-and-influence/#more-30016


A land protest near Auckland airport has serious implications for private property rights in New Zealand – if it is not handled properly by the Government.

Ihumatao represents a clash of generations, cultures, and leadership.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, political analyst Dr Bryce Edwards of Victoria University, has called it the ‘Zeitgeist of 2019’. In his analysis of media commentary over the conflict, he explains:

“The extraordinary Maori land protest at Ihumatao in Auckland is symbolic of our time. It is unlikely to have occurred, say, five years ago. It perfectly reflects heightened concerns and increased radicalism over racism, economic inequality, and the history of colonialism in New Zealand.

“This meant that when the police moved in last week to evict a long-running protest about the confiscation of Maori land, it suddenly ignited those values that have been brewing in many about injustice and a need to take a stand.”

The land at the centre of the dispute on the Ihumatao Peninsula overlooking the Manukau Harbour has had a chequered history.

Since being disposed of by the Crown following tribal rebellions in the 1860s it was privately owned and run as a farm. But in the late 1990s, the Manukau City Council, Auckland Regional Authority and Department of Conservation wanted 100 hectares of the surrounding area for the Otuataua Stonefields Historic Reserve. The owners of the farm agreed that 21ha could be used for that purpose.

However, in 2009, when the Council proposed changing the zoning to capture the rest of the farm, the family objected and applied for the zoning to be changed to business development instead. The Council rejected their proposal, so they appealed to the Environment Court, which found in their favour, approving the land for future development.

The Council then offered to buy the land for a fraction of what it was worth, so the family refused to sell. Then, in 2014 after the Super City was formed, the Government and the Auckland Council designated 32ha of the land as a Special Housing Area.

In 2016 Fletcher Building bought the land to build 480 houses, after consulting with the local iwi Te Kawerau a Maki. In return for supporting their consent, the iwi’s Settlement Trust extracted generous concessions from Fletchers, including the return of a quarter of the land and 40 of the houses!

With tribal leaders now claiming that the land rights activists are disrespecting their elders by refusing to leave the site, the protest action is putting those substantial benefits at risk.

The well-funded protest action began three years ago when Fletchers bought the land. At the time, protest leader, Pania Newton, had just graduated as a lawyer and was spending a gap year working for her community. A top scholar at her Mangere Maori immersion school, she appears to have been radicalised at a young age: “When I was 9, I wrote in a time capsule at school that I wanted to be a lawyer when I grew up, to fight for Maori rights and for my family”.

Saving Ihumatao became her mission, and the ‘Save Our Unique Landscape’ (SOUL) campaign began.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s explanative NZCPR column here > https://www.nzcpr.com/private-property-rights-under-threat/#more-29866


These are dangerous times as tribal leaders seek to use the strong political influence they have gained from having seven Maori seats all held by Labour, to expand their power base into the governance of our most fundamental institutions.

The only answer, as Brian notes in his must-read article, is for culture to be removed from policy altogether, leaving it where it belongs – as a personal issue, not a matter of state.

I will leave the last word to Brian, who, in his forthright manner exposes the political games that are being played in Canada – and New Zealand as well:

“In Canada we have settled into a stagnant pattern on Indigenous issues. Indigenous advocates argue for the continuation of the separatist status quo, but with more money and power for themselves. When Liberal governments are in power they try to appease the Indigenous leaders by giving them what they want. When Conservative governments are in power they simply try not to offend the separatist Indigenous sensibilities. Both parties simply send cheques to the chiefs, and hope that the chiefs will not make too many demands. The chiefs’ main concern is to keep the money flowing. No politician dares to publicly oppose this separatist, racialized dystopia, and expose it for the nonsense that it is.”......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-best-interests-of-the-child/#more-29698


The Kainga Ora – Homes and Communities Bill will merge three housing agencies – Housing New Zealand, its development arm HLC, and KiwiBuild – into an Urban Development Authority to fast-track urban infrastructure and housing development.

Housing New Zealand is, of course, the country’s largest social housing provider, with 64,000 properties and 185,000 tenants nationwide.

HLC was established by the Labour Government as the Hobsonville Land Company in 2006, to develop housing on the former Air Force Base. Now called Housing Land Community, the agency is working with Housing NZ on urban regeneration projects on 1,000 hectares of state-owned land across Auckland.

The super agency that will be formed by the merger will have draconian new powers that will enable it to not only override council plans and consenting laws, but to also compulsorily acquire private land for its developments and impose new taxes on landowners.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator is Auckland-based communications consultant Fiona Mackenzie, who has examined the Bill and is extremely concerned about the disproportionately powerful role that iwi will play in the new Urban Development Authority:

“In the way of apartheid governments, ‘Maori’ seem to be centre and foremost in everything Kainga Ora will do, from the make-up of the Board to its projects. Yet the Bill doesn’t actually define who constitutes ‘Maori’ so we must assume it will be the tribal elite who’ll have the say-so and enjoy the advantageous business opportunities to come.

“Successive governments have created such a bureaucratic and legislative quagmire that a Housing and Urban Development Authority does look to be the solution. Much of this Bill could be good if it can eliminate the obstacles and bottlenecks to deliver cost-effective, well-built, liveable housing near jobs, services and amenities.

“But the thought of a super-powerful and unfettered, ‘race-based’ Authority rearranging our towns and cities, answerable only to the tribal elite, with yet unspecified and possibly extensive powers, while providing risk-free investments for tribal businesses first and foremost, is most disturbing. Especially as the rest of us appear to have no rights under this legislation, yet when undertaking our own developments, we will still be subjected to the nightmares imposed by the RMA, iwi ‘consultation’ and local body bureaucracies.”.....
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/supreme-power-for-new-housing-authority/


Indeed, the growth in race based representation in local and central government – through appointment rather than election – is creating increasing levels of public concern. The on-going drive by iwi leaders to institutionalise 50:50 co-governance is a growing threat to our democracy.

What’s worse, is that their demands for power are fraudulent. They claim the Treaty of Waitangi established a 50:50 partnershipbetween Maori and the Crown iwi so they should have half the say in all official decision-making in New Zealand. They are ignoring the reality that the Treaty was not a partnership, but an agreement that endorsed the Queen as our sovereign, protected property rights, and established the rule of law.

However, truth is no obstacle to the supporters of the Maori sovereignty movement.

The fact is that Treaty partnership rights do not exist in law. They are a political construct invented by the iwi elite to pressure politicians and persuade the population at large, that the Treaty confers special sovereign rights that justify tribal groups being elevated to a position of power above everyone else.

In light of the inexorable growth of race-based governance in New Zealand, let’s use the EIU criteria to see what effect it is having on our democracy......

...............Furthermore in an extremely disturbing trend, radical Maori sovereignty supporters are now calling anyone objecting to race-based rule ‘white supremacists’ pushing ‘racial hatred’. They are clearly attempting to pave the way for the government to introduce hate speech laws, which would severely undermine free speech and democracy in New Zealand.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, communications consultant Fiona Mackenzie, outlines how co-governance is enabling tribal groups in Auckland to gain control of the Hauraki Gulf, a large coastal area covering 1.2 million hectares that encompasses Auckland, the Hauraki Plains and the Coromandel Peninsula, and includes the Ports of Auckland, shipping routes, marinas, fisheries, marine farms, and other commercial and recreational facilities.

Fiona explains: “Increasingly, local bodies and successive governments have been transferring responsibilities for control of resources that we all use and cherish to unelected, unaccountable representatives of tribal groups. The Hauraki Gulf is a prime example of where it’s happening. It is a treasure to all but has been managed under a statutory but rather dysfunctional co-governing body (the Hauraki Gulf Forum) since 2000. The Forum is comprised of government departmental members, elected Council representatives and iwi appointees. Witnesses have reported bullying and inflammatory comments promoting tribal control of the Gulf.”

Fiona explains that the Forum has been trying to come up with a spatial plan since 2013. As a result, a ‘Stakeholder Working Group’ of iwi and other interested parties took the project over coming up with 181 recommendations for the Gulf.

“The recommendations support tribal elite having controlling rights in aquaculture, recreational and commercial fishing, harbour and catchment management plans. Governing committees could prohibit recreational and commercial fishing in ‘their’ zone for any or all fish species based on ‘cultural values’ – with no need for scientific evidence. So the Plan could result in effective tribal control of the entire Hauraki Gulf and associated lands.”

So there we have it – control of the Hauraki Gulf is being taken by iwi groups for their own self-interest, right under the noses of the public. This erosion of the democratic process has only been possible through the appointment of large numbers of iwi representatives with a vested interest in the process. Surely that should have ruled them out of the decision-making process from the start.

Worse, as Fiona also points out, all of these iwi groups have lodged claims under the Marine and Coastal Area Act for the coastline and the Hauraki Gulf itself, which is another reason why their involvement in the project is tainted with conflicts of interest and is illegitimate.

Whichever way you look at it, race-based representation is an anathema to representative democracy. Whenever government power is shared with private bodies, democracy is compromised. If the problem was limited to one or two instances, it would not be such a grave concern. But this threat to democracy in New Zealand is widespread and growing and if it continues on its current path will lead us down a path towards NZ being an authoritarian nation.

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full alarming NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/undermining-democracy-in-new-zealand/#more-29152


In particular, he specifically refers to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in 2014, which confirmed that no such partnership between Maori and the Crown exists: “Emphatically there is no partnership as known to law and no private direct fiduciary relationship between the Crown and a subject, merely one which arises by analogy. And crucially these duties arise only in relation to interpretation of the contract signed in 1840 – they have no wider significance as is now well understood. All people claiming some Maori inheritance are entitled to the sum of the rights enjoyed by any other New Zealand citizen no more and no less and each and every one of them is subject to the laws of the realm including the decisions of the Courts. Attempts by the Waitangi Tribunal to subvert what is plainly the law does that body no credit. It is on the ignorance of the legal standing of the Treaty that the Tax Working Group makes is novel and legally unsustainable proposals.”

This is a very serious matter for New Zealand. The whole spectrum of special Maori rights – including powerful co-governance rights – is a massive deception built on the false premise of ‘partnership’ touted as law.

The reality is that the Treaty of Waitangi was a contract between Queen Victoria and Maori tribal leaders, which established the Queen as our sovereign, protected private property rights, and gave Maori people the same rights and privileges of British citizenship as every other New Zealander.

The Treaty did not elevate Maori rights above those of other New Zealanders, nor did it form the basis for a ruling class of tribal elite – in spite of this being the common objective of shrewd sovereignty activists colluding with sympathisers within government......
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s informative NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-partnership-deception/#more-28814


.......She then announced that the Government was setting up a $20,000 Mayoral Relief Fund to help the community get back on its feet.

The initial reaction of many of those following developments would have been incredulity – $20,000 to support a community devastated by fire compared with pledges announced in the lead up to Waitangi Day of over $220 million to appease Maori.

After the PM’s announcement Labour’s public relations machine would have gone into overdrive. It didn’t take long for the clarifications to begin to appear – the $20,000 was an “initial” pledge from the Government; the funds were in “addition” to other support from the Ministry of Social Development, Housing New Zealand and the Ministry for Primary Industries; a further $50,000 was available to help farmers and growers in the region…

But in that rare moment of clarity, before the Government’s PR team kicked into action, the inequity of the Prime Minister’s $20,000 funding promise to assist a distraught community, compared to the $220 million in political favours for Maori sent New Zealanders a clear message about this Government’s priorities: appeasing Maori voters is the key to Labour’s re-election and takes precedence; helping those in crisis is secondary.......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/waitangi-week-messages/#more-28592


.......On the present path, there is no doubt at all that New Zealand will become Aotearoa New Zealand – and, not too long afterwards, just Aotearoa.

So, what will the country be like when it is Aotearoa?

New Zealanders should take a long hard look at what’s happening in Zimbabwe and South Africa, to see the dangers associated with elevating cultural rights above the equal rights of citizens. There, policies allow the compulsory taking of private land without compensation, and in Zimbabwe, where land seizures have been underway for years, the redistributions have largely been to the ruling elite.

Unless things change, cultural extortion looks set to become the name of the game in Aotearoa, and the constitutional rights that protect New Zealanders – including democracy and the rule of law – will increasingly be undermined and destroyed.....

......The way things are going, unless the public starts raising concerns about these sinister new developments, cultural tyranny will be the result.

Is this the sort of country that we really want – with an elite Maori ruling class, and everyone else as second class citizens?

If not, then it’s time to say enough is enough. Because if there isn’t a groundswell of public voices in opposition, as sure as night follows day, the future will be divided, elitist, racist and culturally based.

In his speech, David Lange warned about the march of Maori sovereignty and the danger it poses:......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s foreboding NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/aotearoa-new-zealand/#more-28526


Maori privilege is on the rise and at an accelerating pace.

Reports are now emerging from around the country of iwi representatives turning up at confidential local authority meetings and demanding a seat at council tables.
They claim their authority comes from the Mana Whakahono a Rohe agreements in the Resource Legislation Amendment Act that was passed by the National Government in 2017.

At the time we warned these iwi consultation provisions would have serious consequences for local democracy by enabling un-elected and unaccountable tribal representatives – pursuing their own self-interested agendas – to sit alongside elected councillors and officials in a co-governance role.

The Minister responsible for this misguided law change was Nelson MP Nick Smith. He not only designed these agreements with Iwi leaders behind closed doors, but he then manipulated Parliament’s rules so they could be imposed onto the country without notice and in such a way as to avoid the submission process and any form of public consultation whatsoever.

At the time the NZCPR asked the new Prime Minister Bill English to remove the provisions from the Bill. We published newspaper advertisements urging the public to contact the PM and call for common sense.

In the ads we explained the new iwi powers included plan-making, consenting, appointment of committees, monitoring and enforcement, bylaws, regulations and other council statutory responsibilities – including over fresh water.

We warned that once these agreements were in place they would be there forever – unless there was a law change to repeal them.

The fact that Councillors and communities cannot prevent these agreements from being introduced shows the fundamental protections of democracy and the rule of law have now been completely undermined............

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/maori-privilege/#more-28116


Ill-advised comments by senior judges can have a profound and long-lasting impact. We saw this in the 1987 Lands Case between the New Zealand Maori Council – represented by Sian Elias – and the Attorney-General over section 9 of the State Owned Enterprises Act, when the President of the Court of Appeal, Sir Robin Cooke, used the word ‘partnership’, saying the Treaty signified a partnership between races.

Since it is constitutionally impossible for the sovereign Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects, the Judge’s use of the word clearly meant the Crown and Maori owed each other duties akin to those of partners in any commercial transaction. Nevertheless treaty activists seized on the Judge’s words to claim that since the Court had ruled that Maori were partners with the Crown, they were entitled to all manner of race-based privileges and co-governance rights at central and local government level.

While the Chief Justice does not believe the ‘partnership’ concept has any legal status, she considers the Treaty is ‘constitutional’ saying, “Constitutional documents are always indeterminate; they have to leave room for societies to grow. They’re all made with aspirations of their day, and they have to expand to fit the different society that evolves…”

But expanding legal interpretations at the discretion of a judge is a radical shift that gives activist judges an opportunity to make rulings based on personal opinion, rather than existing law.

The Chief Justice appears to have frequently ventured into the realm of opinion rather than law.

In the early years of Helen Clark’s Labour Government, she claimed the Prime Minister lacked “understanding about judicial independence”. In response the PM said judges should “stick to the bench” and not get involved in politics. The Deputy PM Michael Cullen called the Chief Justice a “judicial activist”.

And indeed, that’s what her 2003 Court of Appeal decision in favour of Maori rights to the foreshore and seabed exemplified, since it overturned settled law and an earlier Court of Appeal ruling that had affirmed Crown ownership under common law.

In essence, Sian Elias’s judicial activism created a constitutional crisis. By declaring that customary title might still exist in the foreshore and seabed, and that claims should be determined by the Maori Land Court – which had the jurisdiction to privatise customary title – she set the scene for the wholesale privatisation of New Zealand’s coastline.

At the time there were suspicions that the Chief Justice, had ‘swung’ the other four more ‘orthodox’ Court of Appeal Judges to ensure a unanimous judgment.

There was also a view that Sian Elias should have recused herself from the case, given that in the 1980s she had argued in the Waitangi Tribunal for tribal control of the Manukau Harbour and seabed, and was clearly biased in favour of Maori rights to the coastal marine area.

The Court of Appeal’s finding, which triggered such a flood of claims for the whole coastline, that the Government felt forced to legislate, resulted in the passage of the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act. This led to the fracturing of the Labour Party and the formation of the Maori Party. It was their influence, that caused National to repeal the 2004 law and replace it with the disastrous Marine and Coastal Area Act, to enable tribal groups to gain ownership and control of the rich natural resources of the coast......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter > https://www.nzcpr.com/the-dangers-of-judicial-activism/#more-27646


Last month Parliament debated a Bill to entrench the Maori seats. It had been submitted into the Private Members’ ballot by Labour’s Rino Tirikatene, the MP for the South Island Maori seat of Te Tai Tonga. He wants to make it more difficult to abolish Parliament’s Maori seats by ensuring that a vote of 75 percent of MPs would be needed to get rid of them.

Submissions on the Bill have now been called. Labour is going around the country to drum up support, so in the interests of balance and fairness, I will outline the details here in the hope that you will not only consider putting in an opposing submission, but that you will encourage others to do so too.

In politics submission numbers really matter. If a bill ends up with overwhelming public support at a Select Committee, then those pushing it will claim the country is behind their cause. Given that New Zealanders have long insisted that the Maori seats have passed their use-by date, this is the opportunity to say so.

SUBMISSIONS CAN BE MADE on-line here https://tinyurl.com/y7t67a3t or emailed to the Maori Affairs Select Committee at ma@parliament.govt.nz BY 14 DECEMBER 2018.......

Dr Muriel Newman explains why you should make a submission here > https://www.nzcpr.com/time-to-have-a-say-on-entrenching-the-maori-seats/#more-27580


Last week was Maori language week. Speaking te reo appears to have become New Zealand’s new cause célèbre.

While on the surface it may appear to be a worthy objective, there is a radical political agenda behind this seemingly innocent cause.

The former co-leader of the Maori Party Marama Fox revealed the plan in a Listener interview just before the last election. She explained that the path to Maori control of New Zealand hinged on te reo becoming compulsory in schools.

She said it was all ‘plotted out’: “It would take 36 years – 12 election cycles – for a Maori sovereignty party to share government… it’s a radical vision… but if we believe in it, then we need to march towards it.”

According to Marama Fox, their vision of shared Government involves replacing our Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy with a “unique form of governance that would favour Maori customs, principles and values”.

She explained that the thinking of New Zealanders needs to be shifted to achieve this goal, and a “critical step” is to make “the Maori language a core subject in the country’s schools… People look at things differently once they’ve acquired te reo.

It’s a world view. The Maori world view is different and that’s expressed in the language. The language unlocks our history and our thinking”.

In other words, the compulsory teaching of the Maori language in New Zealand schools is critical, if the Maori sovereignty movement is to achieve its ultimate objective of bicultural rule and tribal control of decision-making in New Zealand.

Earlier this month, Victoria University’s Dr Awanui Te Huia shed more light on the role that the Maori language plays in the development of biculturalism: “When Pakeha students make progress toward addressing inequitable treatment of Maori, it can create a sense of partnership and bicultural allegiance. The more proficient a Pakeha student becomes in te reo, the more investment the student tends to make towards their cultural identity development.

“This is where the acknowledgement of the colonial history comes into play. Students who are able to acknowledge they are from a group who has a history that is beneficial to them as descendants of colonisers are able to connect on a level that is more honest. They are able to own the identity and use it to position themselves in a way that acknowledges that history, but is also committed to an equitable society based on Treaty principles of partnership and equality.”

In other words, the teaching of the Maori language provides the opportunity for all-embracing cultural indoctrination. In light of that, it would be more honest, if instead of being called ‘Maori Language Week’, we renamed it ‘Maori Cultural Indoctrination Week’......

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s disturbing article here > www.nzcpr.com/cultural-indoctrination-week/#more-27418


However, in spite of that constraint many councils have continued to try to be all things to all people, with some taking on increasingly activist roles.

One such council is Wellington, where, last month, councillors unanimously voted for a radical plan to make Wellington the te reo Maori capital of New Zealand – despite the 2013 Census showing that Maori make up only 7 percent of the local population.

Wellington Mayor Justin Lester, who has been leading the initiative, said, “We are pushing this because it is the right thing to do. It’s the only thing to do and Wellington should be leading. New Zealand needs to embrace our unique sense of identity and … the mana of Maori culture and values, and the whakapapa of our rohe”.

The council is already progressing their cultural agenda, by voting in favour of bilingual ward names, calling a waterfront walkway Ara Moana, renaming Frank Kitts Lagoon as the Whairepo Lagoon, and replacing the traditional fireworks display on Guy Fawkes Day, with one celebrating the Maori New Year, Matariki.

But their plan is not just to encourage te reo to be spoken around the capital, and to ensure signage and place names are bilingual – instead they intend forcing Maori culture and values into the heart of all council activities.

According to their policy document, the Council is to contribute to Maori wellbeing by “incorporating a Maori perspective in allpolicy work”. All service delivery functions are to “respond to the social and cultural customs and expectations of Maori customers”, and strategies are to be put in place to “identify and stimulate Maori economic, social and cultural innovation opportunities”.

The Council will need to ensure “effective Maori participation in Council’s democratic structures and decision-making processes”. All services, policies and projects will need “effective input from local iwi and the wider Maori community”, all publications and communications will require “a Maori perspective”, as will all urban design, public artworks, events and heritage.

Council staff will need to “respond more effectively to Maori”. To gain a deeper awareness of Maori cultural needs and expectations staff – and no doubt councillors – will need to undergo “training that builds capacity to work with Maori”, they will be required to promote the Council as a place where Maori want to work in order to “ensure a greater representation of Maori at all levels of the organisation”, and Maori advisers will be required to “inform and assist Council’s business unit functions and practices”.

This radical realignment of Council values and functions in favour of Maori is apparently supported by all councillors. It appears that not one of the councillors elected to represent the public interest, has stood up for the majority, who are deeply concerned that a cultural appropriation of their Council is underway.

For a region where those acknowledging Asian heritage outnumber Maori by two to one, and those of European ancestry by almost ten to one, it is difficult to understand how elected councillors could impose such a radical cultural agenda onto the council and the city, without feeling duty-bound to outline it and campaign on it, before they were elected.

However, with local government elections scheduled for next year, ratepayers will have the opportunity to encourage people with the courage to oppose such divisive cultural extremism, to stand as candidates on a platform of reversing the changes......

.....Local government’s industry body, Local Government New Zealand, is also no stranger to activism. As we have already seen, LGNZ has been driving a campaign to undermine local body democracy through a proposed law change that would prevent local communities from being able to call for a referendum if their council decides to introduce Maori wards.

The argument being used by LGNZ, that petition rights over Maori wards are discriminatory, is a lie. Petition rights were originally introduced for Maori wards because a race-based electoral roll is required, and by convention, any changes involving the electoral system – at either central or local government level – are constitutional in nature and have referendum rights attached.

To perpetuate the lie that petition rights are only there to discriminate against Maori, demonstrates a fanaticism within LGNZ that is extremely disturbing......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/local-government-activism/#more-26752


Amongst those campaigning for the establishment of Maori wards are supporters of Maori sovereignty. Through their fraudulent claim of Treaty partnership with the Crown, they are pushing for the tribal co-governance of local authorities.

Not content with accepting the voice of democracy, these radicals are now attempting to change the law. They want to prevent locals from having the right to call for a referendum to challenge the introduction of Maori wards by removing direct democracy petition rights from the Local Electoral Act.

The activists’ strategy has been to persuade people in influential positions to support their call for a law change.

Astonishingly, they have even managed to convince Local Government New Zealand – the body that represents the country’s 78 local authorities – to back their cause, even though LGNZ could be expected to be a stalwart in defending local democracy, not campaigning against it.

The former Mayor of New Plymouth, Andrew Judd, has become a fanatical advocate for removing direct democracy Maori ward petition rights, to the point where he claims anyone voting against Maori wards is racist.

The Greens co-leader, Marama Davidson, whose Private Member’s Bill to remove these petition rights was defeated in 2017, has made it into a key priority for her Party. Local Government Minister, Nanaia Mahuta, and the Crown-Maori relations Minister Kelvin Davis, have become government cheerleaders for this elitist agenda.

The justification being used by advocates pushing for a law change is that petition rights over the creation of Maori wards are a discriminatory ‘loophole’ in the law, since if a council decides to change ward boundaries or create other new wards, poll provisions do not apply.

LGNZ used this argument in an open letter to the Government back in March, when it called for a law change: “these poll provisions apply only to the establishment of Maori wards. That they do not apply to other wards marks the provision as discriminatory to Maori and inconsistent with the principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi. Either the poll provisions should apply to all wards or they should apply to none. The discriminatory nature of these polls is not acceptable.”

But since their argument does not tell the whole story, let’s set the record straight on petition rights......

Dr Muriel Newman sets the record straight on petition rights in her latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/race-based-democracy-opposed/#more-26298


The Craggy Range walking track debacle is an excellent example of why iwi tribal groups should have no more power than the rest of society......

..... The best thing Craggy Range could do is forget about the complaints and do nothing. If they respond at all, they should hold their head up high and call for public support. In other words, tell the iwi to get stuffed.

What this unfortunate situation shows is that in New Zealand right now, iwi believe they have the right to rule over private decisions made by private individuals about their own private property rights. They are bullies, and the best way to deal with bullies is to stand your ground.

Iwi claim to have the right to rule over private property because they say they are ‘partners’ with the Crown.

But Anthony Willy, a retired District Court Judge and former Canterbury University Law Lecturer, carefully considered the question of whether Maori have partnership status with the Crown and concluded that the claim has no legal authority: “Maori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects. The true position is that the Crown is sovereign but owes duties of justice and good faith to the Maori descendants of those who signed the treaty.”

In other words, their partnership claim is a fraud.

Democratic rights in New Zealand are based on citizenship – not race. Under our constitutional arrangements, governing power is held by our elected MPs – not judges, nor a self-proclaimed iwi aristocracy.

Despite this, iwi leaders have found that by claiming partnership status, they can intimidate people into submission and get their way.

That’s the strategy that’s been played out all across the country as tribal leaders.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/a-society-of-equals/#more-26144


.....Zealots can also be found in the bicultural movement. In an article in the Dominion Post in 2010, political commentator Chris Trotter described what happened when the highly successful charity Corso – established in 1944 to provide clothing and footwear to millions of people around the world – became radicalised.

“Throughout the 1980s Corso was steadily infiltrated and eventually taken over by radical Maori nationalists. Led by the Harawira family, the radicals insisted that Corso recognise and promote tino rangatiratanga – the Maori right to self-determination. To prove its bona fides to the cause of the tangata whenua, Corso was also required to devote two-thirds of its income to Maori projects. When Corso workers and supporters objected to this takeover they were subjected to withering criticism – it was much easier to leave than to fight. By 1990, the organisation was little more than a hollowed-out shell. New Zealand’s largest and most successful home- grown aid organisation had been destroyed: initially, by ideological extremism; and finally, by radical Maori nationalism.”

Just like Corso, biculturalists have now infiltrated the Salvation Army and are enforcing radical change: “The Salvation Army acknowledges the principles of partnership, protection and participation inherent in the Treaty of Waitangi.”

The charity has signed partnership agreements with Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu to commit to a bicultural future. But their website reveals that not everyone is happy with the takeover: “Pakeha Salvationists continue to wrestle and at times struggle with biculturalism therefore ongoing training will need to be provided on a broad basis within the Salvation Army on biculturalism and its implementation”.

The organisation is now being used as a front for political lobbying by the biculturalists, who are claiming that the Salvation Army is in favour of Maori wards, to help sway the referendum vote that is presently taking place in five local authority areas.

The Anglican Church, which has suffered a similar fate, is now also being used to try to sway the referendum vote in favour of Maori wards. The Church was persuaded in 1992 to embed the Treaty of Waitangi into its constitution, and to racially divide the congregation into Maori, Pacific, and ‘Pakeha’ branches. As a result of these changes, congregation numbers have plummeted and power struggles have broken out as the Maori branch attempts to assert “tino rangatiratanga over taonga as guaranteed in Article 2 of the Treaty of Waitangi”. In this case, the ‘taonga’ they want to get their hands on is the $300 million Church trust fund!

It also appears that the Royal Society of New Zealand is on the same downhill slide. Last month, retired scientist Dr Bob Brockie spoke out about how in 2010, this august scientific body was persuaded to appoint artistic and literary representatives of Te Whainga Aronui o Te Aparangi onto its board, who now say the Royal Society “needs to place the Treaty of Waitangi centrally”.

As Dr Brockie explains, “The Treaty has no place in scientific endeavour. To make it the centrepiece of the Royal Society agenda beggars belief.”

He further outlines how “Otago University recently proclaimed that Ngai Tahu must be consulted about ‘all areas of research’ before scholars undertake their work. All proposals must be submitted to the Office of Maori Development.” And he states, “I am astonished that a Maori iwi has the audacity to impose these heavy-arm rules on scientists, and more astonished that Otago University has acquiesced in these proscriptive, inquisitorial demands.”

It turns out that Otago University signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Ngai Tahu in 2013 to “give effect to Ngāi Tahu aspirations and enable the University of Otago to realise its Treaty obligations”.

The NZCPR has also reported that Canterbury University signed a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Ngai Tahu in 2012 and that they have now imposed a compulsory requirement for all students to be instructed in bicultural competency.

This raises questions over how many other universities have succumbed to iwi control, and whether the Tertiary Education Commission has safeguards in place to prevent the promise of iwi funding from compromising the freedom of scholarship of New Zealand universities.

We already know that iwi leaders have infiltrated LGNZ through a Memorandum of Understanding signed in 2015, and that on some issues like supporting Maori wards, LGNZ has become their mouthpiece.

It turns out that art is not safe from censorship by iwi either.

Just last week, controversy arose over Te Papa’s $1.5 million 1861 painting – View of Mt Egmont, Taranaki, New Zealand, taken from New Plymouth, with Maoris driving off settlers’ cattle – by the famous English artist William Strutt.

A New Plymouth art gallery is negotiating to exhibit the painting next year, but a member of the Maori Advisory Board to the District Council’s Taranaki Museum, is demanding that the plan is dropped.

Peter Moeahu, a former treaty negotiator, claims that the painting depicts Maori as thieves and robbers, stealing from settlers and driving away their cattle. He says the painting should not be displayed publicly as it “perpetuates colonialist propaganda”.

Whether the exhibition goes ahead or whether the gallery caves in to the intimidation remains to be seen, but what is clear, is that with ‘cultural advisors’ like Mr Moeahu in control, the Taranaki Museum does not have the freedom to even consider such an exhibition.

Meanwhile the freedom of speech is not only under threat from activist networks – as Israel Folau recently found out to his cost – but also from our Human Rights Commission.

The Race Relations Commissioner Dame Susan Devoy presented a report to the United Nations last year, which not only pushed for ‘hate speech’ legislation, but also for sanctions for ‘disharmonious’ speech. It recommend the Government “Review the adequacy of current legislation in addressing and sanctioning hate speech and incitement to racial disharmony, including hateful and disharmonious speech targeted at the religion and beliefs of ethnic minority communities.”

It could be argued that the campaigns run by Susan Devoy over recent years, especially the “That’s Us” campaign against casual racism, and the “Give Nothing to Racism Campaign”, encouraging people to take a stand against racism, have increased racism in New Zealand, by redefining anything offensive as racism.

This is the same pattern followed by the former Race Relations Commissioner Joris de Bres, who pro-actively promoted Maori sovereignty, including by pressuring local authorities to introduce Maori wards.

By leading initiatives to increase the apparent incidence of racism in society – no doubt to justify their positions and gain more funding – these officials have become a public menace. Since the present Race Relations Commissioner’s warrant expired on March 31, this role should now be disestablished.

Without a doubt, the changes being delivered by the technological revolution are resulting in tremendous benefits to mankind. However, vigilance is needed to ensure that the underlying agenda of those seeking to control our lives – whether through heavy-handed regulation, or through the muzzling of free speech – is not to take away the rights of individuals to have individual opinions. Those rights must be defended at all costs.......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/newsletter/


Last month Dunedin Mayor Dave Cull, the President of Local Government New Zealand – the union that represents the country’s 78 local authorities – wrote an open letter to the coalition Government calling for the removal of the petition rights that allow local residents and ratepayers to demand a poll if their Council unilaterally decides to establish Maori wards.

Under section 19ZD of the Local Electoral Act 2001 a councils can elect to hold a public referendum in order to decide whether or not to establish Maori wards. This reflects the fact that such a change fundamentally alters the democratic makeup of a council and by convention, changes of a constitutional nature in New Zealand can only be undertaken with the express approval of voters.

If a council however, chooses to introduce a Maori ward unilaterally, their decision can be challenged through section 19ZB of the Act, which gives residents and ratepayers the right to force a referendum – if 5 percent of voters sign their petition.

Referenda decisions are binding on councils for the following two elections.

The Maori wards provisions in the Act mirror those for changing the voting system, which is the other major constitutional change provided for in the legislation. Under Sections 27 to 34, councils can change between First Past the Post and Single Transferable Voting through a public referendum process. But if the decision is made by the Council alone, it can be challenged if 5 percent of local electors support a petition for a referendum.

So while LGNZ wants to retain the right of locals to demand a poll to challenge council decisions on the constitutional matter of changing the voting system, it wants to abolish their right to demand a poll to challenge council decisions on the constitutional matter of establishing Maori wards.

In his letter to the government Dave Cull ignores this glaring inconsistency, and instead tries to argue that establishing Maori wards is no different from altering ward boundaries, to take account of population changes. He says, “either the poll provisions should apply to all wards or they should apply to none.”

Fine – if that’s the game they want to play, let’s support polling provisions for all boundary changes!

Dave Cull tries to justify LGNZ’s attempt to remove the public’s democratic right to have the final say on Maori wards by claiming it’s all about increasing Maori representation. What he fails to acknowledge is that the “principle of equal treatment enshrined in the Treaty of Waitangi” runs two ways – all New Zealanders should be treated the same and have the same rights to representation.....

........Taking away the rights of residents and ratepayers to oppose the formation of Maori wards is, of course, the first step towards Andrew Judd’s goal of 50 percent Maori representation on local authorities. Once councils are free to unilaterally introduce Maori wards without any consultation with locals, there is nothing to stop them increasing the number to 50:50 Maori to non-Maori representation.

If the new Government agrees with LGNZ and removes the polling provisions, then the country will indeed be on a slippery slope to 50:50 race based governance.

What are the chances of Government support?......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s full NZCPR newsletter here > www.nzcpr.com/local-democracy-undermined/#more-25766



Over the years Waitangi Day has changed from being a celebration of the birth of our nation, when two peoples were united as one, to becoming a grievance day for tribal activists pursuing their Maori sovereignty agenda.

Their demands include everything from the ownership of fresh water, to a new Treaty-based constitution. They want the Maori seats in Parliament to be entrenched, and Maori seats in local government to be guaranteed. They are calling for co-governance rights across all Government agencies – including reserved Maori seats on the new Teaching Council. And they want more taxpayers’ funding for programmes leading to self determination.

For some, their ultimate goal is Maori ownership of New Zealand – as expressed by Tuhoe leader Tamati Krugar in a speech just before Christmas, when he said, “In the distant future there may no longer be Europeans living in Aotearoa, because Europeans live in Europe. That, maybe, in a long distance, the only people you find in Aotearoa are tangata whenua…”

While such talk is fanciful, we shouldn’t forget that thanks to the actions of naive and spineless politicians, who have appeased discontent instead of challenging it, many of the extremist ambitions of iwi leaders are now coming to fruition. Not so long ago goals like the ownership and control of New Zealand’s coastline would have regarded as being so far-fetched as to be laughable – as laughable as the comments above by Mr Krugar. But with our coastline standing on the verge of falling into tribal hands, it is certainly no laughing matter now.

The reality is that the pathway to iwi goals is travelled in small incremental steps rather than giant strides. One such step is........
Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/agendas-and-demands/#more-25224


Earlier this month, a gift shop owner on Waiheke Island was called a racist, for selling golliwogs. The situation has been described as “Political correctness gone mad”.

The owner of the store, Kat, says that she explains to customers that golliwogs are an English thing: “They started off as talismans in England. They were based off chimney sweeps and chimney sweeps were actually white people.”

Kat believes there are “more important things for people to get offended about” than golliwogs, and says, “As far as I’m concerned society has just gotten far too PC”.

Golliwogs are well and truly victims of the PC brigade.

These dolls, which had become enormously popular by the mid-20th century – second only to teddy bears – were declared a symbol of racism by activists in the sixties.......

Dr Brash is right. There are now many issues that people will speak freely about with their family or close friends, but are now regarded as taboo with a wider audience.

It’s even got to the point where some people are afraid to sign their names and addresses on petition forms – if they deem them to be too controversial – just in case there are ‘repercussions’.

This is presently an issue for those living in areas where their local councils have voted unilaterally to create Maori wards. As the law now stands, such a decision can be challenged if 5 percent of residents and ratepayers sign a petition requesting that the matter be decided by the wider community through a binding public referendum. This is to reflect the fact that in a free democracy, convention provides that major constitutional change – such as introducing Maori wards – should involve the wider community in the decision-making through a public referendum process.

It now appears that in some local government areas, where the pro-Maori ward lobby has become very aggressive, many who oppose Maori wards feel intimidated and are now too afraid to sign the petitions for a referendum for fear of reprisal.

Maori Wards, which sit alongside general wards and cover the whole district, are provided for in the Local Electoral Act 2001. They are similar to the Maori seats in Parliament in that only those on the Maori roll can vote for the representatives.

Maori wards can be established through one of three ways.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s informative NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/golliwogs-and-local-government/


In fact, the agenda of those pushing the Maori language is far more sinister than many realise.

Marama Fox, the former co-leader of the Maori Party, which used to represent the tribal elite in Parliament, outlined their plan for the Maori language in an interview in the Listener before the election. It involved replacing our Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy in New Zealand with a “unique form of governance that would favour Maori customs, principles and values.”

She explained it was all ‘plotted out’: “It would take 36 years – 12 election cycles – for a Maori sovereignty party to sharegovernment… it’s a radical vision… but if we believe in it, then we need to march towards it.”

She explained that the “critical step” in shifting the thinking of New Zealanders to make it all possible was “to make the Maori language a core subject in the country’s schools”.

Marama Fox argued that “people look at things differently once they’ve acquired te reo. It’s a world view. The Maori world view is different and that’s expressed in the language. The language unlocks our history and our thinking.”

In other words, the compulsory teaching of the Maori language is key to enable the Maori sovereignty movement to impose their self-serving agenda onto New Zealand.

That’s why Maori sovereignty advocates like Marama Fox are determined to have Maori taught in schools as a compulsory subject. It’s a tool for political control and is fundamental to the successful indoctrination of the next generation, which is a pre-requisite to gaining political governance.

It’s also why the attacks on anyone who speaks out against the Maori sovereignty agenda – particularly their plan to make the Maori language compulsory in schools – are so vicious.

It takes real courage to stand up to these sorts of personal attacks, which is why those who call a spade a spade need to be not only supported, but applauded for doing so. We congratulate Sir William Gallagher and Dave Witherow and the others who know that the right to speak freely is the cornerstone of democracy........

Read Dr Muriel’s full NZCPR newsletter here > https://www.nzcpr.com/speaking-freely/#more-25024

The plan by the Maori tribal elite to gain a privileged status and co-governance rights over New Zealand is further advanced than most people realise. The basis for seeking such privileges is racial – it depends on the adoption of ‘biculturalism’ by Government institutions as a de-facto ‘official’ policy.

With roots in the struggle for social justice, biculturalism has long embraced ‘affirmative action’, whereby special State privilege – usually in the form of Government funding based on race rather than need – is awarded to members of the group claiming to be victims of discrimination. The problem is that, not only does this state largesse usually end up in the hands of the elites who run the groups instead of those in need, but by discriminating against all other New Zealanders, the Government is undermining a cornerstone of democracy – namely that all citizens should be treated as equals.

In spite of New Zealand being a country of over 200 nationalities, biculturalism is based on the fallacy that there are two cultures – a Maori culture with special privileges in law for 15 percent of the population, and a second culture, with no privileges, representing everyone else.

Over recent years, the Maori sovereignty movement – along with opportunistic iwi leaders – have been promoting biculturalism as a ‘power sharing’ mechanism. By claiming it has authority derived from the Treaty of Waitangi – namely a ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown – advocates, including politicians, members of the judiciary, academics, bureaucrats and activists, have elevated it into an unassailable position of influence.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/the-freedom-of-thought/#more-22872

If New Zealanders as a whole understood the extent to which extremist Maori cultural propaganda is being imposed on the country through the education system, they would be appalled.

Prioritising Maori students “as tangata whenua” – above all other students – is totally unacceptable.

Forcing teachers to regurgitate the political aspirations for supremacy of the Maori Party, by promoting their bicultural co-governance agenda, is unethical.

And with so much effort and resource going into cultural indoctrination, it’s not hard to see why New Zealand’s academic standards are falling and our skill shortage is getting worse.

With the draft teaching code, which enables a race-based political minority to gain control of education for their own subversive ends, about to become law, the only people who can stop the madness are the Minister of Education and the Prime Minister.........

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s alarming NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/cultural-competency/#more-22410

The reality is that over the last few decades, a small but influential group of sovereignty activists have dominated social justice advocacy in this country. Using claims of colonial oppression and racial victimisation they have re-interpreted the Treaty as a partnership with the Crown to justify elitist demands for the ownership and control of public resources.

At first their claims were for lands lost or sold by their distant relatives – and in response successive governments bestowed multiple “full and final” settlements, in the form of cash and land, houses and schools, Police Stations and Hospitals, mountains and forests, lakes and rivers – even a National Park.

Next they claimed the foreshore and seabed – and in response Bill English’s Government repealed public ownership, leaving New Zealand’s beaches and the sea owned by those Maori tribes that can convince the Courts or the Minister of Treaty Settlements (through fabricated claims lodged before the April 3rd deadline) that they have used the area continuously and exclusively since 1840.

Now they are claiming fresh water – and in response, secret deals between iwi leaders and Cabinet Ministers are slowly but surely facilitating a move from Government management of this crucial public resource, to tribal control......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR weekly newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/new-zealand-day/#more-21154

In short, New Zealand is not subjected to the main pressures facing European countries. Our economy is not stagnant, but strong. And while record numbers of migrants are coming into the country, they are not refugees of unknown backgrounds, but Kiwis returning home from the slump in Australia, and immigrant workers coming here for jobs.
New Zealanders do have serious concerns about the state of the country, of course, and we will hear a lot more about these next year, as opposition parties try their best to convince us that we need a new government.
But the “sleeper” issue in New Zealand is race relations. The fact is that ‘race’ is now being used to grant statutory privilege to advance the wealth of a relatively small group of iwi leaders. It is an issue that may present a surprise result at next year’s election. It is also an issue the Labour-Greens bloc will ignore, as they too kowtow to Maori interests.....
Read Dr Muriel Newman’s NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/the-year-ahead/#more-20916

In other words, these new mechanisms that Nick Smith has included in the RMA will enable race-based vested interests to take over resource consenting from democratically elected councils. That means hapless property owners will not only be forced to consult with councils, but with multiple iwi as well. Instead of streamlining and simplifying the RMA, Nick Smith is about to make it much worse.......

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/tinkering-with-the-rma/#more-20706


American philosopher Robert Maynard Hutchins once said, “The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and under-nourishment.”

He probably could not conceive of a situation where a government was itself imposing apartheid on a democracy.

Unfortunately that’s what’s happening in New Zealand right now in the form of legislation being introduced by National. It had gone under the radar of public awareness, until Winston Peters raised the issue in Parliament last week in a very public manner.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman’s latest NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/electoral-apartheid-by-decree/#comments

So there we have it. The Labour leader being whisked away in a golf cart; Tuku Morgan standing behind the former truck driver, who is now King of an undefined realm with questionable support, promoting an alliance between radical forces to impose racial rule by a minority over a majority. And all of this is being taken seriously by our government.

It really would be hugely comical, if it were not so real.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman’s article HERE

Democracy, which means “rule by the people”, has Greek origins. It arose in response to the abuse of power by rulers. In essence there are four key elements to a well-functioning democracy – free and fair elections, the active participation of citizens in political and civic life, the protection of human rights, and a commitment to the rule of law – to ensure that all citizens are treated equally.

The principle of putting citizens at the core of the decision-making process was best expressed by US President Abraham Lincoln during his famous Gettysburg Address in 1863, when he described democracy as “Government of the people, by the people, for the people”.

So how well does New Zealand perform on the democratic governance scale?…..

Find out by reading the rest of Dr Muriel Newman's latest NZCPR newsletter  

The point that mayors Andrew Judd, Lyn Patterson, Jenny Rowan, and Steve Chadwick do not appear to understand is that this whole issue is about democracy, not race. New Zealanders strongly support the fundamentals of democracy – one person, one vote, with all constituents treated equally under the law. And they want to see our nation moving forward together – as one people – not as a country divided by race.

So what does the law actually say about Maori involvement in local government?

The Local Government Act 2002 requires councils to “provide opportunities for Maori to contribute to the decision-making processes of the local authority”, as well as to consider ways of fostering the development of Maori “capacity”.

However, the Act is also clear in the fact that councils must prioritise the good of the whole community. That’s why most councils around the country have discharged their responsibilities by establishing Maori liaison committees or advisory boards. By law, they are not required to do any more than that.

And that’s why the decisions of the mayors and councillors who have appointed iwi representatives, with voting rights, onto their councils – without seeking the view of their local communities through a district-wide referendum – is so wrong. While they no doubt hope their arrangements will bind all future councils, each new council should review such decisions – and ask their communities what they think as well, through a binding referendum process.

Whether they like to admit it or not, councillors voting in favour of appointing unelected iwi representatives with voting rights onto their councils, are putting their personal views ahead of the views of their electorate. What’s worse is that they are doing so in a way that denies voters their right to accept or reject race-based representation on their council. That is simply unacceptable……..

Read Dr Muriel Newman's full informative NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/undemocratic-mayors/#more-18412

Changing Society and Re-writing History
President Thomas Jefferson once said, “Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone… I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves. And if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education.”

Those are wise words. Governments “degenerate” for a variety of reasons. They will often lose touch with the electorate and become arrogant. But here in New Zealand, one of the main causes is our Mixed Member Proportional voting system.

MMP makes it virtually impossible for a single party to govern alone. As a result, mainstream parties are forced into coalitions with minor parties that represent narrow interests and often have extreme views. Yet to the dismay of the public, MMP enables those parties to impose their radical ideas onto the country…..

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman's latest NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/changing-society-and-re-writing-history/#more-17924

Be sure to send in a SUBMISSION by April 21, 2016, > http://tinyurl.com/go5gj6n (Scroll down the page for Submission button)

And please sign the NZCPR PETITION > http://www.nzcpr.com/land-war-petition/

Hands off our water
In his response to our advertisement, the Deputy Prime Minister Bill English said that “Maori interests, the Government and the community wanted ‘pretty similar things’. The big issues were nitrate pollution, the demand for water, the intensification of land use and the purity of water. That’s not a Maori issue, that’s a general one.”

Mr English is simply raising other matters to divert attention from the core issue – Maori control of fresh water.

Specifically, he is bringing up the issue of water pollution, which he well knows is being addressed though a variety of government mechanisms, including fresh water quality policy statements through the Ministry for the Environment, RMA environmental standards, and Local Government water management plans. and while the cleaning up of waterways is certainly a serious matter, it is nevertheless completely separate from the question of who should control the allocation of fresh water in New Zealand.

Mr English went on to say the Keep Our Water Kiwi advertisement was “more focused on the theories, not quite so much on solving the genuine issues. While conceptually these issues are difficult, in practice they’ve turned out to be able to be resolved.”

The point Mr English is missing is that the control of fresh water is a genuine issue.

Having that resource allocated by iwi with a vested interest is a genuine issue.

Central government abrogating its responsibility to ensure the control of an essential resource is being carried out by democratically elected members of local authorities is a genuine issue.

Allowing local government to bend the rules and give private groups control of water on a case by case basis is a genuine issue.

Debating whether Maori have any special rights to water at all is a genuine issue.

The extent to which the general public should have a say in these matters is a genuine issue.

Mr English appears intent on appeasing Maori interests and passing the responsibility for the inevitable damage onto local government. Is that the cost of their coalition deal with the Maori Party?....

Read Dr Muriel Newman's full exposing NZCPR newsletter HERE 

Maori Freshwater Deals
Right now, unbeknown to most New Zealanders, the National-led Government and Local Government New Zealand are smoothing the way for regional councils and unitary authorities to pass control of the management and allocation of freshwater to iwi.

The strategy was agreed between the government and Iwi Leaders in April. Since then, Iwi Leaders have been consulting with Maori groups around the country, disclosing the plan and seeking their approval.

No such meetings are being held by central or local government to seek the approval of other New Zealanders, who will also be affected by these changes. There is talk that some sort of consultation process might be established next year, but by then it will be too late – the deal will have been done.

Last month, again without any engagement with the public, Local Government New Zealand, on behalf of the country’s local authorities, signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Iwi Leaders to establish a secret-deal-making process to progress the highly controversial transfer of resources and power to iwi. Essentially this will ensure that not only will the public be excluded from the whole decision-making process, but they will not even be aware it is going on.

For instance, in the Memorandum, Local Government New Zealand – on your behalf – has agreed to Clause 5(a), stating that they “acknowledge the mana and kaitiakitanga status of iwi over the nation’s land and natural resources”.


Since when did New Zealanders agree that iwi have a special status over the nation’s land and natural resources?

Does that mean local authorities consider that private ownership and property rights will now be subordinate to the rights of iwi?

Did each of the local authorities who are represented by Local Government New Zealand really agree that iwi have mana and guardianship status over the land and natural resources in their jurisdiction?....

Read Dr Muriel Newman's full NZCPR dismaying newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/freshwater-deals/#more-16242

Sign the PETITION here in order to run an information campaign > http://www.nzcpr.com/water-rights-petition/

Secret Deals
Government advertisements in newspapers last month encouraging iwi to lodge claims for the country’s foreshore and seabed are a reminder of a growing complacency in New Zealand. At a time when leaders around the world are increasingly concerned about the dangers of social division caused by radical separatism and extremist ideologies, our governments have created and continue to support a privileged tribal elite. This elite lives like royalty on the proceeds of taxpayers’ funding, while disadvantaged members of their wider tribal groups struggle in the country’s worst social statistics.

As a nation founded on egalitarianism, is a racially defined class-based society really the sort of future we want?

Claims for the ownership of New Zealand’s coastline are part of a list of demands that are being sought by corporate iwi. Most recent are calls for the ownership of the country’s fresh water, claims for Crown land earmarked for affordable housing in Auckland, demands for free state houses, for tribal representation on local body councils, for ownership rights to parks, rivers, and mountains. There has even been a demand for the inclusion of trout in a Treaty settlement – despite of a Court of Appeal ruling that customary rights do not apply to trout because they are a European fish introduced by settlers in the 1860s.

Without a doubt, iwi demands are becoming more frequent and more far-reaching, but rather than confront their motivation, governments usually adopt the line of least resistance and give in. Appeasement is the easier path for career politicians.

This is certainly the case with the privatisation of our coastline. Tribal ownership of the foreshore and seabed was the price the country paid for the National Party’s coalition deal with the Maori Party in 2008. Iwi leaders wanted the 2004 Foreshore and Seabed Act repealed. That Act had been introduced by the Labour Government to re-affirm Crown ownership of the coastline, following a controversial Court of Appeal ruling that some tribal groups may have customary interests in the marine and coastal area. The replacement law, the Marine and Coastal Area Act, opened the coast up for tribal ownership – but without the need for iwi to prove their claims in court.

This week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator, Dr Hugh Barr of the Council of Outdoor Recreation Associations of New Zealand, outlines the present situation:.....

Continue reading Dr Muriel Newman's insightful NZCPR newsletter here > http://www.nzcpr.com/secret-deals/#more-15318

CONTROLLING THE DIALOGUE (Human Rights Commission)
What this means, of course, is that newspapers are going to be much more careful about printing anything that could be construed as negative to Maori, in case they gain a reputation for being a “racist” newspaper.

The Commission has said it intends keeping an on-going tally of negative reporting around the country – not only in traditional media, but in popular blogs as well.

The Human Rights Commission has clearly overstepped the mark by embarking on a censoring campaign – the very thing it says it exists to oppose. What’s worse is that it is trying to pretend that their reporting will not stifle media freedom, when clearly it will. They say “Our aim is not to limit media freedom, we want to start an open conversation about balance, fairness, social responsibility and quality in reporting.” That, of course, is simply playing with words to mask the real effect.

Freedom of political debate is at the very core of a democratic society. An informed electorate is in the public interest and the inroads into freedom of expression which will result from the Commission’s initiative will be disproportionate. The effect of this initiative will be to muzzle the media and stifle the on-line debate about race relations in this country.

The obvious question is what has motivated the Human Rights Commission to shift its position from being a strong defender of free speech to one that wants to censor open debate?

Surely this change in direction would not have been suggested by the Minister of Justice, Amy Adams?

Or is their move simply an attempt to silence the critics of the radical separatist agenda to which they clearly subscribe?

The Human Rights Commission holds the copyright to the publication, Tangata Tiriti – Treaty People, which is widely used to educate new migrants about the Treaty of Waitangi. It is based on the premise that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the Queen – it would be hard to find a publication which condemns colonisation and promotes Maori sovereignty more strongly.....

Read Dr Muriel Newman's full NZCPR newsletter > http://www.nzcpr.com/controlling-the-dialogue/#more-15190