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.


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