There are racists in my country and I don’t know what to do,
I’m so sad at not being equal, I am feeling rather blue.

They say they are entitled to a bigger vote than me,
Cos they had an ancestor come from Hawaiki.

We’re in the same family, sports and workplace too,
But they say they are superior, and want to mount a coup.

They are taking over gov’ment, hospitals, and schools,
Scaring away the talent and changing all the rules.

Doctors, nurses, teachers too, don’t need to have good sense,
As long as they achieve in Maori cultural competence.

The kids no longer know their sums, or learn to read and write,
But they’re very good recounting the propaganda tripe.

History has been rewritten, the truth now removed,
Some shady lies and myths are all that are approved.

If we’re building something big, we have to get consent,
But this means shifty payments, to someone rather bent.

They want our drinking water, mountains, harbours, beaches, seas they’ll take,
Politicians just hand them over, it’s like they’re also on the make.

We must worship te ao Maori, but no one tells us what that means,
I think it must be hidden in those big, flash limousines.

We can no longer have free speech and ask for common sense,
They say that means I’m racist and being rather dense.

Not even Santa can be safe, gone is his glorious red,
To be replaced by hooks and feather cloaks instead.

Why are these racists in my country, I really want to know?
But their head honchos just laugh at me, as their bank accounts gather dough.

It’s greed, power and lust, you fool. Nothing ever changes.

We’ve read the history books, you see and learnt how through the ages,
The meek and mild can be manipulated, made to hand over all their wages.

Elections? Bah! There’ll be no standing on our merit.
We’ll be entrenched and like scoundrels, all power we’ll inherit.

Like Jews in Nazi Germany, we’ll turn you into slaves
We’ll make you hated and you’ll be digging your own graves.

So the racists rule our country, we pay for their expertise,
In what I’m not too sure, while they have us in a squeeze.

We fund their lawyers to walk all over us,
And we’re respectful, we don’t want to make a fuss.

We fought against apartheid, but that was overseas,
Here in New Zealand, we dare not show displease.

So we sit and watch our country, as democracy’s destroyed,
At least we haven’t caused upset by being paranoid.

By F M



This nonsense by Clementine Fraser (CF), I have made a lengthy attempt to refute her nonsense below. Her sort of false propaganda is what is used to transfer massive wealth and assets to to an opportunist group of people and is racially dividing our country today.

Clementine Fraser’s article here >

Points of contention are numbered:

1) CF says > “I worked for the Waitangi Tribunal as a historian and a claims facilitator. “unquote

That explains her whole nonsense blog and really I should not need to go any further, but I will.

See what some say about this racially stacked and therefore biased Waitangi Tribunal >

More > The Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 set up the Waitangi Tribunal as a permanent commission of inquiry to examine any claim by Maori over any law, regulation, or acts, omissions, policies, or practices of the Crown that may have given offence. It was an attempt to provide an avenue for Maori grievance and get Maori nationalist protest off the streets. The Act was passed a couple of days before the Maori Land March led by Dame Whina Cooper delivered a 60,000-signature petition to Prime Minister Bill Rowling.

The act also gave a handful of un-elected tribunal members the exclusive authority to interpret the treaty. The Act was the first legal recognition of the treaty. >…/treat…/home/the-waitangi-tribunal

2) CF says > “It’s the only treaty I know of that deals with a presumed transfer of power rather than just land.“ unquote

Although named a treaty it is not a true treaty – it is simply a cessation agreement, with the chiefs ceding their individual sovereignty to the Queen. And nowhere does it mention transfer of land – in fact Article 2 guarantees ownership of land to ALL New Zealanders (occupied and in usage at the time).

David Round Canterbury law lecturer says > David Round (Law lecturer at Canterbury university) says the TOW has no legal standing in international law

In international law the TOW is nullity. It has no legal standing as a treaty in international law.

The reason is that treaties can be made only between states, and maori, not formed into an organised state but living in a much smaller and far less sophisticated societies (and indeed, ones in a constant state of flux, given the intensly war-torn nature of the times) were simply incapable of entering into such an agreement in 1840.....(Excerpt from ‘Twisting the Treaty’ page 83 by David Round - law lecturer Canterbury uni)

3) CF says > you can read the treaty here > “unquote

CF infers that the Maori version which approx 500 chiefs signed is the the legitimate treaty – THIS IS TRUE

But what this cunning little piece of works has done in the link above is point to the Busby discard / Freeman / Official English treaty that only 39 chiefs signed at Port Waikato/Manakau – she is inferring that the maori version translates to this version – IT DOES NOT.

The nearest translation to the true maori version with only 4 minor variations is the Littlewood Draft >

4) CF says > “they (maori) didn’t give up their power. They kept it. In the Māori version of the Treaty, in Article 2, Māori are guaranteed Tino Rangatiratanga – full chieftainship – ie, Sovereignty. “ unquote

The best explanation that clearly blows her BS above is written by Bruce Moon here > TINO RANGATIRATANGA = FULL POSSESSION

In the TOW, Article 1, THE CHIEFS CEDED SOVEREIGNTY (KAWANATANGA) completely and for ever and they knew it. (Read Colenso’s record)

It is utterly absurd therefore to say that in Article 2, THEY SOMEHOW RETAINED IT.

Therefore, whatever the meaning of “tino rangatiratanga” it means nothing remotely like sovereignty.

The only tenable meaning is “full possession”.

Moreover it was assured to ALL the people of NZ.
By Bruce Moon

Further, Mike Butler explains Kawanatanga & Rangitiratanga here >

Also further, the chiefs speeches prior to signing the treaty indicate that they were fully aware that they were ceding FULL sovereignty >

5) CF says > “French missionaries present at the signing were recorded by the British missionary printer Colenso as saying: ‘the chiefs have no intention of ceding their sovereignty”. “ unquote

Well here is the link to Colenso’s AUTHENTIC report, can you see the quote above in it? >

6) CF says > “Why did the British offer a treaty instead of just taking over” unquote

The only reason the British did not take over was that a strong humanitarian movement centred on the churches influenced British colonial policy and this meant the Colonial Secretary Lord Normanby genuinely tried to treat New Zealand inhabitants better than happened in earlier colonisations. (CF agrees on this as well)

7) CF says > “The Declaration of Independence of 1835 (did you know we had one? Most people don’t) had been recognised several times by Britain, meaning that they had already recognised Māori mana o te whenua (sovereignty). “ unquote

Yes it was ‘recognised’ but not authorised or ratified. It was a non-event and NO FUNCTIONING NEW ZEALAND-WIDE GOVERNMENT CAME INTO EXISTENCE AS A RESULT OF THE DECLARATION.

Clause 4 (from memory) states that the chiefs would meet in congress every year and form new laws – I challenge CF to provide evidence of the few chiefs (mostly one related tribe and mostly North of Auckland) ever meeting in the years 1836, 37, 38 and 39, further I challenge her to provide evidence of any laws they enacted.

See more on the 1835 Declaration of Independence here >

8) CF says > “Not every iwi signed either; Tūhoe, Tūwharetoa, Waikato, and Te Arawa among them. “ unquote

Correct but sovereignty can be transferred in other ways - 

There are three ways in which one state may acquire sovereignty over another – by cession, by conquest, and by occupation. The British government gained the sovereignty over New Zealand through four ways.

1. Cession by treaty. A total of 512 chiefs, including 13 women, signed the Treaty of Waitangi, mostly the Maori language text, at 34 locations around New Zealand between February 6 and May 21, 1840. As a reminder, all the treaty actually says is that the Queen is sovereign and Maori are her subjects, with the rights of subjects, including possession of property.

2. Proclamation. Lieutenant Governor William Hobson proclaimed sovereignty over the North Island on May 21, 1840, on the grounds of cession by treaty. Major Thomas Bunbury and Captain Joseph Nias R.N. proclaimed sovereignty over Stewart Island on June 5 on the basis of Cook’s discovery, and over the South Island on June 17, at Port Underwood, on the basis of cession. The proclamations appeared in the London Gazette on October 2, 1840.

3. Occupation. Around 2000 non-Maori, predominantly British people occupied New Zealand in 1840. By 1858, settlers outnumbered Maori by 3000: 59,000 to 56,000. By 1881 there were 500,000 settlers.

4. Conquest. If the defeats of tribes who took up arms against the government during the 1860s is to be considered, the British government also confirmed sovereignty over New Zealand by conquest. In those wars, a total of 2154 anti-government Maori and 745 pro-government Maori, settlers and British soldiers were killed.

And a Fifth way has been suggested The fifth was purchase. The crown purchased most of the South Island (the top of the South Island was bought off the New Zealand Company which had bought it pre Treaty) and also large tracts of the North Is. This was enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty.

9) CF says > “Also, an internationally recognised doctrine of contractual law called Contra Preferentium states that where there is ambiguity or conflict over the terms of a treaty or contract that the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the draftsman – the one who provided the wording of the contract. This means that the Treaty in the indigenous language is the one that must be given precedence. “unquote

"CONTRA PROFERENTEM", a self-serving argument used by treatyists, is a doctrine of contractual interpretation providing that, where a promise, agreement or term is ambiguous, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording.


The only ambiguity is that introduced by 1980s re-interpretations.

So if the "contra proferentem" doctrine is used on those 1980s interpretations, the preferred meaning should be the one that works against the interests of the party who provided the wording, which would be in those cases, against the interpretations provided by Hugh Kawharu and the Waitangi Tribunal.

10) CF says > “Doesn’t it (the treaty) just make us all one New Zealand? - Yes it does” unquote

Correct - The original true Treaty Of Waitangi (Maori language) was a great race uniting document that gave ALL New Zealanders (not just Maori) equality, protection (law & order) and ownership of their lands - it is later translations and interpretations that have caused the racial issues in New Zealand today.

11) CF says > “It has the potential to foster a real partnership “ unquote

Like a true treatyist CF harps on about ‘partnership’, there is not even an inference of partnership in the treaty – I challenge CF to point to the word/s or clause/s in the TOW that she believes infer a ‘partnership’

12) CF says > “Article three gives Māori ‘the same rights and privileges as British subjects’ in the English version and ‘promises to protect Māori and give them the same rights as British subjects’ in the Māori version. “ unquote

Here again CF confuses readers with the two version (either ignorantly or cunningly?)

In both versions Article 3 gives maoris protection and the same rights and privileges as British subjects.

Ko te tuatoru

Hei wakaritenga mai hoki tenei mo te wakaaetanga ki te Kawanatanga o te Kuini – Ka tiakina e te Kuini o Ingarani nga tangata maori katoa o Nu Tirani ka tukua ki a ratou nga tikanga katoa rite tahi ki ana mea ki nga tangata o Ingarani.

Article third (what the above ^^ was translated from)
In return for the cession of their Sovreignty [sic] to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.

ENGLISH VERSION (Busby discard / Freeman / Official English Version)
Article the Third
In consideration thereof Her Majesty the Queen of England extends to the Natives of New Zealand Her royal protection and imparts to them all the Rights and Privileges of British Subjects.

Note: there was no need to grant protection for the Europeans that were already here because they were mostly British subjects already and so had that protection.

13) CF says > “Unfortunately, it (the TOW) was broken a lot. Māori weren’t able to vote under the 1852 Constitution Act because they owned land communally (incidentally this is the reason for the later creation of the Māori Seats for Parliament). “ unquote

Bruce Moon explains > When a legislature was established in 1852/4 in NZ, naturally the British model was followed with a property qualification and many settlers were excluded. Once again, country electorates had far fewer voters than town ones - in the Canterbury Provincial Council, country electorates had only a third of the voters of town ones so their electors had much more power in the scheme of things.

Because very few Maoris had an individual property qualification it is true that initially few of them had the right to vote. Then, however, it was realized that, in a situation quite unlike that to which the settlers were accustomed, most Maori land was held communally so most Maoris, it could indeed be said, were landholders in their own way.

Therefore, about 1862, the rules were altered so that all Maori men holding land in common, i.e. most of them, were enfranchised but the rules were not altered for settlers. FOR SOME YEARS THEREFORE, VIRTUALLY ALL MAORI MEN HAD THE VOTE BUT MOST SETTLERS DID NOT - CLEARLY IT WAS THE SETTLERS, NOT THE MAORIS, WHO WERE AT A DISADVANTAGE!

In due course the arbitrary nature of it all was recognized and in about 1867 the vote was extended to all adult men, irrespective of race, criminals and the mentally unsound only being excluded.
Read on here >

14) CF says > “They weren’t included in the Old Age Pensions in the 1890s...” unquote

The 1898 Old-age Pensions Act, which was a world first, gave a small means-tested pension to elderly people with few assets who were 'of good moral character'.

You will see that Sections 7 and 8 did not exclude Maori on this link > (just left click outside of Dropbox signin/login to view PDF)

I ask CF to provide any other evidence to back up her assertions.

I suggest CF is either ignorant or lying?

15) CF says > “Their lands were invaded in the 1860s when they protested illegal sales and were later confiscated. “ unquote

This all started with one related tribe wanting to sell land and the other part of the tribe did not and so a feud started which spilt over onto neighbouring settler farms in Taranaki, so the Government stepped in to restore peace. Things escalated from here and became a sovereignty rebellion – not a land war, further no lands were initially invaded by Europeans.

Yes land was LEGALLY confiscated AFTER warnings and AFTER the rebellions were quelled (not before)

See here >

16) CF says > “ Māori were denied the right to seek spiritual or medical guidance from Tohunga under the 1907 Tohunga Suppression Act.” unquote

The Tohunga Suppression Act 1907 was intended to stop people using traditional Māori healing practices which had a supernatural or spiritual element. It grew out of concern over the practices of some self-appointed tohunga who played on superstition often travelling from pā to pā claiming to cure all kinds of illness.


The Tohunga Suppression Act was presented by Māori MP James Carroll AND SUPPORTED BY THE FOUR MĀORI MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT. It was passed in 1907. The preamble to the Act read:

“Every person who gathers Maoris around him by practising on their superstition or credulity, or who misleads or attempts to mislead any Maori by professing or pretending to possess supernatural powers in the treatment or cure of any disease, or in the foretelling of future events, or otherwise, is liable on summary conviction before a Magistrate to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds or to imprisonment for a period not exceeding six months.”

There were few prosecutions under the Act, and few convictions – its main effect was to drive tohunga underground. In 1962, it was repealed.

The Act has also been viewed as a breach of the Treaty of Waitangi, as it challenged traditional Maori wisdom – considered to be one of the taonga (treasures) that Maori were promised under the second article of the Treaty.

However, on 2009, five people were convicted of the manslaughter of their family member Janet Moses after drowning her in a ritual after advice from a tohunga that she was suffering under a makutu, or Maori curse.

17) CF says > “They weren’t allowed to speak their own language at school, and would get strapped for doing so.” unquote

This was at the request of the wise maori elders (parents etc) they wanted their children to be able to take advantage from the new economy and fit into the new society.

Further ALL children were strapped for school misdemeanours not just maoris, things like looking out the window, spelling mistakes, writing left handed....

See here >

18) CF says > “ So the Treaty gave them the same rights, but a succession of governments denied them the same rights. And that ‘protection’? Not super evident. “ unquote

Since 1840 many Acts and Laws have been passed with good intention to help maori adapt to European society. But today’s crop of agenda driven griever maori and their European sycophants twist these to put them in bad light.

A prime example is the Native Schools Act 1867 which decreed that English should be the only language used in the education of Māori children, today’s part-maori grievers spread the tale that ‘maori was beaten out of the children’, yes in some cases children were physically punished for speaking maori, in those days ALL children were physically punished if rules were breached.

The opportunist grievers conveniently forget that this was at the request of the wise maori elders who wanted maori children to be equipped for the changing society and economy that colonisation brought. There was/is no law preventing maoris from keeping their language or culture alive in their own environment as many other races do.

If the government had not of helped maori learn the English language then today’s grievers and their European sycophants would be beating the door down at the Waitangi Tribunal and bleating that the govt breached the TOW in not treating maori as equal British subjects in not making the English language available to them. - Damned if you do and damned if you don’t.

19) CF says > “But the ‘special rights’ that people usually mean are rights to land and fisheries. In which case – yes. Māori rights to these things are guaranteed both in the Māori version (Article 2 guarantees tino rangatiratanga remember) and also in the English version (Article 2 guarantees ‘full, exclusive, and undisturbed possession of their lands and estates, forests, fisheries and other properties”.) “ unquote

There were no ‘special rights’ in the maori language treaty that approx 500 chiefs signed – Article 2 referred to ALL New Zealanders

Article 2 (maori language)

Ko te tuarua
Ko te Kuini o Ingarani ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangitira ki nga hapu – ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani te tino rangatiratanga o o ratou wenua o ratou kainga me o ratou taonga katoa. Otiia ko nga Rangatira o te wakaminenga me nga Rangatira katoa atu ka tuku ki te Kuini te hokonga o era wahi wenua e pai ai te tangata nona te Wenua – ki te ritenga o te utu e wakaritea ai e ratou ko te kai hoko e meatia nei e te Kuini hei kai hoko mona.

Article second
The Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and to ALL THE PEOPLE OF NEW ZEALAND, the POSSESSION of their lands, dwellings and all their property. But the chiefs of the Confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.

CF’s English version is a non-event as Hobson had declared the Maori language treaty as the de facto treaty.

20) CF says > (Re Littlewood Treaty) > “But the key thing to note – whatever this document is, it is NOT a treaty. It isn’t signed. By anyone.” unquote

Clever girl :-) - that ^^ is correct it is an unsigned draft and believed to be the original draft that was translated into maori at Waitangi. I understand it was CF’s ilk that named it a treaty (no one else LOL).

21) CF says > “Why can’t we just move on?” unquote

It is those 'supremacist maori' who in their complete lack of ethical individualism are unable to transcend tribal mentality who are the "DIVIDERS" of our society.

Tribal consciousness even divides those of the same race into warring tribes / clans / factions.

New Zealanders who believe in racial equality and one rule for all have simply been cast by regressives as the enemy 'tribe'

Tribalism REQUIRES AN ENEMY, and won’t rest until it finds or invents one.

22) CF says > “ It’s the same in every colonised country where the indigenous people are given second class citizenship. “ unquote

Does this look like second class maori citizenship to you?

* Maori-only schools,

* Special Maori content in the education curriculum,

* Maori-only education scholarships,

* Maori-only housing projects,

* Maori-only health initiatives,

* Maori-only welfare initiatives,

* Maori-only prisoner programmes,

* Maori-only positions on government agencies,

* Maori-only consultation rights under the Resource Management Act,

* Maori-only co-management of parks, rivers, lakes, and the coastline,

* Maori-only ownership rights to the foreshore and seabed,

* A special Maori Authority tax rate of 17.5 percent,

* A special Maori-only exemption to allow blood relatives to qualify for charitable status,

* Maori language funding,

* Maori radio and TV,

* Maori-only seats on local councils,

* Maori-only appointments onto local government committees,

* Maori-only local government Statutory Boards,

* Maori-only local government advisory committees,

* Maori seats in Parliament,

23) CF says > Māori weren’t happy about the Treaty being broken. They’ve basically been protesting since 1842 and the Wairau Affray, followed by Hōne Heke’s famous chopping down of the Flagpole in 1844. “ unquote

Hone Heke's 1845 rebellion against Crown governance had nothing to do with "breaches of the Treaty of Waitangi" as is misrepresented today.

When the Governor relocated New Zealand's capital from Kororareka to Auckland, most of the ships that had formerly made landfall at the Bay of Islands now tied up as Auckland.

Heke was angered by the loss of most of his formerly lucrative customs and berthage revenues. Nor was he making money any more from supplying ship girls to sex-starved sailors.

Even more infuriating, the mana of hosting the Governor had now gone to Ngapuhi's traditional enemies, Ngati Whatua.
Credit: RPC

24) CF says > “They (maoris) tried to reclaim their power during the 19th Century through PEACEFUL means (the Kīngitanga,” unquote

After a number of meetings in the Waikato the Kingitanga movement was formed, but not all chiefs supported such a separate government or a rival King, Temuera te Amohau said “One of our chiefs, Timoti, was the only man of the Arawa people who signed the Treaty of Waitangi, but we shall not depart from the pledge he then gave. We will not join the king tribes. My king is Queen Victoria.”


In June 1858 an alternative royal authority was chosen and anointed, Te Wherowhero became the first Maori ‘King’ known as Potatau 1.

This King movement in fact was another ‘Land league’ as its members placed their land under the mana of the King, thus giving him the right to forbid sales.

Other important characteristics of the movement were it represented the rejection of European rule, and ultimately of European influence which was in contrast to the unity in the Treaty of Waitangi. IN SHORT – A TREATY BREACH.


Before any such uprising could occur, the government issued an order, on july 9, 1863, requiring all maori living north of the Mangatawhiri river, TO TAKE AN OATH OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE QUEEN AND GIVE UP THEIR WEAPONS. Those refusing to do so were required to retire to the Waikato. A FURTHER PROCLAMATION DATED JULY 11, 1863, WARNED THAT THOSE WHO WAGE WAR AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE THEIR LANDS CONFISCATED.

Colonial government soldiers crossed the Mangatawhiri River on July 12, 1863. Maori unwilling to take the oath were evicted as the colonial force advanced. Fighting occurred at Meremere, Ngaruawahia, Rangiaowhia (southwest of Cambridge) and at Orakau (near Te Awamutu) during 1863 and 1864. The final military action in Waikato was on April 2, 1864, at Orakau. A proclamation confiscating land was issued in December 1864 under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863. Wiremu Tamehana made peace in 1865.

25) CF says > “They tried to reclaim their power during the 19th Century through PEACEFUL means ....... and Parihaka” unquote

Re Parihaka see here >

26) CF says > “ ..but NZ is a country that (according to the Treaty) includes a special partnership between Māori and everyone else.” unquote

As stated at # 11 above there is NO ‘PARTNERSHIP’ - It defies logic to believe that, arguably, the Greatest Empire in the 1800s sailed half way around the world to go into a ‘partnership’ with a menagerie of warring chiefs who were begging for protection, and yet fought the Zulu Nation costing thousands of lives to rule over them. The British did not do partnerships at that time.

27) CF says > “The aim is for the historical claims settlement process to be complete by 2020. This DOESN’T MEAN THAT THERE WILL BE NO MORE CLAIMS – if Māori believe that the Government is breaching the Treaty they are able to lodge a claim with the Tribunal. THIS IS AN ONGOING PROCESS to ensure that Māori rights under the Treaty are upheld.” unquote

And there New Zealanders you have it in black and white – the claims will never end – unless Kiwis do something about it.

28) CF says > “Sometimes ensuring equity is different from ensuring equality. Preferential treatment/affirmative action is not apartheid (I think it’s deeply insulting to suggest it is and shows a lack of understanding of the history of apartheid), but a way to promote equity. “ unquote

These two links expose CF’s ‘Equality and Equity BS

Equality >

Equity >

FOOTNOTE: The Treaty of Waitangi was first drafted by James Busby, approved by Hobson and then translated into Maori by the Williams father and son who were fluent in the maori language. It was read to the chiefs at Waitangi in both languages (English language by Hobson and Maori language by Williams). Busby who was a maori sympathiser never objected at this reading or the next day at the signing.

Further, Hobson declared the Maori language treaty that was signed at Waitangi as the de facto treaty so what Fraser is referring to as the English treaty is null and void.

A colour coded Treaty timeline explanation can be seen here >

Maori and Littlewood draft here >

Busby discard / Freeman version / Fraser’s Official English Treaty here >

Littlewood Draft here >



The claim being made, and taken to the Waitangi Tribunal, that high rates of Maori suicide are linked to ongoing effects of colonisation is totally incorrect.

Around 1974, some 134 years after the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, the rate of suicides among Maori was in fact relatively low.

In 1970-74 the rates for young men aged 15-24 years were 8.4 per 100,000 for Maori and 10.2 for non-Maori. This was well past the nineteenth century period of colonisation.

The rates then grew considerably. By 1984-88 suicide rates were 23.2 for young Maori men and 26.0 for young non-Maori men.

Present-day suicides reflect the hopelessness associated with the high unemployment that is now common, particularly for young men of every ethnicity, and are in no way a consequence of long-ago colonisation.

By Dr John Robinson



Apparently a non-maori student can do very well in a difficult Physics exam and get up to 4 NCEA  credits.

But a student of maori descent can set the table and fry, boil and cook an egg on a marae and get 2+2+2+2 = 8 NCEA credits!

Understanding NCEA
When you get to Year 12 (6th Form), you need a total of 80 credits to get to the 7th form. Everybody can bring 20 credits from the previous year, so then you need another 60. Of those 60, a person of maori descent can get 41 from simple tasks so only need to do real work for 19 credits throughout the year (not difficult!).

Of course everyone can get credits for tasks like doing a Defensive Driving Course etc, but that is not race discriminatory.

Type into Google the code of the task and ‘NZQA’ (ie 21232 NZQA), you can download the registered unit standard of this nonsense.

Please click on images to enlarge



Iwi want ‘right of first refusal’ on land sales (not only surplus) Tauranga City Council, reported in the Bay Times (Page.6) Tuesday 12th April 2016.

These are try ons with serious implications, as no doubt iwi in elsewhere have the same aspirations as their Tauranga cousins and to put it mildly it is just another rort.

As usual Maori interests got the media headlines while the two submitters below who made robust written submissions got very little mention, which is par for the course.

A decision is due on 9th May 2016.

~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~

Draft Amendment to Council Land: Recognition of Tangata Whenua Interests and Aspirations Policys

My name is Richard Prince and I am a ratepayer from Welcome Bay.

I am surprised that something that went through an extensive submission process little more than one year ago is now being reconsidered.

What surprises me even more is how these amendments are being presented.

Both the public notice and the Statement of Policy say-

“The policy amendments seek to clarify”
Clarify – Now I wouldn't want to use the word sophism but euphemism is certainly appropriate.

I have always thought of a clarification as being just a notch up from a typo, but what we have here is effectively a rewrite of the policy. The Council has misled the community and ratepayers by endeavouring to pass this re-write off as clarification.

Under Policy Objectives – the words “disposing of land no longer required” is proposed to be removed.

Under Principlesno longer required by Council” is proposed to be removed.
These amendments are fundamental changes and change what was Iwi/Hapu interests in surplus land to all land.

5.1 This amendment appears prima facie to make it easier for Iwi/hapu to make claims for Council land.

Land Transfer Exceptions - “Where land is subject to a statutory process such as an offer back to a previous owner” is to be removed. Does these then mean the Council is prepared to flout the requirements of say the Public Works Act to satisfy Iwi/Hapu interests?

Time frames – Time frames are vital so that decisions can be made and outcomes achieved and not, as proposed, subject to some sort of negotiation. ,

I want now to go back to the top of page 2

Note that Tauranga Moana Tangata Whenua have been through the Treaty of Waitangi settlement process which addressed historical claims. This Council policy and associated potential land transfers does not apply to land grievances under Treaty of Waitangi processes”.

Under Waitangi settlement processes Iwi receive additional compensation to cover privately owned land that is not available under the settlement process. This is to give them the ability to buy land they may be interested in the marketplace.

To quote Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson on the settlement “It will enable the Iwi to enjoy the benefits of settlement and look forward to a stronger future. These settlements will allow the Iwi to build a strong base for their for their people and allow them to participate fully in the economic, social and cultural life of their regions”.

Council land is in essence privately owned and Council is entrusted with the care of these assets on behalf of all of the community.

* It is not for the Council to usurp the role of the Crown.
* It is not for the Council to add to the settlement quantum by gifting community owned assets or selling them at a discount to the disadvantage of ratepayers.

First right of refusal always has the whiff of sweet-heart deals.

This is particularly true where income streams are involved such as the claims for Mauao Recreational Reserve and the Mobil site on Chapel St. Secrecy over negotiations and an endeavour to keep the lease values secret so making it difficult for the community to assess the values does nothing for the Council's cause. Reference to the Commercial Property sections of any newspaper will show that advertisements of where commercial property is offered for sale will give full lease details. The only reason I can see for this information to be confidential is if some sort of sweet-heart deal is being considered. Think of the current hoo-ha over the secret Panamanian Trusts.

Sale by public auction is fully transparent and allows all interested parties to be involved in the sale process.

It is important that the views and aspirations of Iwi/Hapu are listened to and I expect nothing less than, that Council will take these into consideration. Where I have a difficulty is when satisfying these aspirations it is at the expense of the rest of the community and ratepayers.

No-one should be disadvantaged because of their ethnicity and no-one should be advantaged for exactly the same reason.

I request that these amendments be rejected in their entirety.

Richard Prince
11th April 2016

~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~    ~~~~

DC 62 . Pages 98--128

My name is Rob Paterson, I reside at Mount Maunganui and I am a submitter herein.

Madam Chairperson and Councillors, thank you for the opportunity to address you on this Draft Policy.

I have read the submissions made by Tony Fellingham, Richard Prince and Chris Lee and I support what they have to say.

I refer to my current submission of 10th March 2016 (page 116). In 2014, I made 3 submissions to the current policy on 22nd April 2014, 15th August 2014 and finally on 16th September 2014. Copies of these are attached and I would just like to take you through these to remind Councillors about what I said at that time which is still relevant and pertinent today.
I fully endorse what I stated in those submissions I also attach copy of October 2014 Bay Times media release by Councillor Steve Morris, and wish to comment on the Chapel Street Mobil Service Station site in particular which is presumably reclaimed land see 1930s circa photograph which is self explanatory.
In this regard my understanding is that it is alleged by maori interests that their forebears walked over this land via a track to the sea to collect pipis. Well frankly it is hard to see this has much validity and I ask what investigations Council staff make about these types of claims and are claimants asked to produce evidence which is then scrutinised or is it just taken as gospel. On the face of it the claim looks nebulous and tenuous.
The Mount Recreation reserve is on the short list too and if the public mood is anything to go by then Council should proceed with great caution with regard to this. The current draft policy proposals have by the looks of things been discussed and formulated via TCC Maori Committee Meetings (formal & informal) from early 2015, well out of the general public’s gaze.

In particular I refer you to the informal forum held on 10 December 2015.

  1. Maori interests have had compensation already included in their Treaty of Waitangi settlements for any private land issues and that is the category Council land falls into namely private land.
  2. Originally the 2014 policy was implemented primarily to apply to only surplus Council land that was up for sale. Now under the current proposal it looks like any land owned by Council that takes maori interests’ fancy is fair game.
  3. These types of deals usually have confidential factors like wishing to keep details private and confidential, i.e. consideration paid (if any) terms lease payments etc. away from public scrutiny.
  4. New Policy para 5.1 doesn’t make much sense to me. Can someone please explain how it is relevant in the context of the draft policy anyway.
I ask how do these initiatives arise in the first place and who starts off the process maori interests or Council staff. From submissions made by some members of the maori committee I see references are made to rights of first refusal, the Treaty, litigation and so forth. Well in my view these don’t and can’t apply here and rattling the sabre has no place in this forum. The talk of creating full land lists of likely land available in anticipation is equally fatuous and the costs unwarranted -when the land (if any) becomes available for sale then that is the time to address the details.

What purports here to go under the guise of amendments to the existing Policy being made for clarification purposes is nothing more than a total rewrite of the Policy adopted on 14th October 2014, especially when only slightly over a year has elapsed since then and that looks like indecent haste and kneejerking. Current policy seems to work fine, I haven’t heard any complaints and if no approaches have been made under this policy to date, that reinforces this and my assertion it is working. As they say, ‘silence is golden’. I stress Councils duty is to all its ratepayers/citizens and race based policies have no place in the equation.

Council Decision Requested on Draft Policy
That Council reject the Draft Policy in its entirety and retain the status quo (2014 policy) which is clear precise, straightforward, fair, equitable to all ratepayers/citizens and workable.

Even under the existing policy any sale must be at full market value with no gifting sanctioned and nothing must change in that regard.

Rob Paterson
11th April 2016


The Northern Advocate 1/1/16

By Alexandra Newlove


It was a tense hour in council chambers as Whangarei's 14 non-Maori councillors debated whether to allow a Maori adviser to contribute to its Planning Committee meetings. Mayor Sheryl Mai used her casting vote to confirm the Maori adviser role, deciding the 7-7 split and saying she was proud of the final result.

However, councillors who voted against the move — Shelley Deeming, Greg Martin, Brian McLachlan, Tricia Cutforth, Sue Glen, Susy Bretherton and Stuart Bell —were anxious to point out that they were not "anti-Maori engagement”. Ms Cutforth said she felt WDC needed to make more use of hapu representative group Te Huinga, which came under WDC’s Maori partnership agreement Te Karearea. Te Huinga originally requested two Maori members with voting rights to go on the Planning Committee.

“I have great respect for the people sitting here,” Ms Cutforth said of Te Karearea members who watched from the public gallery. “But I will not be supporting this.”

She said having non-elected Maori on committees would risk fewer Maori standing for council, saying she supported a “far more representative council”.

“The other risk is . . . people will not vote for Maori because they perceive Maori are already at the table,” she said.

Ms Mai said she did not follow this logic, while Planning Committee chairman Greg Innes said the adviser role was a “common sense approach” to giving Maori a voice on the all-Pakeha elected council.

Meanwhile Ms Glen was on the other side of the debate questioning “where’s the common sense gone?”.

“I don’t see anywhere that it is a requirement of the Local Government Act to have Maori on our committees . . . We don’t just look after one group because someone thinks it’s the priority,” she said.

About 26 per cent of Whangarei’s population was Maori, while both the Local Government and Resource Management acts demanded Maori input in council decision making. Te Karearea member Mike Kake watched the debate and said “look, I’ve seen it before” when asked how he felt watching some councillors push back against Maori input. The precedent for allowing non-elected members on committees was set when WDC co-opted an external accountant onto its Audit and Risk Committee, after the realisation this committee lacked expertise.

“In a way [councillors] need to get a hold of what the legislation allows — but we knew it was going to be close,” Mr Kake said. “I think there needs to be a better understanding about what we are trying to achieve in terms of representation from tangata whenua.”

Earlier this year two appointments followed a similar debate around council’s nonstanding committees. Mr Kake was co-opted onto the council’s 20/20 Inner City Revitalisation Committee as a non-voting adviser, while Taipari Munro joined the Civic Honours Selection Committee.


Democracy Action Chair, Lee Short, was on TV3's Story 17/12/15 talking about Auckland Council's undemocratic and unnecessary Mana Whenua rules.


By Heather du Plessis-Allan

If you are in Auckland and thinking of buying a house, you will want to watch this story or if you are somewhere else in New Zealand and like to indulge in a bit of schadenfreude in regards to the Auckland housing market, you will also want to know this.

New rules mean thousands of houses in Auckland City will need permission from an iwi to make big changes.

One house for sale with four bedrooms, three bathrooms and two garages would have to consult up to thirteen different iwi.

Anything which requires a resource consent would have to go through the council and then to iwi.

This is because the house next door is culturally significant and may include a burial site.

Due to this burial site, any house within 100m needs iwi approval for structural changes which affects around 40 properties.

Story went to investigate these new rules which may affect more than 13,000 properties around the city.

Watch the video for the full Story report HERE or click on the image above


The Rena

A recent dive on the Rena video shows plenty of fish and the regeneration of sea vegetation >



Democracy Action Press Release 17/6/15

Democracy Action is appalled that South Auckland police are being instructed to identify a particular group of citizens for different treatment on the grounds of race.

Responding to the One News report that Maori drivers caught at the wheel without a licence or in breach of their conditions were to be referred for training and not given a ticket, Democracy Action Chairman, Lee Short, says:

“The law is being applied in a racially discriminatory manner when Maori drivers who are breaking the law are singled out for different treatment. This is contrary to the rule of law – a principle that means everyone is subject to the law, and it must be applied equally to all."

“If the police believe the best way to reduce offending is to offer support and training instead of a fine, this should apply equally to all citizens, regardless of race.”


Auckland International Airport
The name changing of New Zealand creeps on, here is an image of the wall display at the Auckland International Airport. All incoming people pass it to reach customs when they come into the country.



This is what has been placed on the front of the building.

Put the Maori words “te pataka korero o te hau kapua” into Google for a translation and this is what comes out: “the libraries of the gas cloud”.





I was born a Kiwi,
the land belonged to me;
The mountain peaks, the hillsides,
the beaches and the sea.
The National Parks, historic sites –
part of heredity -
but now they are no longer mine
because of ancestry.
To blend two races into one
a Treaty was designed;
it’s purpose being to create
a country colour blind.
Somehow the intent of that deed
was twisted to divide –
with Maori on the one hand,
others on the other side.
The spirit of the Treaty,
the purpose of it all,
was to unite two races
with equality for all.
Our leaders have all failed us
With rulings that they pass,
Although I’m still a Kiwi
now I’m Kiwi, second class

Mitch Morgan


Should New Plymouth council have a separate Maori ward

By Gareth Morgan

The link below provides a video of the 2hr meeting/debate in New Plymouth last Monday.

Gareth Morgan also summarises each speaker's main points from the meeting in text.


Critic slams iwi 'pirates'
One of the country's most prominent philanthropists has been labelled a racist after threatening to pull the plug on $1 million of funding to the Maungatautari Ecological Island Trust, saying Maori are trying to take over.

Economist Gareth Morgan said successful iwi attempts to take greater control of the project were "a case of blatant self-serving opportunism".

The hard work of volunteers, private funders and landowners was being "threatened by piracy," he said. He is calling for the flagship 3400 hectare ecological island to be given national park status to protect it from political gamesmanship.

Multimillionaire Dr Morgan said iwi were "seizing and capitalising" on the community's, landowners' and private funders' efforts.

"My concern is their contribution to work and funding has been zilch.

"If they had been at all honest they would have made this move before, not after, the fence was erected." He said few, if any, private funders "will be willing to pour money down the throats of the wide-mouth frogs of indigenous imperialism".

Mana whenua had "struggled to lift a finger so far" and now the hard work was done and money contributed, they were demanding effective control of the mountain's future, Mr Morgan said.........


Two job advertisements, there is probably an army of these leeches
Senior Policy Advisor (12 month fixed-term contract)
The Independent Maori Statutory Board’s purpose is to assist the Auckland Council by promoting issues of significance for Mana Whenua and Matawaka of Tamaki Makaurau and to ensure that the Auckland Council is meeting its statutory treaty obligations.

The Independent Maori Statutory Board (IMSB) Senior Policy Advisor will provide leadership and technical expertise in relation to policy development, review, monitoring and evaluation to support the Board in its decision-making as well as all other services that the IMSB Board needs to meet its statutory responsibilities.

Responsibilities of this position will include:

• The provision of advice on strategies, policy, planning, interventions, funding and monitoring.

• Taking leadership and technical expertise in relation to the fulfilment of the Council’s Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations.

• Supporting the Board in their engagement with Mana Whenua, the Maori community and the wider community of Tamaki Makaurau.

• Policy analysis and recommendations on the schedule of issues of significance for Maori.

• Proposing changes to council documents and processes to be more responsive to Maori.

• To provide advice on the design and execution of such documents and processes to implement the Council’s statutory responsibilities towards Maori.

• To identify cross-cutting opportunities and issues across the Board’s work programme and participate in scoping and implementing these.

• To provide policy and planning advice and analysis across the full range of Council issues including any funding and budgetary implications.

• Developing and implementing strategies to support and promote cultural, economic, environmental and social issues of significance.

• To support the Independent Maori Statutory Board to engage meaningfully with the Council on policy issues.

Solicitor - Treaty & Maori Land Court
A fantastic opportunity exists for a solicitor to work in the Treaty claims area and on Maori legal issues in general.

Our team of passionate professionals is actively involved in a number of ongoing Waitangi Tribunal inquiries. If litigating is your particular interest, our workload will compel your rapid development in this regard. You will conduct legal and historical research on a wide variety of interesting claim issues. You will help to prepare evidence,submissions and other court documentation.

The firm also advises its clients in relation to a range of contemporary Treaty issues. Our upcoming litigation programme includes High Court and Maori Land Court work as well.

We are looking for team players who have a passion for the law and who have a particular interest in social justice.