NZ Centre for Political Research

WAKE UP NEW ZEALAND

I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister expressing my extreme concern over the disproportional number of Maori in the Constitutional Advisory Panel and his government's reluctance to establish the authenticity of the Treaty document. I also sent copies to several M.P.s and was pleased to receive a reply from Mrs Tariana Turia. For my information she included a copy of the publication"Treaty of Waitangi, Questions and Answers" published by Network Waitangi which I presume to be a subsidiary of the Waitangi Tribunal. Before reading the booklet I looked at the back cover to find it presented what appeared to be a collection of phrases transcribed like graffiti on a wall. The phrases were as follows: "KNOW WHERE TO STAND ON MAORI LAND" "NZ is MAORI LAND" "The Treaty is our constitution""THE TREATY IS A BROKEN CONTRACT" "Maori Sovereignty is good for Pakeha" "THE TREATY ALWAYS SPEAKS HONOUR THE TREATY" " TINO RANGATIRATANGA HONOURABLE KAWANATANGA" I knew I was in for a treat..

Section 7 Why was a treaty necessary? " As Pakeha regard of Maori authority and the Declaration increased many rangatira began to consider treating with the Crown to ensure that those whom Charles Darwin called "the refuse of society" were held accountable for their actions." Darwin did visit in the "Beagle" in 1835 and with Fitzroy and Busby visited Williams at the mission station at Waimate. He was "pleased to see an oasis of English civilisation and approved of the Maori labourers and maids whose clean and tidy appearance formed a wonderful contrast with the women of the filthy hovels in Kororadika" Whilst saying that the English in Kororareka were "the refuse of society " he also observed that the Maori "lacked the charm and simplicity he had found in Tahiti."

Article 38 states: "Before 1840 Maori had customs of social, economic and cultural well-being ......" Fact: Between. 1810 and 1840 50,000 Maori were slaughtered in inter-tribal wars. Doesn't sound much like cultural well-being to me.

In 1860 two hundred chiefs, many of whom had been at the Treaty signing and a number that was far in excess of the number present at Waitangi, gathered at Kohimarama in Auckland. They were addressed by the Governor, Thomas Gore Browne and in a few days of discussions the chiefs came to unanimous agreement that the Treaty gave full sovereignty to the Queen and dismissed the Waikato King movement as a breach of the Treaty and of no account yet this did not warrant a a mention in the book. A report of this meeting was published in the main Maori newspaper, Te Karere, at the time.

Nowhere in this publication was the point raised that all present day Maori are at least half Pakeha.

The grossly selective and distorted nature of the quotes, as evidenced in "Why the Treaty " and in the graffiti phrases, permeate the book and destroy any pretence of honest reportage. This publication is a fine example of Nazi propagandist , Dr Joseph Goebbel's dictum, "The bigger the lie the more likely it is to be believed." The frightening thought is that many of these part-Maori believe what they are writing.

The Treaty was entered into at the request of the Northern Tribes and sovereignty of New Zealand was invested entirely in the Queen.That is what the Treaty says, no more.

Bryan Johnson,
Omokoroa.

Was Dr Ghesquinere alive when Lee Kwan Yew came to London and cried on British T V. begging the Brits. not to pull out of Singapore, the humility of the man made me a admirer of him and his principles, that he passed on to his son, the so called draconian Laws that he introduced to clean the place up, would be another policy that western counties should ad doped, the " rattan" for starters, baning chewing gum, lets have the full gambit if we are going to talk about Singapore.

- John

Obviously, the Singapore model for achieving the economic goals of universal prosperity and welfare is more effective than

1. Income redistributive, have-not poverty perpetuating and savings discouraging welfarism, and

2. Compulsory savings shunning free market liberalism -

leaving those behind in have-not poverty who for whatever reason do not participate in the discipline to "live within one's means", including a systematic "savings for security and profitable investment" factor at the expense of hand-to-mouth consumption.

I understand the compulsory savings rate in Singapore is actually higher than their (low) income tax rate.

If true, then it is a potentially misleading and deplorable omission of a crucial fact, because lowering the tax rate without universally raising the savings and investment rate is wealth creatively helpful only for those, who raise their savings rate for the longer term, ideally for consumption in retirement.

Therefore the most effective priority for emulating the Singapore example in New Zealand would be in amending the NZ Super Fund into a permanent institution of Personal Accounts, with contributions to them built into our taxation system, under the condition of their immediate investment in needed infrastructure as a priority at least until excessive unemployment has disappeared.

- Jens Meder

My wife and I recently lived in Singapore as teachers. No messing around in class there!

Generally Singaporeans are a highly motivated, disciplined people in education, business and daily life. There is an extremely low crime rate. They have a very high work ethic and they are proud of their achievements.

City travel is cheap, efficient and always on time. Why is New Zealand not the same?

(1) Big business is largely owned by foreign companies, therefore "our" profits are "exported" and we are hell-bent on perpetuating the stupidity.

(2)Too many Beneficiaries - people getting tax money for being completely unproductive is destroying the country. There are thousands of jobs available in New Zealand (farming industry + many other spheres) but our population needs to be educated and trained to do them. The entire "Welfare" system needs a serious overhaul.

(3) The education system needs to be scrapped and replaced by a system that educates for realistic life, careers etc.

(4) The millions handed out as reparation for ancient "Colonial Offences" must stop immediately. Once again it is tax money spent on a non productive entity. It is another "fiscal policy" which constantly holds New Zealand back.

(5) New Zealand companies should ALWAYS be given first opportunity to tender for ALL government and semi-government work. For example: To have to buy back the New Zealand Rail System AFTER selling it to a foreign company (which is laughing all the way to the bank) and THEN order untold millions of dollars worth of railway carriages and locomotives from China is just simply financial suicide. Yes the carriages MAY have been cheaper but the knock-on effects of having to pay out dole to those who lose (lost) their jobs, the loss of expertise and the social and psychological harm such stupidity causes certainly decreases the "perceived" savings by ordering from China or any other foreign country for that matter.

Why was a British woman brought in to run our education system and then given a hand-out when she "stuffed up"?

Just a few thoughts.

Regards,
Bill Schneider

I have just read David Round article on he Treaty being included in the Constitution and that it will bring an apartheid situation between Maori and other New Zealanders.

Unfortunately it is already happening.

There are separate schools, training institutions, healthcare and law and order for Maori. Including the fact that if you can prove that you and your family belong to an iwi, you will receive assistance and preferential treatment.

I've seen it happen.

Meanwhile the rest of us get shortchanged and feel resentful at being excluded.

They are already separating themselves from us.

Any policy that favours one race of people over another is going to cause major problems.

It is time that it was addressed and stopped for good.

- Rhys

As a clinical psychologist employed in health and corrections public services during the 1980s and 90s, I was required to attend a number of 'Treaty workshops'. These workshops involved some form of historical account of Maori settlement and the process of getting the Treaty signed, inspection of the wording of the two Treaties, interpretation of what the signing chiefs would have understood the wording to mean, and some of the rough deals and atrocities to which Maori groups were subjected by successive NZ governments (often in the context of violent terrorism related to conflicts between Maori groups and Pakeha settlers or state forces).

The workshops tried to use a 'discovery' process in which participants were asked to consider the meaning of the Treaty in its context and to identify its principles. However, this process was suggestive and manipulative in various ways with a strong expectation that people agree with the principles as seen by the presenters. 'Successful completion' of the workshops was an employment requirement and it seemed clear that attempts to disagree with or assertively debate the topic with the presenters would lead to repercussions.

For me, the result of the each workshop was confusion as to how the principles suggested by presenters (or those nominated by Sir Robin Cooke in the Court of Appeal in 1987, or those adopted by the fourth Labour government in 1989) could be inferred from the Maori and English wordings of the Treaty. It remained unclear to what extent tino rangitiratanga (which could be translated in various ways including 'highest chieftainship') could be consistent with ceding sovereignty to the British Crown, and indeed the term 'tino rangitiratanga' may not be a good translation for 'full exclusive and undisturbed possession' (and 'taonga' may not be a good translation for 'other properties'). The claimed principles seem to rely most heavily on the assumed meaning of terms as translated in the Maori version of the Treaty, whereas one could argue that the English version conveyed most accurately the true intended meaning by those who wrote it and was less vulnerable to the multiple contextually-based meanings of Maori words. Beyond 'undisturbed possession' or 'highest chieftainship' (depending on your preference) it seemed that any other principles would rely on considerable assumption and extrapolation from the wordings.

Nevertheless, reasonably intelligent groups including my professional bodies have continued to speak as though Treaty principles are obvious and furthermore that it is necessary to show respect for the Treaty plus obedience to and promotion of its 'principles' in order to deserve membership of the professional group. There is an assumption, never convincingly explained, that 'respect for the Treaty and its principles' somehow will enhance one's ability to provide services to Maori clients and indeed is a pre-requisite for being able to work safely or usefully with Maori.

The second 'core competency' for registered psychologists in NZ is called 'Diversity, Culture and the Treaty of Waitangi'. In a recent submission as part of a continuing competency programme, under this heading I wrote:

"I have previously attended workshops on te Tiriti O Waitangi and considered various interpretations and implications that have been proffered. While I’m afraid I have found a large proportion of such dialectics to be unconvincing I have a good awareness of the history and context pertaining to te Tiriti and I am very comfortable promoting concepts of partnership as devised in some interpretations.

My childhood experience of living for about two years right next door to (a marae) and observing many marae events as a child and friend of some of Ngai Tamarawaho hapu’s children remains the most profound basis of Maori cultural empathy for me. My musical activities with Maori friends and colleagues have also been valuable."

We shall see if this response is considered sufficiently politically correct for me to be seen as competent in my profession.

- John

Dear editor,

As New Zealand was nominally part of New South Wales from 1787 and a dependency from 1814 to 1841 under the NSW Supreme Court Act, the situation has changed materially. NSW's 1828 Supreme Court Act contains authority to found all the relevant courts and use the same laws as in the UK; New Zealand was touched upon then. That legal system included rules of Chancery - 'equitable jurisdiction.' It gave NSW parity with all the other settlements or colonies. New Zealand's Supreme Court Ordinance was passed here on Dec 22, 1841, ready for a start on Feb. 1, 1842.

NSW not only created three Maori chiefs as public servants, Justices of the Peace, by ancient writ, but already had sued ships' captains if they had behaved cruelly to native people (1813). In 1814 an NZ magistrate was apointed. NSW took all financial responsibility here, funding courts for hearings about NZ, paying the sort of pro-consul, James Busby, the flags offered, passing of the Maori law in 1835, supervising protection of our Chiefs' contracts for Sale and Purchase UNTIL the Land Court moved from Sydney to Auckland.

The Principles of the Treaty were seen by NZ public servants as a right of landowners to sell land, or decline to sell.

NZ's Supreme Court in 1847 repeated 'Principles' known and used in the reign of Edward III of England. Also they were used across Europe similarly in coronation oaths : a named and authorised person as governor (or king), authority by treaty from the residents of a place and a charter to limit the incoming government. The reigning monarch of the society which was, or who were colonising or leasing a place, had to ensure land contracts were lawfully checked.

I believe NZ would be right to seek confirmation of early NSW actions, through the NSW and Australian courts, before creating a constitution with only a Treaty and no limiting Charter. The 1840 Charter was replaced in 1855, after special points were safeguarded in their own Ordinance. Th representative Parliament sat only in 1856, one year before Waikato chiefs and others asked for a new legal system; it was two years until the statutes could be written and passed. Chiefs received a mellowed '1689 Bill of Rights' regarding court process and tribal punishments. The rule for Witnesses or accusers came from the Old Testament.

- Jean

How to get Auckland moving!

I have spent a large part of my working life making submissions to councils, governments etc, some very carefully, professionally and expensively prepared.

Most of that was a complete and utter waste of time!

The powers that be in this country do what they want to do and only take notice of the public's opinion when there is marching in the streets with placards etc.

I was on the "Roads before Rail" committee for many years. Our submissions fell on dead ears. Trains were to solve all of Auckland's transport woes - to hell with roads was the official line!

Finally in shear frustration at lack of results, I personally designed and paid for the making of about 50 large placards on poles advocating more roads for Auckland. That was about 2005 as I recall. My very loyal secretary/PA Louise and I distributed them amongst the marchers in a big Queen Street protest march against the ARC and in particular to get the Chairperson of ARC Gwen Bull sacked. (She was well and truly dumped at the next election!).

As a result of that and all the publicity given to my placards, central government sat up and took note and soon started building more freeways namely:

1 Mt Roskill motorway

2 Mangere Bridge duplication

3 South-western motorway south of Mangere Bridge.

4 Manukau section of South-western motorway

5 Greenhithe motorway

6 Hobsonville motorway

7 Widening of parts of North-western motorway

8 Waterview motorway tunnel


There is much more that needs to be done. Auckland is now stalled with loony, lefty Len trying to run the place. He wants all our rates and taxes (and some) spent on his railway monument to himself.

Only 7% of all trips in Auckland are by public transport of all sorts. Rail has only taken passengers off buses. Rail passenger numbers are now dropping by 6% per year after wasting billions of dollars on improvements. And what for? So the beneficiaries of Otara and Papakura can take their kids to the pictures in town instead of the local cinema! So the CBD pen-pushers who live in West Auckland and South Auckland can get to and from work in 10 minutes less time? They only "work" seven and a half hours a day anyrate; could easily afford to spend a bit more time in a bus!

I often observe the trains in West Auckland off-peak at level crossings; lucky if there are more than 2 or 3 passengers on the whole train; would be far cheaper to send them all door-to-door by free corporate cab!

Auckland is a piddly little city anyrate; places like Shanghai, Chongqing and Mexico City increase by the size of Auckland every year! The whole of New Zealand is just a joke !!!

By all means do your submissions. They will not achieve anything. Key will do anything to stay in power. If that includes selling NZ down the drain to buy the Maori vote then so be it!

New Zealand is stuffed unless we get someone like Stephen Joyce running the show!

If you really want results, then organise a protest march up Queen Street with 100s of big placards!

Cheers
Ron

Is not all this unnecessary sophistication about relative and absolute poverty clarified more reliably through the ages old criterion still in world-wide use today - the actual amount or value of WEALTH OWNED, rather than the more slippery factor of income?

Thus, a high income earner without any wealth ownership is poor like a church rat from the moment his/he income ceases, for whatever reasons.

Therefore, the road ahead for civilization is clearly in direction of the Ownership Society concept, towards at least a minimally meaningful level of personal (retirement) wealth ownership by all citizens eventually, achievably initiated through a factor of personal wealth ownership creative savings built into the taxation system.

It is deplorable, that free market libertarian "Right Wingers" and Socialist "Left Wingers" - both claiming to stand for an economically more effective and "fair" future - tend to evade examining the pros and cons of it, because it does not fit in with their ideologies.

- Jens

Apartheid is what I fear will happen to NZ when the maori eltie get in control, just as has happened in other Pacific Islands.

In some respects I can see where the Danish MP was coming from the other day when she commented about the somewhat basic 'warrior' greeting in NZ.

A comment a number of years ago always comes to mind from a vistor to NZ after being here for a few weeks and who had experienced such a greeting, 'When coming here and being welcomed I had no idea that you had such a sophisticated IT and electronics industry in New Zealand!'. What he saw initially was grass skirts and half naked people and therefore what he assumed, quite incorrectly, was a less intellectually developed country.

A few years ago a similar comment was made by some Greek parliamentarians when a maori group went over to Greece to perform. They were taken aback at the basic ferocity of the performance and asked that it be toned back, in response the performers upped the ante with even more agression! Not perhaps, one of our finest hours.

Maori culture is an important part of New Zealand, but it is not New Zealand, there are many facets to us, all just as important.

- Trevor

I am just appalled reading about how Maori want our wonderful way of life in NZ to give them preferential treatment.

I am telling all my friends to contact their MP to complain.

- Barbara