Newman Weekly

Dr Muriel Newman

Contact Muriel:

Phone 09 4343 836
or 021 800 111.

PO Box 984, Whangarei

Skip to comments | Skip to comment form | Skip to poll result

21 October 05
The March to Maori Sovereignty

It has been disconcerting watching the political courtship rituals taking place in the corridors of power over the last few weeks, especially those made towards the Maori Party by National. While the National Party should be congratulated for investigating whether they could realistically form an alternative government, even a superficial look at the Maori Party’s election promises would have revealed a radical sovereignty agenda that should have excluded it from any further consideration.

For those of us who support the abolition of race-based privilege and the principle of one law for all, the mere existence of the Maori Party in Parliament is an abomination. By promoting separatism and Maori sovereignty, they are working only for the advantage of Maori, not for the good of all New Zealanders. Indeed, the entry into Parliament of the Maori Party can be considered to be another step towards apartheid, and rather than shelving the call for the abolition of the Maori seats, center right parties should be strengthening it.

An overview of the Maori Party’s agenda can be found on their website. It includes raising the minimum wage to $12.50 an hour, reinstating the moratorium on genetic engineering, introducing a Maori quota for radio and television, funding Maori housing, making Maori language compulsory in the public sector, teaching ‘customary knowledge’ in pre-school, primary, and secondary schools, and providing for the separate delivery of services to Maori.

Central to their strategy is the Treaty of Waitangi. The Maori Party want the Treaty to become the basis of a new constitution for New Zealand, creating a partnership between Maori and the Crown that would enable the development of a ‘two-world view’ - involving a Maori view and a Crown view – which would be used as the basis of a sharing of power and resources throughout the whole state sector.

This process has already started.

Last year, under the Official Information Act, I obtained material from Housing New Zealand, which exposed that a two-world view approach was being implemented – see One Nation - Two Worlds. This approach prevented employees who did not subscribe to the radical re-invention of history that underpins a two-world view, from progressing in their careers. It is also the sort of thinking that has lead to the sacking of Josie Bullock by the Corrections Department, because she had the courage to speak out against archaic Maori cultural practices that dominate the workplace and treat women as second-class citizens.

The Maori Party website lists six key areas for progress including a five-year time frame for Maori self-determination through a Treaty-based constitution, entrenching and growing the number of Maori seats, fast-tracking more generous Treaty claim settlements, and reforming the entire state sector based on a two-worldview Treaty partnership perspective being incorporated into all legislation.

Specifically mentioned is their intention to re-draft the Resource Management Act and the Local Government Act “to ensure that Articles 1 and 2 will guarantee Maori our mana and rangatiratanga and the ability to exercise power sharing on all issues that effect us as tangata whenua”.

The Maori Party would like to see some $20 million ploughed into a scheme to re-educate New Zealanders about our history so that a “two-world view perspective can be included in the policies, management and operations of the public and state sector”.

The Maori Party’s strategy is based on indoctrinating the public - starting in the schools and imposing their propaganda on the public service. But some argue there are fatal flaws in the fundamental basis of their claims and dispute whether they are indeed the tangata whenua. They point to Moriori pre-dating Maori and a body of evidence suggesting the existence of people before them.

Further, the Maori version of the Treaty of Waitangi guaranteed that all private property and goods could remain in the possession of the owners, both Maori and non-Maori alike, not forfeited to Queen Victoria. That version of the Treaty – which is consistent with the recently discovered “original” English version - did not give any special customary rights exclusively to Maori (for more information on these matters, see comments by researcher and author Martin Doutre).

The reality is that a radical re-inventing of our history is taking place under our noses with taxpayers paying for indoctrination programmes in our schools, in the public service, and even on our television screens.

Here in Whangarei earlier this year we even had to watch while local and central government re-wrote the history of our city by changing the name of our mountain: the change was made to satisfy a powerful group of local Maori without any official evidence to support the change, and against the wishes of the community.

If we value our history and culture for what it is, and if we want to return to the sort of New Zealand where ethnicity does not confer privilege and where we are all equal under the law, then the march of Maori activism must be stopped – before it is too late. It is long passed time that the Maori seats in Parliament, which are the power base, are abolished.

This weeks poll. Should the Maori seats in Parliament be abolished?

Print friendly version (PDF) View >>>

Skip to top | Skip to comment form | Skip to poll result

Your Comments:

The new T.V. series called, Frontier of Dreams (nightmarish history) is a perfect example of distorted and socially engineered, dumb-down history that we're all being force-fed. There are very convenient omissions of important details (to the detriment of the European colonists) and gross exaggerations of other details (to the advantage of present day Maori activists). A full critique needs to be written about the manipulative content of this very expensive production, which was wholly funded, no doubt, from the public purse by Whakapapa Productions.

When the Labour Government came to power in 1984 the key strategy adopted for producing an internationally competitive economy, was "increasing competition". The primary criteria for a successful application to the OIC or for business migration was "Would it increase competition?" In my view this is one of the key reasons we can still grasp (if barely) the title "first world economy" today. Unfortunately we stopped for a cup of tea before this policy was adopted throughout the labour markets and some of our social structures such as separate Maori representation.

So long as we maintain these self serving protective structures, the Maori race will continue to be non competitive and non performing. Maori do not need to live in the past....they need to live in the future, and the future will be about their people adapting to the rapidly changing environment. Those who cling to the past and promote a "fortress Maori" power based strategy for their race are in fact the "criminals" who are assigning their offspring to the human rubbish tips of the future.

I am a fifth generation New Zealander and grew up with no issues whatsoever with Maori. However, I now get very angry with the activist elements of Maori who seem to be determined to create an environment of separatism in New Zealand. Why can't we just be New Zealanders, not Maori or Pakeha? Not to mention that most Maori are not 100% Maori but have a mixed race heritage. And don't get me started on what the Maori did to the Moriori - at least the Europeans didn't eat the Maori when they arrived!

So how then do we achieve this stoppage of activism? Is the wit of the common Kiwi becoming that numbed by newspaper articles and television stunts to the point they believe what they read and view is actually true, when in fact all of what is NZ is being "taken" from them, little by little, each & every day, and is being channelled by legislation into the hands of a single race, one which proves to be most clever at getting exactly what they want from the current 'not-so-clever' government.

This week's letter on Maori sovereignty raises important historical issues. Apart from the issue of whether Moriori were here before Maori, the question must be asked as to whether the Maori Wars, or Land Wars to give them their other name, nullified the Treaty of Waitangi. One matter seems certain, in 1840, neither Maori nor Pakeha expected settlers to ever be the majority. As a historian, I can't think of a single instance when after a war, people were expected to behave as if nothing had happened. After World War II, the Germans were not asked what they would like, nor did anybody expect Hitler's various Treaties of Friendship to still be in force. It is a fact of history that the government, not the Maoris won the Maori Wars. It is surely time to scrap the Treaty and the Treaty of Waitangi Act and have a written constitution, after consultation with all, Maoris and Pakehas.

Increasing the minimum wage to $12.50 will result in most young Maoris becoming unemployed, which will create a massive underclass and a steep increase in violence, burglary and lawlessness. This will play in the hands on the Maori radicals, as this is a 'natural' way of recruiting followers (warriors).

If ever there was reverse apartheid we are seeing it now. I am offended that the sickly white socialist liberals of this society are trying to appease their conscience's at the expense of the nation.

Comments by Martin Doutre:

Matin Doutre's web site View >>>

The Maori version, Te Tiriti O Waitangi, gives equal rights to all New Zealanders altogether and that there is no provision for special customary rights to be held exclusively by Maori. Here's a breakdown of the way "The people of New Zealand" was applied to the Articles of the Treaty:

- In the Preamble section of the final English draft, Hobson addresses the 'chiefs and people of New Zealand'. Reverend Henry Williams translated this as 'ki nga Rangitira me nga Hapu o Nu Tirani' or the chiefs and families of New Zealand. The Preamble sets the stage for the rest of the treaty and explains why Hobson has been sent. In content it is directed towards the sovereign chiefs and their tribes people and asks them to consider ceding sovereignty to Queen Victoria under the conditions that are described in the Articles that follow.

- In Article III of the final English draft, Hobson again uses the phrase 'the people of New Zealand'. Reverend Henry Williams translated this as 'nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani' or all the Maoris of New Zealand. In this Article the content is directed at Maori, as they are being told they will become British subjects and receive the same rights as all the people of Britain.

- In Article II of the final English draft Hobson uses the phrase, 'to the chiefs and tribes and to all the people of New Zealand'. This is a very general Article, directed towards all of the inhabitants of New Zealand, Maori and settlers alike. It guarantees to everyone that private property and goods will remain with the owners under the new regime and will not be forfeited to the Queen. Reverend Henry Williams translated this phrase as 'ki nga Rangitira, ki nga hapu, ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani'. In so doing he, very carefully, made the distinction to include Rangitira (Maori chiefs), Hapu (Maori families) and all the people of New Zealand (Maori individuals or settlers from all nations, living in New Zealand or any 'arriving' later). If Williams had wished to state that the rights mentioned in Article II were exclusively for Maori, then he would have used the terminology of Article III, 'nga tangata Maori katoa o Nu Tirani'.

There is definitely no mention of Forests & Fisheries in the Maori version or in the final English draft. The only time mention of these items occurred was in James Busby's rough draft of February 3rd 1840, which was superseded by the final draft of February 4th 1840. In Article II of both Te Tiriti O Waitangi or the final English draft from which it was derived, continued Tino Rangitiratanga (chieftainship or ownership) is guaranteed for existing property and owners will not be obliged to forfeit their land to Queen Victoria under the new regime. Likewise, Taonga (once meaning physical goods...now expanded to include "spiritual treasures") need not be forfeited. Under Article II, any reference to tino rangitiratanga or taonga is applied across the board "to all the people of New Zealand" - "ki nga tangata katoa o Nu Tirani".

The only time it could be construed that there was a "guarantee of special customary rights" stems from an added provision requested by Bishop Pompallier at the Treaty assembly on the 5th of February 1840 and the response or pledge given by Hobson. Pompallier was concerned that, under this new Anglicised regime, freedom to religious belief and practice might be effected and Catholicism might suffer accordingly. Hobson guaranteed freedom of religious expression, which would include traditional Maori religious belief systems as well (See The Treaty of Waitangi, by T.L. Buick, pp 152-153).

If Maori wished to pay homage to Rangi and Papa or Tane Mahuta, then so be it...Anyone could worship whoever or whatever they wanted, as long as no-one else's religious rights were impinged upon in the process.

There is no doubt but that the wording of either Te Tiriti O Waitangi or the final English draft grant equal status and rights to all New Zealanders. Maori chiefs and dignitaries could continue to be chiefs and leaders to their people, albeit under the mantel of British law. Some aspects of that law could only be implemented slowly, over time, as the fledgling government grew in strength or influence ... like the abolition of slavery, as practised by the Maori tribes.

TANGATA WHENUA

Fortunately or unfortunately (old fossil), I come from a generation where the facts about pre-Maori occupation of New Zealand were openly acknowledged and discussed, even by Maori themselves. I continue to write articles about the Patu-paiarehe people who were here before the Polynesian / Melanesian Maori (described by Maori as kiri-puwhero and uru-kehu, which means light complexion, reddish tint skin and reddish tinged, blondish hair). It's only in the past thirty years or so that this, once, regionally accepted fact has been muted and removed from our more modern history books or any honourable mention in conversation (due to the ushering in of political correctness & racial sensitivity issues). To see some references and a glimpse of the Pre-Maori occupation evidence that exists all over our New Zealand landscape, go to http://www.celticnz.co.nz