18 June 10
Ownership of Rivers, Lakes, Seabed and Foreshore
By Ross Baker

Ancient history, the Magna Carta, Queen Victoria, British Law or the Tiriti o Waitangi did not give the ownership of our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to Maori, they are held in “trust” by the Crown for the people of New Zealand. Until it is proved otherwise, the Crown has no right to give our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to one group of New Zealand Citizens who are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. 

Law of Ancient Civilizations
Classical Roman law held that "running water" is "common to mankind". It is held that, "all rivers and ports are public, hence the right of fishing, in a port, or in rivers, is common to all men". It is held that this is one of the "Laws of Nature" which are "established by divine providence" and which "remains forever fixed and immutable". It recognizes public rights to the use of the banks as well as the surface of the water, on no-navigable as well as navigable rivers. This was based on the laws of Greece and other ancient civilizations. 

These principles continued in the laws of the emerging European Nations. In England, Kings fenced off some rivers and their banks, but the Magna Carta reaffirmed public rights in 1215. Running water is common to all and all rivers and ports are public, hence the right to fishing in a port or river is common. The use of the banks is also public as the rivers. Spanish law at the time also reflected the law of earlier civilizations, holding that “everyman has the right to use the rivers for commerce and fisheries” on navigable and non- navigable rivers, including the riverbanks. French law also held that rivers and riverbanks are public things, the use of which is common to all. Institute of Justinian, 2.1.1; Digest, 43, 12, 1, 1. On the Laws and Customs of England, Henry de Bracton, 1250. Las Siete Partidasnsa, Alfonsa X 1226. French Civil Law, Jean Domat, 1694.

In Martin v Waddell, the US Supreme Court held that in America, as in England, the public has a “liberty of fishing in the sea or creeks, or arm thereof, in a common of piscary”. It held that state cannot “abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested shall not be disposed of piecemeal to individuals as private property”. 

The Law of Nature
The Law of Nature is the only true foundation of all social rights. The state cannot make a direct and absolute grant of the waters of the state, divesting all the citizens of their common rights. Public assess to streams and trails along streams, is further supported by the legal doctrine of custom and prescription. Since Government hold waterways in “trust” for the public, they cannot sell or give them away to private ownership or control. Waterways are natural highways of the world. 

Queen Victoria’s Instructions
Queen Victoria’s instructions to Governor Hobson in 1840 asked that places along seacoasts and navigable streams "be reserved for all recreational and amusement of the inhabitants". The chiefs gave up their territories to Queen Victoria by Treaty in 1840 and New Zealand became a British Colony under British Sovereignty, British Rule/Law.

Tiriti o Waitangi
At a Seabed and Foreshore meeting held in the Otaki Memorial Hall on the 17th of April 2010, the Hon Christopher Finlayson, Minister for Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, said in his opening speech. "At the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, Maori ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria and New Zealand became subject to English law and the Magna Carta”. 

In 1840, New Zealand became a British Colony under British Rule/Law. Article two of the Tiriti o Waitangi stated, “Ko te Kaini o Ingaranui ka wakarite ka wakaae ki nga Rangatira ki hapu ki tangata katoa o nu Tirani te tino rangantiratanga o ratou wenua kainga me o taonga katoa - The Queen confirms and guarantees to the chiefs and the tribes and all the people of New Zealand, the possession of their lands, dwellings and all their property”. There was no mention of rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore in the Tiriti o Waitangi as once it was signed, these were the property of the Crown held in “trust” for all the people of New Zealand - since Government hold waterways in “trust” for the public, they cannot sell or give them away to private ownership or control. 

The Queen’s Chain
Since 1840, Maori and non-Maori alike have known this as the “Queens Chain”. While it may not have been enacted into law, it is common law under the Magna Charta - the law of England - the law the chief's accepted in 1840. It has been a distinguishing feature of New Zealand society since 1840. It is an unwritten law of New Zealand that must not be changed. Part-Maori still own the rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore with all their fellow countrymen, they are held in “trust” by the Crown for the benefit of all New Zealanders to enjoy.

Who Owns the Rivers, Lakes, Seabeds and Foreshore?
Over the years, this has been an ongoing dispute between Maori and the Crown, but it has never been legally proved who actually owns our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore. Ancient history, the Magna Carta, Queen Victoria, British Law or the Tiriti o Waitangi did not give the ownership of our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to Maori, they are held in “trust” by the Crown for the people of New Zealand. Until it is proved otherwise, the Crown has no right to give our rivers, lakes, seabed or foreshore to one group of New Zealand Citizens who are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. 

Distinct Race of People
Maori have intermarried of their own free will with other races and therefore are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. Maori today are New Zealand Citizens that claim varying degrees of Maori ancestry as one sees in the continuing amended legislation since 1865 as their Maori ancestry becomes further and further diluted.
“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P. – 1922.

Compiled by Ross Baker, One New Zealand Foundation from New Zealand’s Archives.

Back to top of page >>>

18 June 10
Brownies, Darkies, Whities, Honkies, Andy Haden, Murry McCully and the Prime Minister!
By Gavin de Malmanche

Ex All Black great and successful businessman Andy Haden on the Murray Deaker TV 3 sports programme on Wednesday night 26 May 2010 said exactly what 90% of most savvy New Zealand rugby followers are privately saying but do not have the strength of character to publicly voice the opinion that too many brownies, darkies or whatever, may not deliver the goods in the rugby union Super 14 environment. Based on the successful results of the Crusaders team it is fair and reasonable to conclude there could be an element of truth in this suggestion. 

New Zealand appears to be trapped in a world of double standards We accept racial preference with a specific number of race based Maori Parliamentary seats, race based political parties and race based appointments to numerous Government Boards but we seem to be loathe to openly discuss, debate and accept the concept of a Crusaders rugby team determining its own winning numeric blend of race based cultural and ethnic talent. 

It seems a Government taskforce can recommend 3 only “brown seats” on the new Auckland Super City Council but such a determination is beyond the pale for independent democratic private enterprise. It's OK to have an all brown Maori team but to have an all white New Zealand team or a white team with a smaller number of “brownies” or “darkies” is somehow unacceptable. It seems America can talk unashamedly in terms of blacks and whites but in New Zealand it appears it is one way traffic. MP Hone Harawira, Tame Iti, et al, can castigate "whities” and “honkies” at will but when it comes to "whities" referring to "brownies" or “darkies” and reminding people of how successful a particular blend of racial and ethnic talent has been for the Crusaders, that's somehow not allowed. 

Apropos the capping of "brownies" in the Crusaders rugby team to no more than three players as this is not factual it seems highly unlikely such a direction has been identified and written in what was referred to as a Crusaders "Charter” or “Manual.” Andy Haden did say that he was told this was a written policy which of course if true transfers the "no more than three players” claim on to another party. Any way which way, at the end of the a day, a policy if there was a policy, seems to have consistently delivered the Crusaders into the semi finals or better with what most people believe to be a smaller number of “brownies” or “darkies” than the majority of other Super 14 teams may have. 

Good on you Andy Haden. It is healthy for New Zealand to debate such issues in public and especially without Murray McCully and the Prime Minister getting involved.

Back to top of page >>>

7 June 10
Ngapuhi Ceded Their Territories in 1840
By Ross Baker

Below is the time line when the British Crown obtained Sovereignty over the whole of New Zealand and New Zealand became a British Colony under British Rule. 

1820 – 1830 - Ngapuhi Slaughters 60,000 of their fellow countrymen
Hongi Hika had just returned from England where he had exchanged all the gifts the King had given him for 300 muskets when passing through Sydney on his return to New Zealand. Ngapuhi then went on a rampage south, slaughtering an estimated 60,000 of their defenseless, unarmed countrymen, but soon realized the southern tribes were arming themselves and would travel north for utu - revenge. The French, who the Ngapuhi feared had also established themselves at Hokianga and were showing an interest in claiming New Zealand for France. The chiefs wanted to put Britain between them and the French.

1831 – Letter from the 13 Chiefs
Thirteen Northern Chiefs wrote to the King asking him to be their guardian and protector, not only from the French, but also from their own people – the southern tribes. The King acknowledged this request by sending a Resident, James Busby to New Zealand in 1833.

1835 – Declaration of Independence
As New Zealand built ships were sailing to Sydney, James Busby introduced the Declaration of Independence to the northern tribes to give them a form of identity and a flag under which New Zealand ships could be registered. In 1835, thirty-four Ngapuhi chiefs signed a Declaration of Independence declaring their territories Independent States. 

This declaration stated they would meet in Congress each year for the purpose of forming laws for the dispensation of justice, preservation of peace and good order and regulation of trade, but the ever present inter-tribal tension and fighting took precedence over political co-operation, as always and it was abandoned without one Congress meeting being held. It finally became evident that the chiefs could never form a united working government. 

The declaration could not give full sovereignty as the tribes only had power over their territories as long as they could defend them. No united political structure existed within New Zealand at the time. 

"Even though the declaration asserted sovereignty, Maori, who saw themselves as tribal rather than as members of a nation, would have been unable to exercise full rights as an independent state, there was no indigenous political structure upon which to base a united congress. However, it did introduce Maori to the idea of a legal relationship with Britain and therefore, five years later, to the Treaty of Waitangi". Historian Claudia Orange.

This interpretation was echoed by another historian, Michael King, who maintained, “That the Declaration had no reality, since there was in fact no national indigenous power structure within New Zealand”. King also pointed out that some of the United Tribes were at war with one another within a year of signing the Declaration.

Historian Paul Moon agreed, “That the Declaration represented a 'regional goodwill agreement rather than a national document of truly constitutional significance'. No Congress ever met”.

1837 – Call for More Effective Government
Serious outbreaks of inter-tribal fighting intensified in many parts of New Zealand in 1837, but as Busby had no forces (A man-o-war without guns) he could do little to stop it. The settlers, traders and 192 chiefs wanted more than the half-hearted official commitment represented by Busby and appealed to Britain for a more effective Government. As the inter-tribal fighting increased, the Maori population deceased and vast tracks of land was being sold to the land hungry Europeans to purchase muskets and European goods, Britain had to take more control as she had been asked and promised to protect the people and their property in 1831 and again in 1835. To do this legally, New Zealand had to become a British Colony and for New Zealand to become a British Colony to bring law and order to both Maori and non-Maori, Britain had to obtain the chief’s consent to sovereignty over the whole land. 

For two years the Colonial Office debated the best way to become involved in New Zealand and it was decided, but with extreme reluctance, to send William Hobson, a highly ranked Officer in the British Navy with a good knowledge of New Zealand, to negotiate a treaty with the chiefs to obtain sovereignty over the whole land so Britain could legally set up a government to bring law, order and protection and to investigate and settle land sales, titles and disputes for all the people of New Zealand, settler and Maori alike. One Sovereignty, one law for all the people of New Zealand.

1840 – Te Tiriti o Waitangi
Before William Hobson left Britain, he was fully briefed on what a treaty must contain. First, he must obtain sovereignty over the whole land, second, all Maori and non-Maori land and property ownership must be verified and titles given, third, any land the Maoris wanted to sell must only be sold to the Queens representative, and fourth, the Maoris would be protected and guaranteed access to the same benefits/rights/laws of the British Subjects if they consented to the first three conditions.

Hobson arrived on the 29 January 1840 and went about drafting a treaty as instructed by the Colonial Office with the help of Freeman his secretary, Busby and the missionaries. Hobson became ill and gave his notes to Busby to complete. On the 4 February, Hobson had recovered and went ashore to the American Consulate, James Clendon’s house to finalize the treaty with Busby and Clendon. Clendon had also been involved and a signatory to the Declaration of Independence in 1835.

At 4 pm on the 4 February 1840, Hobson delivered the “final draft” of the Treaty to Rev Henry Williams and his son Edward to translate into the Maori language. On the 5 February, the final draft and the Maori translation were read to the gathering of chief’s, their followers and the settlers etc at Waitangi. The Chiefs then discussed the Treaty with Hobson, Busby and the missionaries, giving speeches for and against it for five hours. From these speeches, the chiefs had a very good understanding of the Treaty, which was confirmed at the Kohimarama Conference 20 years later. The meeting was adjourned for the chiefs to discuss it amongst themselves with another meeting scheduled for February 7. 

For the rest of the night the missionaries discussed the treaty with the chiefs at the Te Tii Marae. As Rev Henry Williams recalls, “We gave them but one version, explaining clause by clause, showing the advantages to them of being taken under the fostering care of the British Government, by which act they would become one people with the British, in suppression of wars, and every lawless act; under one sovereignty and one law, human and divine.” 

As the majority of the chiefs gathered agreed that the treaty was to their advantage and should be signed immediately, Hobson was summonsed the next morning. While Rev Colenso tried to stop the signing as he believed the chiefs did not fully understand it, Hone Heke dispelled this by immediately stepping forward, being the first of 52 chiefs to sign the Tiriti o Waitangi on the 6 February 1840. As each Chief signed, Hobson shook their hand and repeated, “He iwi tahi tatou – We are now one people”, to which the whole gathering agreed and gave three hearty cheers. 

“He iwi Tahi Tatou – We are now one people” - The true spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi!

On the 8 February, the H M S Herald fired a 21-gun salute to commemorate the cession to Her Majesty of the right of sovereignty to New Zealand, although sovereignty was not declared until 17 June 1840 at Cloudy Bay. This 21-gun salute to commemorate the cession to Her Majesty of the right of sovereignty to New Zealand has continued every year at the Waitangi day celebrations since 1840.

The Treaty was between two nations/peoples having the authority and agreeing between themselves to wide powers affecting them both, but after the Treaty was signed, the Chiefs had given up their territories to the British Crown in return for protection and one law, one Sovereignty for all the people of New Zealand. 

Final Draft (The Littlewood Treaty Document)
After Hobson and Williams had gathered further signatures, Hobson became ill again and the “final draft” was misplaced, although this was of no concern at the time as Hobson only authorised one treaty to be signed by the chiefs and that was in the Maori language. The English text of the Treaty had nothing to do with the documents signed by the chiefs; it was a “Royal Style” version compiled by Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman for overseas despatch. While it was of no concern at the time, Freeman’s text has since been used as the “Official English Version” to give privilege to Maori and to make Rev William’s translation seem incompetent. In 1989, the “final draft”, (Littlewood treaty document) was found, but the Government is afraid of the consequences if it is made public and refuses to recognise it as the “final draft”. 

There is Only One Treaty – Tiriti o Waitangi
There is only one treaty as Governor Hobson stated when he gave his instructions to those gathering further signatures after he became ill, "The treaty which forms the base of all my proceedings was signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840, by 52 chiefs, 26 of whom were of the federation, and formed a majority of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. This instrument I consider to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document". Over 500 chiefs, including Ngapuhi ceded their territories to the British in 1840. 

International Recognition
There is no denying that Britain legally obtained sovereignty of New Zealand as it was recognised and agreed by the major powers at the time, especially France and America. France also wanted sovereignty of New Zealand but accepted defeat on the 20 July 1840; “That sovereignty had been procured in a manner such as could be approved by other nations”. If sovereignty had not been obtained legally, France would have challenged it.

Governor Hobson claimed British Sovereignty on the 12 May 1840 over the North Island by Treaty and over the South Island by Discovery. The Proclamations were published in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840 and New Zealand became a Crown Colony. 

Give Up Territories/Parts
The Treaty did not ceded Sovereignty of New Zealand, as there was no Sovereignty to cede; it ceded the chief’s individual territories, (wahi katoa o Nu Tirani e tukua aianei ki te Kuini - all places/parts of New Zealand which may be given up now or hereafter to the Queen), so Britain could form a legal Government under British Sovereignty, British Rule. 

Kohimarama Conference uses Busby’s Rejected Draft Notes
In 1860, Governor Browne convened a conference between 112 North Island chiefs to discuss the Treaty. In his opening address, Browne used an unauthorised Article 2 of the Treaty text compiled by James Freeman. This was not Article 2 of the Treaty the 52 chiefs signed at Waitangi on the 6 February 1840 that Governor Hobson, “Considered to be de facto the treaty, and all signatures that are subsequently obtained are merely testimonials of adherence to the terms of that original document". A total of 540 chiefs were read, discussed and signed this “original document”. 

Unfortunately, Government, their historians and Maori have used Freeman’s “Royal Style” text of the Treaty compiled from Busby’s rejected draft notes since to give Maori privileges over non-Maori never intended or authorised by the Colonial Office or Governor Hobson in 1840. From the chief’s speeches at this Conference, they had a far better understanding of the Treaty than the Government of one law, one sovereignty for all the people of New Zealand. Governor Browne’s error has allowed Maori to use Freeman’s unauthorised text to their advantage over non-Maori ever since. There was never an English version of the Treaty; the Tiriti o Waitangi gave the same rights to all the people of New Zealand under; one sovereignty, one law (Article 3).

Never a Partnership
The Treaty was never a partnership between Maori and the Crown. Maori were guaranteed the same rights as a British subject, no more – no less (Article 3). This was confirmed by our Attorney General, Hon David Lange when he stated on the ABC programme “Four Corners” in 1990, “Did Queen Victoria for a moment think of forming a partnership with a number of signatures and a number of thumb prints and 500 people, Queen Victoria was not that sort of person”. 

Distinct Race of People
Since this time, Ngapuhi, as well as all other Maori have intermarried of their own free will with other races and therefore are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”. Maori today are New Zealand Citizens that claim varying degrees of Maori ancestry as one sees in the continuing amended legislation since 1865 as their Maori ancestry becomes further and further diluted.

“If you think these things are wrong, then blame your ancestors who gave away their rights when they were strong”. Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A., Ll.B.D. M.P. – 1922.

Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation from New Zealand’s Archives. 

Back to top of page >>>

7 June 10
Time to Toughen Up Welfare
By David Hill

In New Zealand we have a remarkable welfare system that is the envy of many other countries.

No matter if you are sick, injured, Left on your own with kids to support or you are out of work the state will look after you until you recover, find work or in some cases provide a permanent lifeline of support for the rest of your life. Wow what a perfect system and for most of us it works that way, perfectly until a certain small and I stress small section of our population see it as not a life line but a permanent lifestyle .

I will give you an example, true story, a few years ago I was running a Radio Station in a city not too far from here.

I received a call from Winz “We have a program designed to get long term unemployed youth back into the workforce, could you take on an 18 year old for 2 to 3 months and train them in one of your craft areas in your radio station, we will pay them and there is no obligation for ongoing employment etc”…..

Sure I said I would love to help these guys get back into employment we have many craft areas we could teach them skills in, production, sales, creative writing, news announcing etc.

So a young man turned up Monday morning, after the welcome and a walk around with introductions I placed the guy in one of the studios with the announcer for the first day to get a feel for what we do.

He went down the road for some smokes at 10… and never came back. Never mind the lady from WINZ says I’ll send you another. After the same procedure this young man said he was going for lunch at 12 and…. Never came back. I was getting worried at this stage and questioned the staff as to why this may be happening, are you being nice to them? Yes was the reply.

So we were sent a 3rd young man who after lasting the first day, I thought yes we have a live one here, but on the second day he informed us he had a Tangi to go to and went, you guessed it he never came back.

So after apologies from the WINZ lady I suggested perhaps we were not the correct employer for this sort of program. Also the thought crossed my mind these guys obviously don’t want to be here and are actually happy to be on a welfare payment, maybe they don’t actually want to work.

So the National Governments move to force long term unemployed back into work or have your dole cut is a very good move, it should be even tougher in my opinion perhaps if you are fit and young and out of work for more than 6 months a compulsory training period in the Army to learn new skills wouldn’t go amiss.

Back to top of page >>>

23 May 10
Tuhoe Confiscations Inevitable and Justified
By Ross Baker

The media has published many articles to support the alleged Tuhoe claim with much of it based on selective research by the Waitangi Tribunal, Dr Paul Moon, Bruce Stirling and others. However, most importantly, as with many of these claims, there is another side to this story that must also be told. While Tuhoe did suffer at the hands of the government troops and their Maori supporters, they brought it upon themselves by protecting the “rebels” that had violated both Maori and European. Below is a brief account of why the confiscated lands were “inevitable and justified”, as fully documented in New Zealand’s archives.

Tuhoe did not sign the Treaty largely because they were too isolated for it to be taken to them, read, discussed and given the opportunity to sign. Unlike Ngapuhi and other northern tribes, Tuhoe had very little contact with the Europeans, the missionaries or the British Crown and remained this way for many years after the Treaty was signed, when New Zealand was ceded to Britain, which was recognized and accepted by all the major nations of the world. 

In December 1864, Kereopa brought the Pai Marire religion to the East Coast but was told not to interfere with the Europeans. On the 2 March 1865, missionary Rev C S Volkner was hanged from a willow tree near his church. His body was then decapitated and the head paraded around the village before Kereopa swallowed his eyes, calling one Parliament and the other the Queen and British Law. Kereopa instigated the killing of Volkner, as he believed he had been spying for the Government, which caused the death of two members of his family. Although this act outraged the Europeans, such an indignity to the head of an enemy conferred mana amongst Tuhoe. If the government was to honour the commitment Britain had made to all the people of New Zealand in1840, then it was time a stand had to be taken to bring law and order to the people of the East Coast.

After the killing of Völkner, Kereopa fled to the Urerewas under the protection of Tuhoe. In May 1865, he and a party of Tuhoe attempted to travel to Waikato, but were prevented from reaching the Kaingaroa plains by a force of Te Arawa - but not before killing two Te Arawa chiefs with Kereopa again eating their eyes. They were forced to turn back when a relief party of Te Arawa, led by W. G. Mair, arrived. Kereopa, under the protection of Tuhoe from the Government troops, returned to hiding in the Ureweras. 

Kereopa had much mana in the minds of Tuhoe and thus obtained their continuing protection. The dense bush of the Urewera Mountains offered him protection from the Government troops, as it later would for Te Kooti and the Hauhau. Martial Law had been declared in the Opotiki and Whakatane districts after the killing of Völkner, and a reward was offered for the capture of those responsible. 

Over the next three years, the people of the Urewera were weakened, and their land devastated by the government’s relentless pursuit of Kereopa for his involvement with Volkner’s killing; Te Kooti for his massacres up and down the country and the Hauhau who were attacking and killing innocent settlers and their families and destroying their crops and buildings. However, Tuhoe continued to protect these “rebels”. The government troops included Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa embarked on several campaigns to capture the “rebels”. During these campaigns Tuhoe’s pa were plundered, crops destroyed, people killed and land confiscated. This in itself is Maori custom, - revenge – plunder to avenge a wrong. There is no denying Tuhoe land was devastated, but they brought it upon themselves by protecting the “rebels” from being brought to justice. 

By late 1870 several Tuhoe leaders had made their peace with the government, but they would not violate the sanctuary of the Urewera by giving up Kereopa, Te Kooti or the Hauhau. Eventually, however, seeing that their survival was now threatened, they withdrew this protection.

It was agreed amongst Tuhoe that neither European soldiers nor Ngati Porou forces should be allowed to capture the “rebels”: as their protectors, they would deliver Kereopa themselves to the government. Kereopa agreed to give himself up as payment for the Tuhoe blood that had been shed for him. 

It must be remembered that it was not only the government that wanted law and order established on the East Coast. Ngati Porou, Ngati Kahungunu and Te Arawa also fought with the Government troops, as did many other tribes around New Zealand to enforce the Queens Law. These three iwi were instrumental in the 1870 and 1871 pursuit of the “rebels” that Tuhoe allowed to take refuge in Urewera Mountains after massacres in Poverty Bay. 

There is no denying that Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were out of step with the majority of New Zealand, both Maori and European at the time, which they eventually realised, releasing the “rebels” they had been protecting. By this time, the majority of Maori had realised that for the Maori race to survive, there had to be one government, one law for all the people of New Zealand and had put this law in the hands of the Britain Crown. 

Due to the isolation of Tuhoe, the “1896 Urewera District Native Act” established some 650,000 acres of their land as a reserve - but never gave them full autonomy. It was no more than a “Maori local government” under the control of the Crown. The Government gained Tuhoe’s recognition of the Queen. All tribal powers had to be within the Law, devolved and approved by the Crown. The Crown intended that in due course it would impose “all the responsibilities, liabilities and privileges” of the other iwi that had signed the Treaty, on the Tuhoe people. The government would not have had the authority to give Tuhoe full autonomy. This “Maori local government” was revoked a few years later. 

Over the next 60 years, Tuhoe sold large tracts of their underdeveloped wasteland to the Government. Later the Crown vested most of this land into the Urewera National Park for all the people of New Zealand to enjoy, including the people of the Eastern tribes. 

The Waitangi Tribunal stated that Tuhoe had 24,147 ha of land confiscated, but Government figures show, in 1866, 448,000 acres (181,000 hectares) of land belonging to the tribes of the Bay of Plenty, Tūhoe, Te Whakatōhea and Ngāti Awa were confiscated by the government. Government documents show, this area was subsequently reduced to 211,000 acres (85,387 hectares), of which Tūhoe lost 14,000 acres (5,700 hectares). 

The Waitangi Tribunal also claims Tuhoe were never compensated, but in Richard Hill’s Justice Department report for the Lange Government in 1989, page 11 clause 31, shows Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958. Tuhoe is also a party to the Waikaremoana Trust Board that receives $124,000 per year in rental for Lake Waikaremoana.

The alliance of the Tuhoe with Kereopa, Te Kooti and the Hauhau and their resistance of the Crown to apprehend these “rebels” after killing many innocent Maori and European - meant military action was inevitable and justified – a fact admitted by the Waitangi Tribunal stating, “The alliance of the Tuhoe people with Te Kooti and the attacks on the Crown’s subjects, Maori and Pakeha that followed, meant military action was inevitable and justified” - as was the confiscations. If New Zealand was to be civilised as the majority of the chiefs had asked for in 1840, then the action taken by the government of the day was inevitable and justified, especially when the compensated land was reduced to only 5,700 ha and Tuhoe received $200,000 compensation in 1958 and the ongoing rental of Lake Waikaremoana– a fact not mentioned by the Waitangi Tribunal. 

This “Kangaroo Court” method of determining our countries future by the Waitangi Tribunal and others must stop. There must be a full public inquire were all the documented evidence is presented and scrutinised before more land and assets belonging to the people of New Zealand are given away without their, knowledge, authority or consent. This is our sovereign right Prime Minister and the people also deserve balanced reporting from our media! 

Compiled by the One New Zealand Foundation Inc from files held in New Zealand’s Archives.

Back to top of page >>>

23 May 10
Our True Treaty Gives "Same" Rights to All!
By George

At the Otaki foreshore meeting held in the Memorial Hall on the 17th of April, 2010, a guy called George Green was the first to speak and said.

Facing the audience he started "We don't live in Canada or Australia or any other country identified by the Hon. Christopher Finlayson. We live here, in New Zealand, and we have a Treaty. This is a Treaty matter and first of all our Treaty has to be clarified before this meeting should continue."

There was a positive response from an audience of possibly 150 to 200 attending. Of this, maybe 6 could be identified as European.

"Here it is [as he held it up for all to see] and the Official English Draft from which it was translated. Both have been authenticated by a strong, factual, paper trail which has been examined by Governments top historians and a private historian hired by Government, a Dr Donald Loveridge. None could find fault with this paper trail. Both te Tiriti and the draft from which it was translated are not different from each other but as true as the idiom of language permits, making the "same [Article 3]" promises."

Then turning to the minister he said, "Is that correct Minister?

Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.

Mr Green turned back to the audience and confirmed the minister agreed.

Continuing, Mr. Green said after the Treaty was signed Hobson wrote, "That signed on the 6th of Feb 1840 is defacto our Treaty and all further signatures are but a testament to this document." "Only the Maori Treaty was signed on this day."
Turning to the minister he said, "Is that correct Minister?"

Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.

Mr Green continued, "International law states that when there is more than one Treaty and one is in the native language, that in the native language takes precedence over all others. Is that correct Minister?"

Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.

Mr.Green continued. "At the signing of our Treaty Maoris ceded Sovereignty to England and in England there is no such thing as customary rights or title, in fact, no racial laws what-so-ever. Is that correct Minster?"

Hon. Finlayson said "Yes" and nodded agreement.

Turning back to the Audience Mr Green said, "May I point out to everyone here that Hon. Finlayson has agreed with everything I have stated as being true. I would like to now hand over these two documents to the Right Hon. Dr. Christopher Finlayson, Minister of Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations, and ask him to read to you from the Treaty text anything, anything at all, which gives a privilege to Maoris that is not available to any other New Zealander in order that this meeting can continue."

Mr Finlayson said, "I won't be answering questions at the moment, you will have to wait until the end when I will answer everyone."

Mr. Green, "You will have to verify there is a reason in the Treaty before continuing with this meeting, won't you?"
Finlayson, "No, I've said I will answer your question after everyone has had a chance to talk and I will answer everyone then."

Turning back to the audience Mr Green said, "I want you all to note he will not answer me because he can't. There are no exclusive rights for Maori in our Treaty."

Having to accept Finlayson's directive, Mr. Green returned to his seat to such a strong round of applause it quite took him by surprise in consideration nearly all were Maoris.

A later speaker addressed Mr Green, pointed out his accent and said he would be better down the South Island with an accent like that. He said more, but as he never went to the microphone it was difficult to hear.

Picking up on it, Mr Green wondered if the speaker said something about going home to his own country and said this in response. "Excuse me Sir, after our Treaty was signed New Zealand became British soil. This is my Country!" Said as he pointed strongly at the ground. "Our Treaty gave the same rights to Maoris as the English, so this is also our country." Again he pointed strongly at the ground. This drew a round of applause.

Another speaker was of the opinion that customary rights/ title was more of a Clayton's law, as this never existed and also voiced support for Mr. Green. He also left to a round of applause which few did.

It must be said that the meeting could never have been classified as a consultation with the public. The public said their piece, one hit and it was over, Dr. Finlayson didn't necessarily answer their question, as in the case of Mr. Green. Finlayson, as Mr. Green said he would, did not attempt to quote from the Treaty text. My belief is, "If he could, he would."

As soon as the Minister answered the last speaker, the top chair left the room so quickly no one could respond to Finlayson's remarks. For this reason, it could never be classified as a consultation as to be such a dialog would have to be entered into. MEETING ENDS.

Most Tiriti settlements are made from the first sentence of Article 2. The following is quoted from this Article,

Quote. "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." End quote. Note, "all the people of New Zealand."

Note, there is no mention of fish, forests, Maori sovereignty or any exclusive rights to anyone.

Article 3. Quote. "In return for their cession of sovereignty to the Queen, Maoris shall be protected by the Queen and be granted the same rights as the people of England." End quote. Note the word "same."

Article 1. Quote. "The chiefs of the confederation of United Tribes and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England for ever the entire sovereignty/governance of their country. End quote.

I leave it to readers to work out why Hon. Finlayson refused to quote from te Tiriti text anything which grants exclusive rights to Maoris.

Common sense reasons the Queen would not exclude her own subjects within any Treaty.

Back to top of page >>>

16 May 100
Scrapping Youth Pay Ratess
By Joe Carrr

The scrapping of youth pay rates has been a disaster for our young people. 

The legislation that required youth over 16 to be paid the minimum adult wage of $510 per week was a good election gimmick for young first-time voters, but like the freeing up alcohol for the young, the scrapping of youth pay rates has come to haunt us. What do the statistics say? For the three months ending on March 30 2010, the national unemployment rate dipped from 7.3% to 6%; however the youth unemployment rate has risen unabated to 18.4%. Youth are three times more likely to be unemployed than their older counterparts, simply because employers relate wages to a worker’s productivity. Employers are bound by law to pay kids who lack experience and productivity the same minimum wage of $12.75 per hour as older workers. 

Turning 18 is the milestone when youth are eligible receive to a $160 per week benefit. The difference of $350 between the dole and a job at $510 per week is considerable. Most likely the young unemployed will, in the face of the employment market’s resistance to meet this wage, need to think creatively how to supplement their meagre weekly entitlement of $160. This could quite well see a number of them represented in other statistics. For parents who make their unemployed children work at home or on the farm without paying the arbitrary $510 per week there is a concern that they could be prosecuted. A bit like the smacking law, but of course the authorities will use discretion. 

So you thought National would sort this out? National’s solution is to subsidise employers $136 per week for 22 week training period for registered unemployed under 22 years of age, throughout which the minimum wage of $510 must be paid. A bonus to the boss of $2000 can be if the training is completed. Trends have already become established amongst farmers. Employing youth is hard work, especially if an employer is conscientious. Teaching young workers often takes longer than doing yourself. Many farmers who once employed young people now employ skilled contractors who are GST registered and who own their own hand tools, dogs, quads and transport etc needed to do specific tasks. The current position looks grim for the young hopeful and a disaster for society which will have to accept to the long term consequences of unskilled youth maturing unto unskilled adults increasingly reliant on state support. 

It would be appreciated if our politicians could put their party lines aside and sort out the mess that they have made of youth alcohol and youth employment matters.

Back to top of page >>>

16 May 10
The Foreshore and Seabed Review
By J.B. Cronin

Now that the Attorney-General’s series of information hui and public meetings throughout the country on the review of the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 has concluded, hopefully more people will have become aware of what a sham these meetings have been.

The meetings were poorly advertised (one notice only in Wellington, in tiny type amongst the Public Notices in the DominionPost). They were described as “opportunities for people to discuss the Government’s proposals”.

However, those people like myself who naively attended the public meeting in Wellington ready to discuss the main issue of whether or not the Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 should be repealed were to be bitterly disappointed. At the start of the meeting, the public were told that the sole purpose of the meeting was for the Attorney-General, Hon Christopher Finlayson, to present and explain the proposals prepared by the Government to replace the current 2004 Act, and that all discussion would be confined to the details of these alternative proposals.

This immediately precluded any discussion of the major issue – and for anyone, like myself, who believed that the Act should not be repealed, the entire meeting was pointless.

In the course of his presentation – which consisted of a summary of the material which was on the Ministry of Justice website – Mr Finlayson stated that “most people” would agree that the 2004 Act was unsatisfactory, and he then proceeded on the assumption that the Act would be repealed.

As an indication of the spirit of the meeting, one elderly gentleman made a well presented appeal to Mr Finlayson, asking if it was not time to stop all this confrontation and try to find a way for all New Zealanders to be equal. Mr Finlayson replied that there were various forms of equality: One was equality before the law, but there was another form which did not mean sameness, but meant different things to different people. (Where have I heard this before? “All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”.)

Obviously none of these meetings can be claimed by Mr Finlayson to be “public consultation” on the repeal issue. Once general discussion had been disallowed, the only form of comment and protest left to the public was to make a submission directly to the Ministry of Justice – either on the 12-page form available on the website (if you could find it), or in a submission of one’s own making – and time allowed for making submissions is significantly short. 

Back to top of page >>>

11 May 10
Harmless Window Dressing?
By Reuben P. Chapple

New Zealand’s recent adoption of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is not binding and lacks an enforcement mechanism. Nonetheless, this document is far from harmless. 

The Declaration’s high-sounding phrases on the rights of indigenous people to self-determination, to maintain their own languages and cultures, to protect their natural and cultural heritage, and manage their own affairs, will surely embolden the Maori Sovereignty movement. 

All ideas have a pedigree. The ideological underpinning of both the UN Declaration and the Maori Sovereignty movement lies in the early 20th Century writings of Communist revolutionaries Lenin and Stalin on something they called “The National Question.” 

Communists specialise in creating social discord to divide an existing society into “oppressor” and “oppressed” groups. They work tirelessly to persuade the supposedly downtrodden that they have a grievance then promise to help them get what they want.

Around 1905, Lenin and Stalin noted that Tsarist Russia consisted not just of ethnic Russians, but upwards of 80 formerly tribal subject peoples, conquered by the Czars over the preceding 500 years and forcibly Russified. To expand the Bolshevik support base, these peoples were promised “the right to manage their own affairs,” “the right to self-determination,” “the right to speak, read, write, use, and be taught in their own language” etc. It is this more than 100 year-old Communist cant that now surfaces in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.

After World War I the multi-ethnic empires of Austro-Hungary and Czarist Russia to which the National Question was first applied to stir up revolution were no more. Lenin and Stalin then directed the National Question towards undermining the hold of European nations over their colonial possessions, so as to deprive them of sources of cheap labour, raw materials, and markets for finished goods.

In the late 1920s and early 1930s, Communists all over the world were instructed to promote the independence aspirations of minority ethnic groups in order to bring them into conflict with the status quo, thus undermining social cohesion, breaking up nations and dependencies into warring factions, and leading to eventual socialist control.

After the creation of the UN in 1945, Communists on its various committees and workgroups began to drip-feed National Question ideology into the fabric of the organisation. By 1960, the UN General Assembly had adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Indendence to Colonial Countries and Peoples. This stated that all peoples have a right to self-determination and proclaimed that colonialism should be brought to a speedy and unconditional end.

Locally, the Communist Party of New Zealand (“CPNZ”) soon identified a minority strand of Maori opinion centred on the Tainui and Tuwharetoa tribes that had always favoured reversion to tribalism rather than engagement with the modern world. The CPNZ ran in the 1935 General Election on a platform that included “self-determination for the Maoris [sic] to the point of complete separation.” Again, you heard it here first.

In the 1930s, the CPNZ had little success with this line. Maori were a predominately rural people and had little contact with Communists, who were mostly found in urban areas with a substantial manufacturing base. This soon changed. Over the period 1945 – 1975, Maori underwent what University of Waikato demographers Pool and Pole describe as “the most rapid urbanisation of any group of people, anywhere.”

This brought Maori flooding into the universities and trade unions, the CPNZ’s main recruiting grounds. The Communists who’d begun colonising the nation’s universities in the 1930s as a deliberate project had by the early 1970s achieved critical mass in many departments, especially those specialising in the study of society. Their growing dominance on faculty hiring committees allowed them to systematically exclude anyone holding alternative views. 

Controlling the universities was based on the writings of Antonio Gramsci, yet another disreputable Communist held up as an intellectual icon by the academic Left. In the 1920s, Gramsci realised that the western democracies were too attached to the benefits of individual rights, patriotism, and Judeo-Christian culture. These ideas were deeply embedded and would not be easily surrendered. 

Revolution must therefore first take place on the level of consciousness. Gramsci’s adherents sought control over culture, organised religion, media, education, and other areas where intellectual discourse takes place. The goal of these self-appointed “agents of social change” was to colonise, then subvert the institutions of the system they sought to destroy.

Starting in the 1930s, western university students have been increasingly subjected to systematic brainwashing by Gramsci’s disciples using the universities as a factory for ideological reproduction. They were told they were learning “progressive” new ideas about race, gender and class, not Communism. They were programmed with all the principles of Communism without the label then flattered for their cleverness in accepting the programming. If you told them they were Marxists or Communists, they’d respond with a pitying smile, roll their eyes, and accuse you of “seeing Reds under the bed.” 

After graduating, these useful idiots slithered forth from the academy into the media, education system, trade unions, Labour Party, entertainment industry, churches and other institutions that shape society’s governing ideas. Our universities thus served as a transmission belt into wider society for a raft of Communist narratives, including that of Maori as an “oppressed” people. As a result, the political centre of gravity has moved steadily leftward over several generations. 

Just a few decades ago anyone peddling ethnic nationalism would have been regarded as dangerously deluded. Now, through the Communist tactic of “pressure from above” by the UN and “pressure from below” by ethnic nationalist groups within member-states, the topic has been successfully mainstreamed.

All so-called “Maori” alive today are actually of mixed European-Maori descent. Although the Maori phenotype tends to predominate in one’s appearance, the vast majority of those claiming to be “Maori” actually possess more of the blood of the colonisers than that of the colonised. 

The presumptions within the UN Declaration of Indigenous Rights, that such individuals are entitled to separate, different, or superior rights because some of their ancestors were here first can now be seen for what it is: a long-running Communist-generated subversion strategy designed to substitute UN-brokered group rights for the individual equality in citizenship that guarantees national sovereignty and a free society.

Back to top of page >>>

9 November 09
When Privatisation Does Not Work
By Emeritus Professor Guenther Mueller-Heumann, University of Otago*

New Zealand’s history of privatisation of public assets is very chequered. The privatisation of the railway system, sold first to a company in Wisconsin, then sold again to Toll Holdings in Australia, and eventually bought back recently by the New Zealand government was clearly based on a serious lack of business acumen by the successive governments involved. It should have been clear from the beginning that profit-orientated overseas companies interested in New Zealand railways could well be leaning more towards asset stripping and cost-cutting by reducing services offered than competing against road and other transport competitors at all cost.

Another example of privatisation having gone wrong is the partial privatisation of New Zealand’s electricity industry. Everyone will remember Max Bradford’s grandstanding about the prospect of lower electricity prices. His forcefully presented arguments were based on seemingly rock-solid evidence about the benefits of private enterprise competition – compared to public bureaucracy inefficiencies. Max Bradford was probably admired by many free market economists at the time. Reality shows that he was wrong. Why?

Economic theory of competition in a market economy is flawed. Competition only works in certain circumstances.

There are three preconditions for competition to work for the benefit of consumers: Consumers themselves have to have “freedom of choice”, consumer decisions have to be well-informed, and the product or service has to have the potential to be differentiated, i.e. different competitors have to be able to offer consumers different products with different consumer benefits.

In a free market pluralism reigns. It is called product differentiation based on market segmentation. The free market economy works best where there are infinite possibilities to differentiate the offer for the equally indefinite whims of consumers.

Electricity, for example, can ultimately not be differentiated substantially. Competition should – theoretically – therefore concentrate on the one management tool that can be differentiated, price. But there is a limit to price competition because of the safety factor of this particular product and it is therefore more profitable for companies, especially in an oligopolistic (not many competitors) situation to “not rock the boat”. Also it is not easy for consumers to switch from one company to another, a situation which is similar in the mortgage market.

In addition, when the electricity industry was privatised, the sixty-odd power boards which were cut loose had very different starting conditions. It was not a “level playing field”. One new power retailer I know of had access to an old dam which generated electricity at about two cents a kilowatt/hour whereas the price of new electricity generation – for a competitor who wanted to expand into new capacity - was five to ten times as costly.

With a few exceptions such as institutionalised markets like the stock exchange, markets which rely entirely on price do not work well.

Basic products and services like infrastructure, electricity, the police, fire brigades, even the basic telephone connection should not be left to “market forces”, but provided efficiently by government. Even the National Party, supposedly the champions of private enterprise, want to set up a fibre-optic network in New Zealand for very fast Internet connections. Why has this not been done by private enterprise a long time ago? Why have the forces of competition not managed to set up such a system? Why did, both in Australia and New Zealand, governments have to force the main companies in the telecommunications market to open their systems to new competitors?

Private enterprise-type market competition also does not work well where consumers do not have a free choice, where “consumer sovereignty” is not present. I have often said “When you have a pain in your guts, you do not start to shop around for the best or cheapest doctor”. The health system is in fact a good example for a situation where the free market does not work well.

In a recent television documentary, public health systems and private health systems world-wide were compared for their efficiency. The USA with its emphasis on private enterprise health providers came out worst, the publicly based – although with private fringe elements – health systems of the UK, Australia and New Zealand were portrayed as much more efficient.

The size of the economy in New Zealand also limits the possibilities even within the fringe private health sector: Private hospitals in New Zealand simply cannot, for example, afford the most complicated and expensive technology – as a friend recently experienced: He had undergone a successful bowel operation in a beautiful new private hospital in Auckland. Everything went fine until complications developed and he had to be transferred to a public hospital which had the very expensive medical technology required for his case. The private hospital could not afford this technology because of its costs!

Other examples where “freedom of choice” does not work well are, for example, decisions parents have to make about the education of their children. These decisions are guided more often by the “image” of educational institutions than cold facts. The writer, during his decades of work in the tertiary sector in New Zealand, saw many graduates from “prestige high schools” fail abysmally at university level, while students from very ordinary high schools often excelled.

In summary, the private enterprise free market system does not work in every situation.

It is definitely the best system where products can be differentiated, catering for the different whims of consumers in a pluralistic society. Even the Chinese communist society, long before subscribing to quasi-free-market principles, gave up the standard uniform Mao dresses!

When considering the privatisation of public assets, decision makers should firstly make sure that the market competition they set in motion is not based on naive business thinking, like selling asset-rich organisations to private companies which are more interested in asset-stripping than competing.

Secondly, they should consider whether or not the products which are offered in a competitive situation can be differentiated, so catering for the indefinite whims of consumers. If the product cannot be differentiated and competition focuses on price, the question is whether the new competitors are prepared and able to use price or whether they prefer to avoid competition altogether.

Thirdly, can consumers in the newly-created private enterprise market-place make informed decisions? If consumers cannot “vote“ freely with their money for the best among all the alternatives on the market, consumer democracy/the free market will not work.

*Professor Mueller-Heumann now lives at Trinity Beach in Far North Queensland.


Back to top of page >>>

6 September 09
Maori Seats 
By Reuben Chapple

The Herald has recently editorialised strongly in favour of separate Maori seats on the Auckland Council. The weight of published letters and opinion pieces in this newspaper further contrives at the impression that such representation is some kind of constitutional and/or moral requirement.

The elephant in the room is that the so-called “Maori” of today are not the Maori of 1840. Most of those today claiming to be Maori actually have more of the blood of the colonisers than of the colonised. All have at least some European ancestry.

Even if Maori remained a discrete ethnic group, the Royal Commission’s recommendation that they be separately represented on the Auckland Council is based on an incorrect interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi.

Under this set of assumptions, the Crown is in “partnership” with both a collective “Maori” and with individual Maori tribes deemed to hold mana whenua or “chiefly authority” over a particular locality.

The “partnership” fallacy is based on an erroneous decision of the Court of Appeal in 1987 case involving the NZ Maori Council. It rests on what researcher Alan Everton describes as “nothing more than the opinion of five judges who combined a lamentable ignorance of New Zealand history with a willingness to ignore the Constitutional principle that they were appointed to apply the law, not make it.”

The Lange Labour Government's artfully sketchy references to “the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986 allowed these activist judges to conclude from the Treaty’s black letter clauses that it created “something akin to a partnership.”

Yet Article I ceded sovereignty to the Crown “absolutely and without reservation.”

Article II sets out the protection of existing property rights under the sovereign power acknowledged as henceforth prevailing in Article I. It guarantees: “Te tino rangatiratanga/full authority over their lands, forests fisheries and other property [the correct translation in 1840]” not just to the chiefs but to “ki nga tangata katoa o Niu Tirani,” that is “to all the people of New Zealand .”

It is only by dishonestly ignoring the words “to all the people of New Zealand ” that “tino rangatiratanga” supports a claim under the Treaty that Maori retained their sovereignty, thus becoming “partners” with the Crown in some kind of sovereignty-sharing relationship.

Article III further underscores this position in granting to “the Natives” (not just to the chiefs) “all the rights and privileges of British subjects.” Clearly, individual Maori could not enjoy such rights yet continue to be ruled in tribal style by chiefs.

There can be no possibility that the Treaty of Waitangi created a “partnership” or perpetual group rights for New Zealanders of Maori descent. Having signed the Treaty, the chiefs became not “partners” but subjects of the Crown, as did all other New Zealanders.

As subjects of the Crown — that is New Zealand citizens — today’s Anglo-Maori are entitled to the same rights as everyone else. In terms of political representation at any level of government, this means the right to stand as a candidate, the right to vote for a preferred candidate, and the right to make individual or collective submissions to elected representatives and public bodies.

Ngati Whatua’s demand for mana whenua representation is similarly flawed. It is often asserted that Ngati Whatua “gifted” the land on which Auckland City now stands to the Crown, thus entitling them to be involved on an ongoing basis in running the city.

The land was not “gifted” at all, but sold to the Crown for cash and goods. Once something is sold, it’s gone for good, and the seller has no further claim over it. In any event, like so many early land sales, Ngati Whatua’s claims to ownership at the time of sale are tenuous at best.

Ngati Whatua were not the first occupants of the Auckland area. Originally based further north, they colonised the locality around 1750 by exterminating its former occupants, Te Waiohua.

What goes around comes around. In the 1820s, the Tamaki Isthmus was repeatedly invaded by musket-toting Ngapuhi. The Encyclopaedia of New Zealand records that as a result: “much of the isthmus was abandoned as tribes sought shelter in the Tainui region.”

Historian, RCJ Stone, notes: “fear of Ngapuhi prevented them [Ngati Whatua] from occupying their old home for many years afterwards, indeed, not until Auckland was founded [in 1840] did they feel safe.”

Ngati Whatua thus sold to the Crown land they’d cravenly fled from more than a decade before. Land they neither occupied nor controlled in any meaningful sense. This placed the Governor and his troops between Ngati Whatua returnees and renewed hostilities from Ngapuhi. Payment from the Crown also underscored to neighbouring tribes that the mana of the land remained with Ngati Whatua.

While a clever stroke of business from both a practical and a Maori perspective, this hardly supports demands from Aucklanders of Anglo-Ngati Whatua descent for special political representation, even if this could be justified under the Treaty of Waitangi, which as we have seen it cannot.

In waving away the Royal Commission’s recommendation of separate Maori seats on the Auckland Council, the National Government has clearly made the right call.

26 July 09
State Owned Asset Leasing - the solution to privatisation and public sector reform 
By Kevin Campbell

Since the Douglas reforms of 1984 New Zealand Labour and National governments have repeatedly distanced themselves from even the suggestion of privatizing state assets and private sector competition for fear of oblivion at the polls.

Populists such as Winston Peters crafted careers out of irresponsible grandstanding over privatization, usually targeting the low information voter, to whip up a frenzy of hysteria, based on nothing more than disgruntlement, nostalgia and ignorance.

The truth is that a country does not have to “own and operate” every government department to serve its citizens better, socially or economically. In fact, there is clear historical evidence that we have not only benefited from privatization, but in almost all instances, private enterprise has delivered our citizens a much greater payback through lower cost and better service.

Nor does New Zealand need to sell state health or education assets to benefit – it can lease them to business, and for a sound commercial return, thus removing almost all of the spurious objections put forward by self interested politicians and lobby groups, whose sole aim is to ensure big government, reliance and dependence on the welfare state.

Successive Labour and National governments have dealt New Zealanders a great disservice, through their skin deep thinking and lack of political courage. Their failure to look beyond the next election or put aside self interest has held New Zealanders back, especially Maori and those on low incomes.

One popular myth is that assets owned and paid for by the taxpayer cost nothing, this is a completely false assertion. The reality is that state owned assets represent taxpayer equity and most of those assets require ongoing investment, to be maintained and justify their existence.

Before government invests one tax dollar in any project, be it infrastructure, education, health or social welfare it must know what the payback will be for the country. Those spending proposals that deliver low quality or a poor return for the public good (i.e. subsidies for horse racing is not for the public good) must rank below those that do or be disregarded entirely.

Where it can be reasonably justified that New Zealanders would be better served by the private sector buying or leasing a state owned asset from the government to run a public service for profit, it should be permitted without hesitation.

The current spineless pretence surrounding the introduction of private sector competition and asset sales is now seriously restricting our economic growth and prosperity. It is contributing to our most talented and productive leaving New Zealand and fueling the growth of our second class citizens.

As just one example, government waste, bureaucracy and empire building has stifled innovation and efficiency so deeply in our health system that productivity for doctors and nurses actually went down by up to 15% from 1999 to 2008, despite a 50% increase in government spending.
Another major roadblock to prosperity is our education system, and how long do we think as a country we can allow a quarter of all students to leave school without being able to read and write properly? This shameful failure is much higher for those in the poorer neighborhoods.

Sadly, real reform of health and education seems unlikely under National and is not even on the radar for Labour and the Greens. These parties have a lot to answer for, they claim to have the solutions but they have always been at the root of the problem.

Let’s look at one example of how the education standards of underprivileged New Zealand, in particular, would benefit hugely by a private educator leasing a school property from the government using ACT’s “Schools Choice” policy under an “open book” tendering format:

• The government offers for tender by lease an existing or newly built school property to pre-qualified educators in the private sector
• A fixed education fund (i.e. scholarship) per student is paid by the government, allocated to parents opting to enroll in Schools Choice, the parents choose the school
• Tendering educators compete by submitting a “fixed fee” per student per annum
• The fixed fee total must be broken down into an “open book” format showing the amount per operating cost item (i.e. a “total disclosure” rent, power, equipment, tuition, etc)
• The “profit” per student must also be disclosed as a separate item prior to the total
• The provider must deliver a minimum educational standard to meet contractual obligations
• Parents can apply to join the private school or opt back into the public system if dissatisfied
• As more public schools are leased into the private sector students could opt out of public and into private or transfer from private to private or private to public at each parents discretion
• Disruptive or delinquent children could be removed via a mutually agreed student performance contract between the educator and the parent, no government interference
• No zoning would exist, grandfather rights would be in place for families until the last child is educated opening a new place for a new family on a first come, first served basis
• For new schools built and leased, a first come, first served basis would apply

The above example would deliver many positive outcomes for underprivileged New Zealanders:

• The scholarship fund follows the student throughout their education until university
• Zoning, parental income, ethnicity and location ceases to be a barrier to entry
• Schools are contracted to parents to deliver a minimum level of achievement
• Schools compete for students who now become valuable income streams
• Schools compete for the best teachers to attract parents and students
• Schools compete to deliver superior results to attract parents
• Schools for difficult or delinquent students can be opened
• Schools for gifted and special needs students can be opened
• Approved schools of any size can be opened

Under the current education system zoning locks the low income and underprivileged families into the school in their neighborhood. There are many Maori and Polynesian parents who want their children to escape poor performing schools but cannot afford to move house or a private education.

With a competitive education market schools will be forced to achieve and deliver for parents or go broke. This model will inject the right incentives into education and must improve the standard of those New Zealand students at the bottom. To argue otherwise is pure folly.

This example tendering process for educator service providers follows the “open book” or total disclosure method because transparency and disclosure will allow the government to assess each educator more diligently, to guage their depth of operating cost knowledge and to compare tenders accurately.

It is not advisable or appropriate for a very low tender to be accepted, just for that educator to win the business then go broke because they took a punt or didn’t understand their true operating costs.

The same asset leasing principles would apply for a new or existing public hospital ward leased out to a private healthcare service provider for performing specific operations. The increase in productivity would be substantial, allowing a much greater throughput of patients, to lower numbers on the waiting lists and lower health costs for the taxpayer.

Some of the world’s most successful companies have been transacting business using the “open book” method with service providers and clients for many years. It is recognized as probably the most sound best practice method of achieving the optimum most consistent outcome for the lowest overall cost consistently.

Business profitability, the big bogeyman of the left should be seen as no more than “a fair days work for a fair days pay” which is all it actually represents. Under the open book method the profit rate-of-return can be measured, controlled and queried if excessive or unrealistically low.

At the end of the day, in real life, only a win-win-win works for all parties long-term, no party can succeed at the expense of another for long or the relationship will eventually fail.

Only when our politicians develop courage, put electoral self interest aside and use their imagination will sound creative solutions such as the above be possible in New Zealand. I live in hope but I won’t be holding my breath.

Back to top of page >>>

Back to top of page >>>

15 May 09
Is the Auckland growth management really so “smart”?
By David Willmott, Centre for Urban and Transport Studies (CUTS.org.nz)

Current “Smart Growth”-style planning and control of development is costing Auckland about $5 billion annually in direct and indirect costs, including for lost productivity, quite apart from social and environmental effects which are demonstrably increasing and arguably net-negative. The economic costs alone translate to almost 2% off Gross National Product. Are we getting developmental value in excess of this sort of cost?

So what is “smart growth”?

Smart growth is an American architect-driven town planning construct. Its objective is the sustainable commitment of the public to a planner-envisioned “designer city” wholly and integrally planned in ever-increasing detail to accommodate a doubled population roughly corresponding with a 50-year visioning horizon, assuming current technologies, nostalgias, and expectations continue unchanged throughout that period, by controlling development types locations and inter-accessibilities – or attempting to.

The three absolute pre-requisites for a smart growth-style “designer city” are (i) demonization of (natural, “uncontrolled”) expansion as “sprawl”. By appealing to the “stop the world” side of human nature, those preferring all development to be subject to community control can thereby ensure “implosion” of all future development within strictly enforced “Metropolitan Urban Limits”. (ii) detailed design of the implosion, including (a) location of all subsequent development and its control of its usage, and (b) provision of collectivised transport modes which, together with “management” (restriction) of uncontrolled travel, can deliver the required activity patterns. (iii) financial incentives and disincentives – including consenting delays and charges - to ensure outcomes provide mitigations at levels acceptable to those considered injuriously affected, and are “sustainable” (as defined in the consenting process).

Five other primary characteristics of SG designer cities are (iv) the identification promotion and protection of selected activity corridors and centres, (v) the commitment to, development of, and coercive promotion and heavy cross-subsidisation (from road-user taxes) of a rail-based public transport system to anchor and force-feed these activity nodes, (vi) encouraged, incentivised or enforced densification of residential development within walking distance of these corridors and nodes to ensure activity occurs as and where designed, (vi) assurance that appropriately world-class standards will be achieved, and a quality city result, by means of detailed control of every element of the built environment, (viii) active discouragement (“management”) of the use of private vehicles by minimising new urban road construction, restricting parking, allocating roadspace for morally superior bus users, and the imposition of tolls, parking charges, road user taxes and rate hikes (for cross-subsidisation of public transport) as if congestion costs and delays are not in themselves a sufficient deterrent to peak period travel and parking..

Supported by the MfE and legislation, the Auckland Regional Council adopted smart growth as an off-the-peg response to the RMA’s requirement for a Regional Growth Strategy (“Plan”), especially as it gave vision-based planners a commanding role in the pursuance of a “designer city” for Auckland

Is the “designer city” delivering “the goods”?

After New Zealand’s effective bankruptcy in 1984, a less restricted ie “more personal choice, more market” economy was prescribed by the IMF on bailing us out. Town planning had become overly restrictive of efficient development and commerce; the RMA displaced it to “enable people and communities” (including companies) to do pretty much whatever they wanted with their land and travel plans, with simpler, easier, quicker and cheaper consents only subject to environmental effects assessments and mitigations.

These, then, are “the goods” the RMA was intended to deliver. However, with effects assessments becoming ever more detailed, and environmental bottom lines long since devolved into high jump bars, the Royal Commission advises that we will need to change our attitudes to, once more, subject all such choices to the dictates of the Plan. So much for “more market” and enablement of personal and community (including company) wants and needs.

To attract support, Regional & District Plans have to aspire to world-class developmental standards, promise socio-economic “vibrancy” and salvation from all conceivable environmental calamities, and ensure perpetual sustainability of the vision itself. In short, they have to promise delivery of all things to all men, with no complications such as downsides or unanticipated consequences.

Any such detrimental effects of delivery need not concern political signatories, who are quickly converted to co-workers in the creation of Designer City. After all they are signing off on a vision, not a guarantee, and who are they to deny strident environmentalist and media support for the vision promoted? And how can anyone with half an understanding of the immense socio-economic complexities driving cities, sell the need for compromise to the special interest groups dominating consultation processes? And if planners believe they can halt and implode the socio-economic drivers of natural urban expansion, why would they not believe they can do so at no cost, with no detrimental effects, and with no reversionary feedback mechanisms? The role of the brotherhood of planning visionaries and urban designers is to bend the city to suit their design for it, regardless of such trifling inconveniences.

In consequence, the old profession of town planning is resurgent, expanding dramatically in scope and pervasiveness, to accommodate all the expert advisers and designers now needed to ensure any changes contribute to the (evolving) urban design, as revealed by appropriate interpretation of the Regional and District Planning documents, thus to “ensure sustainable outcomes”.

The benefits and costs of a designer city.

First, the positives. The one thing smart growth advocates promise above all is quality. Quality of developmental decision-making, quality of physical appearances (through “urban design” panels), and in attaining world-class standards. The consultation process ensures the neighbours get only the highest standards of development and the maximum in amenity mitigations, regardless of affordabilities. No starting today with a self-made mud hut on a piece of affordable swamp land with a rainwater tank and porta-loo, and upgrading it with lean-tos as needed and affordable. The next generation can be assured that all new land development and houses built today are designed down to the last detail with full and permanent servicing ensuring no drain on the public purse for 50 years more, and with housing fully safe, world’s best standards, and unaffordable.

The resulting housing price-tag in parts of Auckland is already approaching nine times household income, compared with the three times paid by our parents, for houses which remain standing today. Even nine times is just fine, as long as the market valuation keeps rising faster than incomes, and as long as inflation rots away our mortgages and transfers to the owners down payments (as yet unearned income) from the next generation (So much for inter-generational equity!) But we are now borrowed to the hilt and foreclosure is happening, both personally and collectively.

Smart growth also causes or sustains inequity on a massive scale, both temporally and spatially. Temporally, house price escalation has effectively transferred an average of about $300,000 from the current generation of house-seekers to recent retirees who bought their house forty years ago. Spatially, urban land values a decade ago were far more equitised by the equitisation of automobility-enhanced intra-urban accessibility than they were immediately post-war, when few owned cars, and radial public transport railroaded workers and shoppers downtown. The latter ensured that about 50% of jobs and services thus land value were also located downtown. The current enforced re-centralisation of much development, coupled with growing congestion and declining inter-accessibility, is reversing that long-term trend to equitisation of land values.

As the restrictions controls and costs of development, usage, and inter-accessibility bite ever deeper, constraining personal and communal choices and activities, frustrations rise until the public changes its attitudes (thus morals, lifestyles, choices and behaviours) to conform with the Plan’s requirements, or departs for more personally and commercially-enabling climes. It is widely presumed that the frictional heat will rise slowly enough for the frogs to adjust to it and stay within the pot. However, migration to Australia, and between American SG designer cities and comparatively unconstrained cities (such as Houston, Atlanta) is accelerating, particularly for teachers, nurses and other low-paid professionals in search of an affordable family home.

The other claimed benefit, presumed energy savings, leans heavily on peak hour patronage of public transport on the city end of a city-bound run. But energy is consumed day-long. Per passenger-km actually delivered, day-long, buses are no more energy-efficient than cars, and rail transit is substantially less so. The higher cost of implosive development per m2 reflects the energy content in steel and cement being far higher than residential wooden construction. Urban expansion happens naturally because it maximises choice while also costing least; - a sure sign of incorporated energy savings.

While Section 32 of the RMA required costs and other downsides of Policies and Plans to be an input to planning, urban complexities effectively preclude any credible attempt at this. That problem was removed when the Local Government Act 2002 enshrined smart growth regardless, ensured “general competence” by fiat, and legalised Long Term Council and Community Plans (translatable as “smart growth”). (check out underlined wording)

Thus the cost of smart growth is not widely considered, and is barely apparent, except as the fees, charges, contributions, mitigations, perfections, safety insurances, and general hassles, disjunctions, delays and holding costs associated with any particular development. But these are minor costs compared with the economic debilitation imposed by urban implosion.

Before the war, public transport was the only means of longer-distance travel for most Aucklanders. Consequently, half all urban employment was downtown. Post-war automobilisation released pent-up social and economic forces favouring decentralisation (including equitisation of inter-accessabilities and land values). Today downtown employs just 10%, rendering radial public transport unusable except for up to 5% of total daily urban trips (currently about 3.5%). Jobs and services have gone to where most people are; no need shift housing whenever you change jobs. The reversal of such benefits by forced implosion costs, and costs dearly.

Direct costs are manifest in congestion, the truly appalling cost of rail-based public transportisation, the excessive percentage of total wealth now bound up in over-specified high cost development (especially housing), and the overload and retroactive upsizing of central services designed for traditional densities.

Rail transit and buslanes alone will burden rate- and tax-payers by close to $10 billion for the planned 155km system including for the opportunity cost of “free land” for sole-use corridors. Annual subsidies are rising towards $300 million. The now-necessary $600 million “central interceptor” sewer is just one consequence of service overloads, and the cost falls to ratepayers, not developers thus users. Annual congestion costs estimated at $800 million with 1994 data would amount to $1.5 billion today were it not for a recession. The residual value (including energy content) destroyed in prematurely densified “brownfields” adds perhaps 30% to redevelopment cost Yet all such costs are willingly accommodated in a nostalgic reach for the (dis-)benefits of re-centralisation.

Indirect costs further reduce urban productive inefficiency and compound the losses. One major industrialist doubled its trucking fleet between 1992 and 2001 to distribute the same amount of product, not because of peripheral urban expansion but because congestion halved daily deliveries per truck. It then added the cost of distribution depots and double-handling to address the uncertainty of travel times and ensure just-on-time delivery, again adding to product cost. Tradesmen achieve two jobs daily when speedy inter-access previously enabled three. And households sacrifice family time and sleep to “beat the rush”. Investment and development proposals delayed or precluded by planning requirements also represent losses, as do developments located other than optimally from the producer/distributor viewpoint.

Altogether, the obvious direct and indirect costs can be assessed at easily exceeding $5 billion annually. Moreover, inadequate productive efficiency has resulted in our living beyond our means, transferring our debts onto future generations until our foreign debtors call up their loans, and economic collapse ensues. That is hardly inter-generationally equitable, quite apart from sustainable

Restrictive implosion versus enabling expansion

The Royal Commission’s appointment resulted from widespread public concern that Regional and District Plans were not delivering on their purposes and promises. At least, not yet; - can/will the Commission’s work really lead to Auckland becoming a world class city which also remains personally and commercially enabling, democratically governable, and affordable, both for its citizens and for commerce?

Current indications are that, apart from shifting deckchairs around, there are no proposals for a Royal Commission on how to enable the private sector to improve Auckland’s productive efficiency. Deckchair riders can hardly govern the urban design machine when they get only one sort of driving advice from Auckland’s alluring smart-growth “designer city” culture – how to constrain growth and drive up costs, rather than how to enable their reduction.

Back to top of page >>>

3 May 09

3 May 09
Te Arawa – the historical facts
By Ross Baker

Te Arawa has just been given the Rotorua lakes and is about to get $500 million from the Crown in the “Treelords” settlement. If it had not been for the Tiriti o Waitangi, the missionaries, the Crown and the people of New Zealand in the 1820’s to the 1870’s, it is more than likely Te Arawa would have lost their land and lakes to a more powerful “rebel” tribe. Although they did not sign the Tiriti o Waitangi, it protected them and their lands from being taken by others. Britain had kept her promise to protect “all the people of New Zealand and their property”, irrespective of race colour or creed, but no more so than in Te Arawa’s case!!!

Since the “mythical” arrival of Te Arawa in the canoe “Te Arawa” at Maketu in 1340 and as their numbers increased, Te Arawa split into many small tribes, some moving north to Tauranga, some south to Matata and some inland to Rotorua and Taupo. These tribes were constantly at war with each other as well as travelling north to annoy Ngapuhi. As there was no unity between the tribes of Te Arawa, Te Arawa never progressed until British law, order and protection arrived under the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840.

The Te Arawa tribes that moved to Rotorua and Taupo found people already inhabiting these areas. These people were called Ngati Hotu and were described as, “of non-Māori appearance, having reddish hair and pale skin”. Te Arawa drove these people to extinction.

In March 1828, a party of Te Arawa visiting the North were lucky to escape with their lives when they were suspected of causing the death of Hongi Hika through witchcraft. They were however, given protection by the missionaries and sent back to the Bay of Plenty on the ships Herald and Haweis.

In 1830, Hans Homman Felk, a Dane who had been a pirate and later changed his name to Philip Tapsell, arrived in Maketu. Tapsell began trading flax for muskets. So imperative for Te Arawa to arm themselves with muskets, much of the food gathering etc was neglected for growing and scraping flax. Land was also fought over between the tribes of Te Arawa to grow their crops of flax. Tapsell later opened a trading post on Mokoia Island in Lake Rotorua.

In August 1831, a deputation of Te Arawa men went to the Bay of Islands seeking a missionary to come and live amongst them. In November, Thomas Chapman set up a mission station at Te Kouto next to Te Arawa’s main pa at Ohinemutu. The arrival of the missionaries started to bring peace between the tribes of Te Arawa.

Between 1832 and 1834, there was much warfare between Ngapuhi of the north and Te Arawa. 1835 saw a Matamata tribe under Te Waharoa take the Maketu pa, destroying Tapsell’s trading post. Te Arawa retaliated taking the pa of Te Tumu, an ally of Te Waharoa. Te Waharoa again retaliated but was defeated with heavy loss to Te Arawa. Te Arawa re-occupied Maketu.

During the next year, desultory warfare broke out between Te Arawa and the Ngati Haua with great casualties on both sides.

In 1840, the Tiriti o Waitangi was signed giving protection and equal rights to “all the people of New Zealand”. New Zealand became British soil under British law; a law that would take some time to unite and protect “all the people of New Zealand”, irrespective of race, colour or creed.

In November 1842, a series of incidents occurred between the Te Arawa of Maketu and Ngaiterangi of Tauranga. Although there were still many minor squabbles between those of Tauranga and Maketu, peace was largely established between Te Arawa by 1843 with the appointment of resident magistrates and the British troops.

Great progress was made in Rotorua between 1842 and 1860. Agriculture had taken off with several flourmills operating in the area, which only a generation before had been a violent, disunited group of smallish tribes. Many schools had been established and many Maori magistrates had been appointed. The Tiriti o Waitangi had brought peace, protection and prosperity to the people of Te Arawa.

In 1863, Te Arawa announced that no reinforcements were to pass through their territory to assist the Waikato who at the time were fighting with the Government troops. Waikato was hindering the progress of New Zealand by refusing to allow a road to be built through their territory and the threat of an attack on Auckland. Te Arawa were assisted by Government troops.

However in 1865, a much more serious threat to final peace was making itself felt in the new cult of Hauhauism. In May, Te Arawa were once more involved in battle with this rebel force under their notorious leader Kereopa at Te Tapira near Murapara. Te Arawa, while suffering great loss were able to hold them off until Government reinforcements under the command of William Mair arrived. In September, a force of Te Arawa under the command of Mair again engaged a large number of these rebels at Matata, finally defeating them and driving them out.

In 1867, Te Arawa again saw warfare in the Rotoru district. A Waikato party had attacked Rotorua while most of the fighting men were at Tauranga. This time Gilbert Mair, brother of William with his troops reached the district just in time to engage the enemy at Te Koutu. The Waikato had occupied the north and west tenches of a long abandoned pa site. Finally, the Waikato were driven off leaving bodies of a number of their party on the fields. If Gilbert Mair and his troops had not reached Rotoru in time, Waikato would more than likely have taken Rotorua, slaughtering its remaining inhabitants.

In March 1867, troops were sent from Tauranga to attack a large number of Hauhaus who had thrown up a defensive work at Puraku, just south of the present Tarukena settlement. The defences were destroyed but hardly had the troops arrived back in Rotorua before the rebels returned and rebuilt Puraku into a strong defended site. Another attack was made, this time successful in chasing the rebels well into the Mamaku forest.

In January 1868, there was further trouble when a large party of Hauhaus (Tuhoe) came down from the Urewera country and raided many villages in the Ohiwa district. A group of 100 Te Arawa men were engaged to assist the Government troops in pursuing the Hauhau up the Waimana valley.

In July 1868, Te Kooti escaped from the Chatham Island and began his bloodthirsty, violent campaign. For many months the country was in an uproar over his ability to strike hard and run. During this time a contingent of Te Arawa men were engaged with the British troops.

In February 1870, Te Kooti struck at Rotorua and due to his skilful tactics almost caught its inhabitants off guard. Fortunately Gilbert Mair, suspecting what might be happening, rushed through to Rotorua from Tapapa just in time to engage Te Kooti’s party who had created havoc among the settlements and cultivations along Tihi-o- Tonga ridge. Te Kooti and his men had reached what is now the centre of the City of Rotorua when the first shots were fired and a running battle ensued which followed the course of the Rotorua – Taupo highway for some six miles. The final battle took place at the base of the Tumunui Mountain with Te Kooti being soundly beating and a number of his best men lost.

For the next year, the Government engaged Gilbert Mair and his troops to patrol and protect Te Arawa people and their lands (Kaingaroa) from the marauding rebels.

With the Government’s protection now firmly established, this was the end of warfare in Te Arawa lands. A constabulary was established at Te Koutu by men who had formally been in Gilbert Mair’s troops. Over the next century, schools, shops, banks, hotels, churches and hospitals were built, businesses and agriculture flourished. Roads, rail and air joined Rotorua to the rest of the world. In 1962, Rotorua became a city. While Te Arawa had been constantly at war and in fear to protect themselves and their lands since 1340, they could now progress knowing the law would protect them and their property. Titles to land were issued and land could only be sold if the seller was willing with fully documented evidence being kept at Archives of all transactions.

The majority of this information is from, “A Pocket History of Rotorua” by Don Stafford written in 1975. Don Stafford wrote this book by interviewing Te Arawa elders and researching the “true” history of Te Arawa prior to 1975 and before the next generation of Te Arawa could see the big dollars from rewriting, distorting or select researching their history to defraud the people who did so much for them, some even paying the ultimate price, to protect them and their lands from being taken from them by other tribes and rebels between 1820 to 1870. While the Government owes Te Arawa for their loyalty, in most cases for Te Arawa’s own gain or protection, Te Arawa owes the Titiri o Waitangi, the Government and the people of New Zealand for the protection of its people and its lands. Mr Stafford states in the preface, “I am confident that a fuller understanding of the contributions made in the past by earlier people of this area can only highten the appreciation of what we have today. If the material in this little book helps to do this, it will be well justified”, Don Stafford. 1975.

To claim these lands back, now that they are in full production, which were purchased on a willing seller/willing buyer basis over a century ago, is very ungrateful to the people of New Zealand.

In 1889, Gilbert Mair on behalf of the Government purchased land that is now known as the Kaingaroa Forest. While this land would grow exotic trees, pastures for farming were unsuccessful until the element cobalt was introduced in 1940/50. While trees flourished, the cost to plant them and then wait 25 to 30 years for a return could only be undertaken by the Government. The Crown purchase gave Te Arawa instant capital and employment for its people. The tribes affiliated to this area agreed to sell the land, even digging up their old chief to accept the money from Gilbert Mair. This land was bought and planted in trees by the people of New Zealand as security for “all the people of New Zealand”. The Crown has no right to return it to Te Arawa, especially now it is in full production, it belongs to the people of New Zealand - they bought the land and grew the trees on it!!!

It must also be remembered, Te Arawa today are not the people that sold this land in 1889. Since this time, they have intermarried mainly with the people they claim stole their land. As a past Race Relations Conciliator of Maori descent, Mr John Clark stated, “Maori today are a people with Maori ancestry as one sees in legislation”.

The Kaingaroa Forest was bought on a willing seller/willing buyer basis. Gilbert Mair was a loyal and trusted friend of Te Arawa as can be seen from the respect they showed each other in 1889.

Back to top of page >>>

3 May 09
NZ should not support the United States War of Terror
By Vincent Anderson

On the 20th April, John Key said on the TV1 Breakfast Show, that if he were to send SAS troops to Afghanistan it would be to help fight the ‘war on terror’ and al-Qaeda. This was a bare faced lie and he knows it. The ‘war on terror’ is not about fighting global terrorism but expanding the American world empire, geostrategic control of resources and countries, and the expansion of state power.

Iraq was invaded in the name of the ‘war on terror'. Everyone is aware that the reasons for the invasion of that country have all proven to be false. There were no weapons of mass destruction capable of hitting Europe in 40 minutes. There were no links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda, Iraq had nothing to do with the events of 911. It was definitely not about spreading Democracy and overthrowing a tyrant who persecuted his people.

All the war has brought is untold suffering to the people of Iraq. What has been inflicted upon that country is nothing short of genocide. Over 1.3 million Iraqis have died since 2003. 2 Million Iraqis have been displaced inside of Iraq and 3 million forced to leave the country. The infrastructure of the entire country has been flattened and depleted uranium spread throughout. This came after 13 years of near total sanctions that by some estimates were said to have killed over 1 million Iraqis, mostly children.

It is plain to see that these crimes were not committed for the hollow reasons we were told. In essence it boils down to two main reasons - geostrategic control of the country and its oil.

Although people are willing to accept that the world was brazenly lied to in regard to Iraq. They are not willing to see that they were also lied to about the reasons for invading Afghanistan. The stated purpose of the invasion was to capture Osama Bin Laden, destroy al-Qaeda, and remove the Taliban regime which had provided support and safe harbour to al-Qaeda. The United States' Bush Doctrine stated that, as policy, it would not distinguish between al-Qaeda and nations that harbour them.

So what happened to Bin Laden? We never hear about him anymore do we? At 11am on the morning of September 11, the Bush administration had already announced that al-Qaeda were responsible for the attacks in New York and Washington. They knew this before the dust of the Twin Towers had settled. When the Taliban refused to give up Bin Laden because of US refusal to provide evidence of his involvement, the war was launched on the 7th October 2001. How did the United States know that al-Qaeda were responsible before investigating and why did they not just hand over the evidence they had to avoid war? The answer is because the official story regarding the events of 911 is a fallacy and the truth to what happened that fateful day is now starting to see the light.

A Danish scientist recently has written a scientific document stating that nano-thermite was found in the WTC rubble. He appeared on a Danish news channel explaining himself, see the interview here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o Thermite is a mixture of aluminum and rust powder which react to produce intense heat that can reach 2500 degrees C, hot enough to cut steel. This is the smoking gun that proves that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition. This also explains how the towers fell at free fall speed, defying the laws of physics by taking the path of most resistance and encountering none. All is explained when you realize it was a controlled demolition.

Other prominent individuals have also come forward to question the official story including Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga. Member of the Japanese parliament, Yukihisa Fujita, also questioned the official story in a sitting of parliament on January 10th 2008. See the entire event with subtitles here: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... a&aid=7803

Eight years on from the tragic event and people are starting to wake up from their hypnosis and see the wood through the trees. If people would investigate what happened that day, instead of believing the same lying group of criminals who brought them the war in Iraq, it would soon become apparent that the attacks were not orchestrated from a cave on the other side of the world. People are either too apathetic to do their own research, willfully ignorant or just outright gullible and have taken the biggest lie of all hook line and sinker.

Large scale theatre war needs planning well in advance to be executed successfully. Planning for the war in Afghanistan took place well before 911. The Patriot Act was passed just 45 days after the attacks with virtually no debate and has revoked most of the constitutional liberties that Bin Laden was supposed to have hated so much.

Ironically, and very Orwellian, the very freedoms that the war on terror is supposedly being fought to protect were taken away in the name of protecting them.

As with Iraq, the Afghanistan war is not about the lies we are told but instead the geostrategic control of the country and its resources.

Afghanistan is known as the world’s largest supplier of Opium. Surprisingly opium production was all but eradicated under the Taliban. Since the invasion and occupation of that country opium production is at an all time high . The poorest country in the world produces 90% of the world’s heroin, how do you suppose that they get their product to their markets in the West? That’s right put two and two together, make the connection, the current occupiers are the distributors . Of course the world’s greatest superpower could continue the Taliban policy of eradication. If it had done so the war on drugs would be well on the way to being won. The narcotics industry is a multibillion dollar industry and the hub of that industry is Afghanistan.

Since Afghanistan and Iraq have been occupied massive permanent military bases have been built in both countries. The United States now has over 700 military bases worldwide.

It’s time to face the facts New Zealand. Since the United States defeated Germany and Japan to bring an end to World War two it has subsequently invaded 130 countries around the world. Ironically, it was in the name of fighting the formation of a Communist World empire that the American world empire was formed. It is now in the name of fighting terrorism that they continue to grow this empire. No longer does the United States represent the bastion of freedom and liberty as we are lead to believe. It now represents the exact opposite, the suppression and torture of people and the destruction of societies.

It is also time to really look at the nature of US democracy, instead of allowing ourselves to be suckered by the sensationalist media spectacle that passes for an election. Presidential candidates are bought and paid for and are subservient to the money that funds them. Wall Street and the Energy industry run the show in the States.

This is the backdrop we need to consider before we send our troops to Afghanistan to fight the war of terror. By us sending our troops to Afghanistan, or our reconstruction teams to Iraq, or the placement of Echelon on our soil we are complicit. We are complicit in the wholesale slaughter of millions of innocents and the perpetuation of a system of tyranny that has been in operation for all of the last century. If we are truly serious about world peace, we need to make a moral stand now. We need to stop participating and we need to unequivocally condemn these corrupt actions on the world stage. If we don’t then we too are responsible for these crimes against humanity.

Back to top of page >>>

1 April 09
The Role of Carbon Dioxide in the Origin of Hydrcarbons  
By Robert Chouinard

For 250 years, the prevailing working hypothesis of the origin of oil (aka petroleum and hydrocarbons) is the “dead dinosaur hypothesis” and dates back to the 18th century. Its originator was a Russian scientist named Mikhail Lomonosov, who put it this way in a 1757 paper: “Rock oil (petroleum) originates as tiny bodies of animals buried in the sediments which, under the influence of increased temperature and pressure acting during an unimaginably long period of time, transforms into rock oil.”

However, a more scientific hypothesis originated in the 1950s when Russian and Ukrainian scientists developed a new theory about petroleum's origins called the abiotic or abiogenic theory. According to this view, oil is fundamentally inorganic and has no relationship to dead plant or animal life.  Rather, oil originates deep in the Earth's crust from inorganic material - marine carbonate deposits (limestone).
http://www.studien-von-zeitfragen.de/Zeitfragen/Petroleum/petroleum.html

In the laboratory, “…pure solid marble (CaCO₃ – aka metamorphic marine carbonate or limestone) 
and iron oxide (FeO) wet with triple-distilled water are subjected to pressures up to 50 kbar 
(50,000 times atmospheric pressure) and temperatures to 2000 C. With no contribution of either 
hydrocarbons or biological detritus, the CaCO₃-FeO-H₂O system spontaneously generates, at the high pressures predicted theoretically, the suite of hydrocarbons characteristic of natural petroleum.” Hydrocarbons are compounds containing only hydrogen (H) and carbon (C) atoms.  Hence, neither the calcium (Ca) nor oxygen (O₃) part of the CaCO₃ is transformed, only the carbon (C), and the iron oxide (FeO) acts only as a catalyst, under pressure, to break down the H₂O into elemental hydrogen (H) and oxygen (O) to make hydrogen (H) available to combine with the carbon (C).
http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm

In the real world, tectonic processes such as one tectonic plate sliding over another, if it occurs in the ocean, can cause enormous amounts of limestone deposits (CaCO_3,  the precursor to marble used in the above experiment) to subduct (be buried) under the top plate and thus be subjected to intense pressure and temperature.  The other ingredients such as iron would be present in the earth’s mantle overlaying the wet limestone but the H₂O may also be present as elemental hydrogen and oxygen along with the iron. Thus, all the ingredients and conditions of the above laboratory experiment would very likely be present within the earth’s mantle to form the suite of hydrocarbon compounds we call oil.  

Just as the food chain on land and in the sea depend on atmospheric CO₂ so does the formation of hydrocarbons. The first step starts with atmospheric CO₂ that is absorbed by the ocean and combined with calcium to form dissolved calcium carbonate (CaCO₃). CaCO₃ can become concentrated in seawater and, as it reaches a critical point, it begins to precipitate out in tiny grains the size of sand.  The dissolved CaCO₃ can also be used by marine organisms for shells which also deposit to the bottom when the organism dies.  As described above, this CaCO₃ becomes the source of carbon which combines with elemental hydrogen to form hydrocarbons.  The enormous energy required for this miraculous transformation is provided by the immense heat and pressure within the Earth’s mantle.  This energy is converted and stored as chemical energy in the molecular structure of the hydrocarbons and it is this energy that is released to satisfy our energy needs.  Thus, this process starts with CO₂ and water and should end with CO₂ and water when the hydrocarbons are burned.  Unfortunately, lots of other compounds, including more than 250 toxins, are created when we burn the hydrocarbons. 

During combustion, CO₂ is released to begin this endless cycle once more. Of course, that makes oil renewable and we are not supposed to know that and so there is great opposition to this theory from the peak oil crowd.  But why does burning oil create so many toxins instead of reverting back to pure CO₂?

To answer this question it is necessary to understand something about carbon chemistry.  
Carbon, an exceptional element, has the unique property of forming highly complex compounds, 
many of which are found in living things.  Carbon easily combines with itself to build up molecules 
with an apparently endless variety of chain and ring structures.  Carbon readily combines also 
with hydrogen and oxygen and to a lesser extent with only a few other elements like nitrogen, 
phosphorous and sulfur, yet it forms more than half the compounds known to science.  The 
current literature on the chemistry of carbon contains data on millions of carbon compounds 
with many of them being toxic.  For example, when flaring (burning off the gas that comes 
from oil wells) a great many new carbon compounds are spontaneously created during combustion 
and more than 250 of these compounds are known to be toxic.  The reason for all the toxins 
is that when burning the hydrocarbons, which consist only of hydrogen and carbon atoms, it 
now combines with oxygen and other elements like nitrogen, phosphorous and sulfur to form 
countless new compounds.  One of the most toxic is carbon monoxide (CO) which we are all 
familiar with. 

The purpose of installing catalytic converters on automobiles is to convert toxins in the exhaust, which include carbon monoxide and other unburnt carbon compounds, into the harmless carbon dioxide from which oil originated (plus other harmless gases that were present in the air that took part in the combustion).  The most hopeful and benign result of burning any hydrocarbon is to end up with pure water (H₂O) and carbon dioxide (CO₂), nitrogen (N), and oxygen (O₂)–all harmless gasses.

The reality is that enormous amounts of toxic compounds, however, escape into the atmosphere and end up in the ocean where they are broken down by small, simple, and diversified prokaryote bacteria that form the base of the ocean food chain.  The breakdown of organic compounds into inorganic materials is called “mineralization”.  Until these toxic chemicals are broken down, unfortunately, they can cause damage to local ecosystems but their overall effect on the ocean is to add nutrients, not to endlessly accumulate as pollutants.  Mineralization of toxins occurs on land as well.

Carbon forms the backbone of biology for all life on Earth and yet we are being fed one lie after another about its most important form - CO₂: first, we are lied to about it causing a global warming catastrophe; second, we are lied to about the enormous harm to corral reefs due to it causing ocean acidification; third, we are lied to about it being a pollutant; and, finally, we are lied to, by omission, about its connection to the origin of oil.  (Lying by omission is a serious crime for individuals but the Supreme Court has ruled that it is not a crime for Corporate America.  No wonder that Al Gore always speaks as Chairman of his Generation Investment Management.)

The abiotic theory of renewable oil is heresy to the peak oil religion just as so much good science is heresy to global warming/climate change. In fact, peak oil is often spoken of in the context of climate change, the conflagration of two hypothetically “huge” problems. 

Back to top of page >>>

1 April 09
A Case for Torture - has it a place in a civilised democratic society?  
By Just Brian

Back to top of page >>>