Founder / Director

Dr Muriel Newman

Dr Muriel Newman



View our latest NZCPR Weekly Newsletter …               

Register newsletter– to receive this free newsletter each week by email click the button and register


Newsletter logo


Dear NZCPR Reader,


This week…

In this week’s NZCPR newsletter, we reveal how the separatists’ attacks on colonisation is underpinned by the failed ideology of Cultural Marxism and we outline the real cause of tribal disparity; our NZCPR Guest Commentator Professor Jeff Fynn-Paul of Leiden University provides a must-read analysis which proposes a new model for dealing with indigenous and post-indigenous difficulties based on human capital development; and our poll asks whether New Zealand needs a Race Relations Commissioner.

Last newsletter…

In case you missed it, in last week’s newsletter we explained why the Climate Commission’s radical plan to transform New Zealand into a bureaucratically controlled and centrally planned economy is unnecessary – as well as recommending that anyone who is concerned send in a submission before March 14 HERE, and our NZCPR Guest Commentator Barry Brill outlined why the Commission’s report is such a disappointment – and he provided two further articles, one with suggestions for submissions and the other with options for the future HERE.

Will you help?

We deliver our NZCPR newsletter of independent research and commentary you can trust directly into your Inbox each week. Our service is funded through reader donations. If you value our commitment to free speech, common sense, and the truth, then please click HERE to support the NZCPR so we can continue to fight on your behalf for freedom and democracy.
Or, if you don’t like website forms, the direct donation details are:
Internet banking – NZCPR ASB Bank account 12-3099-0833814-00; postal address – NZCPR, PO Box 984, Whangarei.

Please share our articles…

Please feel free to share our newsletters as widely as possible. This can be done by forwarding the newsletter itself, or, if there are problems with spam filters, by sharing the newsletter link: Content from the newsletter can also be copied into your own email. Social media share buttons can be found on each website article.

Register for the mailing list…

Anyone who would like to receive our free NZCPR Weekly newsletter is more than welcome to register for the mailing list HERE.

Ensuring your newsletter is delivered…

To ensure your receive our newsletters, please whitelist our newsletter mailing address – or add it to your ‘safe senders’ list. The address to whitelist is: If your newsletter fails to arrive, it can be viewed through the ‘Newsletter’ link on our website.

Share YOUR views…

Speaking out in a democracy is crucial – please find all MP addresses, contact details for newspaper letters to the editor, social media links, and other useful contacts HERE.

Thank you for your on-going interest and support.

Warmest regards,





Dr Muriel Newman
NZCPR Founding Director


What’s new on our Breaking Views blog…

Breaking Views is administered by the NZCPR – the views are those of the authors. Here is a selection of this week’s articles…  

  • Frank Newman: The future of local government
    The Local Electoral (Māori Wards and Māori Constituencies) Amendment Bill has not even passed into law yet and Māori are calling for the number of Māori seats on local councils to be increased. Under a 50:50 “partnership” model Maori will have effective control over billions of dollars worth of public assets…
  • Nick Smith: Alienating Readers
    The article from Frank Newman on the Whangarei Community paper requires comment as it is a true indictment on how some publications have become irrelevant to those communities they serve. I am happy to give my background within the newspaper industry prior to making comments on his article…
  • Barend Vlaardingerbroek: Did Trump ‘incite’ that crowd?
    You can’t incite what was already going to happen” – Trump defence attorney at the second impeachment trial. Question: Did Trump ‘incite’ the mob that trashed the Capitol on 6 January? Answer: No or yes, depending on what you read into that word. Turning to my computer thesaurus, ‘incite’ can mean, ‘stir up’ and ‘rouse’, or ‘bring about’ and ‘cause’…
  • Clive Bibby: The fight we don’t want but need to have
    This nation is in a battle for the hearts, minds and property of all freedom loving people who swear allegiance to our founding principles. It is not something we want to take part in or have personal responsibility for but the result of which is something that will determine the type of society we bequeath to future generations of New Zealanders…
  • Karl du Fresne: New Zealand is being transformed, but not in a good way
    Prime minister Jacinda Ardern promised, on the night of her general election triumph last October, to govern for all New Zealanders. But her Labour government is pursuing policies that will entrench racial separatism, undermine democracy, turbocharge the grievance culture and promote polarisation and divisiveness…

NZCPR Weekly:

By Dr Muriel Newman


“Marxists get up early in the morning to further their cause. We must get up even earlier to defend our freedom” 
– British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, 1978

Last week, the Race Relations Commissioner Meng Foon released a report claiming racism against Maori has been escalating since the onset of Covid-19.

He explained, “The most common forms of discrimination reported by respondents were receiving online negative comments or abuse, being stared at in public, being excessively avoided beyond the usual social distancing, and receiving negative comments or abuse in person.”

Whether any of those “online” complaints were generated by the activist group Action Station, which receives support from government funded agencies to professionally train “keyboard warriors” to roam the internet and disrupt those who speak out against separatism, is unknown.

While admitting that many of negative comments related to the illegal roadblocks being run by tribal activists, Meg Foon went on to claim, “All racism in Aotearoa began with colonisation and represents a contemporary extension of colonial suppression”.

It is totally unacceptable for the taxpayer funded Race Relations Commissioner to denigrate colonialism and settler descendants. Instead of healing the racial divide, through such misrepresentations of history, the Office is deepening it.

Such promotion of fake history is a real concern to historians like former MP Michael Bassett, who worry that the planned teaching of New Zealand history in schools is an exercise in ‘propaganda by those with axes to grind’: 

“Students will be given a lop-sided picture of our early history if the curriculum ignores or romanticizes the pre-1840 period where several Maori tribes… killed between 40,000 and 50,000 Maori, approximately 25% of the total number of Maori in the country at that time, eating some, and enslaving others… 

“In other words, ‘bleeding heart’ versions of our history which push the line that everything was lovely in Aotearoa until the colonists arrived, and that they were responsible for depriving Maori of their livelihoods, are telling dubious bits of the story. Maori had killed more Maori between 1810 and 1840 than the total number of Kiwis killed in World Wars One and Two combined.”

Please click HERE to make a submission on the draft curriculum – the closing date is 31 May.

The sanitisation of Maori history has become so extreme that activists are now trying to deny that Maori was a Stone Age culture prior to the arrival of the Europeans. At least, that’s what former MP and radio host John Banks discovered earlier this month, when he was dismissed by the Magic Talk radio station for making the Stone Age culture claim on air.

According to the Maori Council executive director Matthew Tukaki: “Maori culture was rich and strong before anyone else came along. We were growers of our own kai, cleaners of our own rivers, and developers of our own land. That is not a stone age culture, that is a sophisticated society.” 

But the facts of history tell a different story: Maori was a Stone Age culture, for the simple reason that the technology associated with the production of copper, bronze, and iron – that transformed societies around the globe – had not reached Polynesia by the time those early immigrants set off for our shores.

In his 1907 book Maori and Polynesian: their origin, history and culture, Professor John Macmillan Brown of Canterbury University explains that Polynesia remained in the Stone Age until the arrival of the first Europeans: “First of all it remained in the Stone Age till Europeans broke into its isolated seas with their metal implements and weapons. It had no trace of any metals… the last migrations from the coast of Asia must have missed first copper or bronze, and then iron, by the merest accident… The Polynesian immigrants doubtless saw and felt the power of the new and incisive weapons… but they were driven off in their canoes without learning their use or the art of making them.”

This point was reiterated in an address given in 1956 by the Director of the Department of Maori Affairs, Tipi Tainui Ropiha, on the on-going difficulty some Maori were having adapting to European culture: “at the time of Captain Cook’s arrival in New Zealand, the Maori was still in the Stone Age, so when settlers arrived later he was asked to bridge the gap between 500 B.C. and 1800 A.D.”

The Director explained that those Maori that adopted western values advanced, while those who clung to traditional culture did not: “The result is that there is on the one hand a group of professional men, and on the other, another group very little removed from the living conditions which existed in pre-European days.”  

In 2006, the author Alan Duff concurred: “a Stone Age societal model patently does not work in this modern world. When are we as a nation, starting with the Government, going to say enough is enough? To continue with the collective, whanau, hapu, iwi societal model is a fatal mistake. For in not developing individuality we continue down the declining slope of anonymity in a collective. Of no one willing to make decisions, especially unpopular decisions, for fear of standing out from the crowd, going against the collective will. Individuality is as fundamental to a society’s development as property rights.”

While their support for tribalism may well be holding back Maori families and creating disadvantage, it is convenient for iwi leaders and governments to blame colonisation and racism for the disparity.

In his paper Colonialism? Or Human Capital Development? this week’s NZCPR Guest Commentator Associate Professor Jeff Fynn-Paul of Leiden University in Holland discredits the theory that colonisation and racism are to blame for the difficulties faced by indigenous and post-indigenous groups, and shares with us his new model for explaining the disparity: 

“The purpose of this essay is to provide an alternative to the current interpretation of the difficulties faced by modern indigenous and post-indigenous groups. In doing so, this essay aims to highlight the glaring oversights and misconceptions underlying the current model – and thereby to highlight the problematic nature of policies based on this model. As an alternative, this paper offers a more realistic interpretation of the historical roots of the current challenges faced by indigenous peoples. This is based on the simple concept of ‘Human Capital’, borrowed from microeconomics. In framing the discussion of indigenous policy in terms of human capital development, the essay paves the way for future discussions on the best policies to pursue in order to address the human capital-based skill gaps which are the true root of most of these challenges.”       

The Professor explains that decades of failing policies have exacerbated the economic and social problems faced by tribal groups:

“According to the prevailing wisdom, the ‘plight’ of post-indigenous peoples is the fault of ‘European Colonialism.’ More specifically, of a variant called ‘Settler Colonialism.’ This theory originated on the far left of academia, but via social media, it has become so mainstream as to be virtually unquestioned either by journalists or by members of the general public.” 

He explains that this failed model is based on the belief that some groups, namely Europeans, are inevitably exploiters, while other groups – non-Europeans – are inevitably exploited: 

“This anti-democratic mentality is the same belief held by radical feminists who can ignore 100 years of progress in gender relations as mere window dressing, while pronouncing that men will always exploit women. It is the same belief held by radical race theorists, who, ignoring 100 years of progress in race relations, see history as an inevitable and ongoing oppression of ‘non-white’ people by ‘white’ people.  And it is the same belief held by the few remaining radical Marxists who believe that ‘capitalists’ will always exploit ‘working people.’ Hence the calls by all these groups for a re-segregation of society.”

He warns, “Somehow, we have let these bitter academic misfits come to dominate our democratic discussion not only of the indigenous past, but also of the post-indigenous present and future. It is high time that we sweep such toxic negativity out of our political discourse, and turn to a set of solutions which are based on a) scientific facts, b) economic reality, c) a genuine belief in good-faith dialogue, and d) the genuine possibility of progress.”

The Professor explains the ‘exploitative’ model being used is Marxist:

“The real danger of Marxism always lay in a combination of three factors. First, it used an essentialist logic to posit insurmountable difference between arbitrarily defined ‘groups’ in society. Second, it posited that under the current ‘system’ it was inevitable that these two groups would come into conflict. Thirdly, and most dangerously of all, it held that the current ‘system’ had so corrupted the minds of the masses, that they would inevitably vote for non-enlightened (i.e. non-Marxist) candidates in an open election. Thus, Marxist intellectuals justified a course of action whereby they, the enlightened few, could sidestep the parliamentary process, and declare a ‘dictatorship of the proletariat,’ until such a time as they could re-educate the masses to agree with them. As anyone with a modicum of historical awareness now realizes, any system in which a group of self-appointed ‘right-thinking’ people attempt to justify extra-parliamentary action, will lead to an extra-parliamentary government. A.k.a., a dictatorship.”

Professor Fynn-Paul describes this ‘extra-parliamentary action’ taking place in our country – namely the power grab by tribal leaders – as “Apartheid”:

“In New Zealand, this is fuelling calls for an allotment of political power based on race – a new Apartheid if ever there was one – between Maori and non-Maori peoples. This line of thinking further holds that anyone who speaks out in defence of democracy, capitalism, and western culture is a brainwashed or ‘privileged’ menace to all that is right.” 

Importantly, he believes those driving this dangerous agenda do not want the public to realise that it is straight out of the Marxist playbook:

“The main thing I can caution on this score is this: the left naturally wishes to disavow its debt to Marx’s model of perpetual ‘struggle’ and ‘exploitation,’ when propagating its Settler Colonialist ideas. It is terrified that the political centre will adopt the term ‘Cultural Marxism’ to label a dangerous theory which is just that – it is a Marxist, antidemocratic interpretation of how cultural problems work. So I would strongly advocate that we call it what it is: if it looks like a duck, and walks like a duck, if it does not believe in dialogue or progress, but insists on gagging debate, or the inevitability of violence and struggle – then yes, it’s probably too Marxist to be the basis of mainstream political discourse. Let alone the basis of real-world political policy.”

Professor Fynn-Paul explains that it is a lack of human capital that is the root cause of Maori disparity, and that the left is “dangerously wrong” in pushing us backwards by blaming colonisation:

“Their theory is based on an outdated, angry, illogical, and anti-democratic assumptions about how society and history function. It creates opportunities for indigenous elites to ‘influence capture’ out of all proportion to what they should rightfully be able to claim in a modern democratic society. And it encourages a re-racialization of society, when most of us realize that we should be moving towards post-racism. It creates a haven for anarchists, and encourages young people to loot and burn, rather than learn valuable skills. While this type of quasi-Marxist thinking may be prevalent in sociology departments of universities, it is a terrible, highly damaging basis for a realistic and progressive post-indigenous policy.”   

It’s not colonisation and racism that is holding back disadvantaged Maori families, but policies based on the failed ideology of Cultural Marxism and tribalism.

In a modern economy, where productivity and efficiency are paramount, tribalism is a pathway to financial ruin for most – except, of course, the tribal elite.

Instead of embracing Cultural Marxism as the Prime Minister attempts to transform New Zealand into a socialist enclave of United Nations idealism, the focus should be on what works – human capital development and the promotion of the Kiwi success values of hard work, enterprise, and personal responsibility.

Please note – you can register for our free weekly newsletter by clicking HERE.


*Does New Zealand need a Race Relations Commissioner?
Note: Please feel free to use the poll comments to share your views on any of the issues raised in this week’s newsletter.

*Poll comments are posted at the end of the main article.


*All NZCPR poll results can be seen in the Archive.



NZCPR Guest Commentary:

By Professor Jeff Fynn-Paul


“And now we come to the crux of the matter.  We once had a guest lecturer in my Caribbean History course at the University of Toronto.  He was a (black) professor from a Caribbean university, and he opened his lecture by bluntly asking: ‘Why don’t black people own businesses in the Caribbean?  Why is it always Chinese, Indians, or Middle Easterners who come in and buy up all the businesses?’  Like the rest of us, this professor had no good answer to the question, which has vexed advocates of black communities across the globe for decades.

“This professor’s question could be asked in many societies around the globe, wherever former hunter-gathering peoples are – in the aggregate – having difficulties integrating into modern society.  The problem of under-representation in professional and entrepreneurial fields persists in most countries across the globe, whether we discuss Belize, Haiti, Peru, Tahiti, Canada, or New Zealand.  In all of these societies, an influx of immigrants from former agricultural/urban societies has moved in to take many of the key economic positions, while indigenous or post-indigenous groups – in the aggregate – languish at the lower echelons of the economic hierarchy.  The idea that this is based on racism – when in many instances these countries are run by majority black or indigenous governments – seems even more transparently false, the more countries we add to our sample.    

“Now, the standard leftist response is: racism.  But looking at global society as a whole, this theory does not fit the known facts. The idea that a lack of black or indigenous entrepreneurialism can be ascribed primarily to racism seems to fall down at the fact that Europeans were also rather racist against Middle Easterners, Indians, and East Asians, until very recent decades. And yet these groups still exhibited higher levels of entrepreneurial achievement in developed economies worldwide. 

“So let’s look at this issue from an economist’s perspective. From this point of view, the main problem facing black families in the US today, is a lack of skills which translate into a high-earning job. One of these is educational attainment… Human capital also measures things such as valuable social connections, which can help create a network of job opportunities.  And it has long been realized that people who marry end up earning a premium over those who remain single, or who get divorced.     

“As an economic historian, I can now take this simple economic observation about skillset matching and human capital a step further, and posit a new model.  This ties together many problems facing post-indigenous populations around the globe, but whose common cause has so far gone unrecognized, despite staring us in the face all along.

“The reason why hotels, gas stations, and restaurants across the developed world have been snapped up by immigrants from China, India and the Middle East, while representatives of indigenous and black communities remain below expected levels, is because families in Asia, the Middle East, and Europe entered the Industrial Era with centuries of shopkeeping and household management experience under their belts. While people from indigenous and post-indigenous communities by definition had a different set of skills, which was not suited to shopkeeping, home economics, and drudge labour. And the advantages enjoyed by urban cultures were not just personal and familial, but institutional. 

“If people from Asian agricultural/urban societies were the main beneficiaries of the spread of the European model of capitalism, then it stands to reason that those societies and peoples whose skillsets were less suited to the drudgery, discipline, and complex social organizations of industrial society were going to have the most difficult time adjusting to the realities of industrial-age routines. Again, this is no one’s fault, and it’s really no grounds for judgment. It’s simply a question of skillset matching. And now our job is to help those cultures with more disparate skillset inheritances, to take advantage of the modern economic culture…”

*To read the full commentary please visit the website.





New Zealand Centre for Political Research
Ph: 09-434-3836, Fax: 09 434-4224, Mob: 021-800-111

To unsubscribe from the newsletter, send this email – but don’t forget to reply to the confirmation message.
If you need help unsubscribing, please email with “REMOVE” in the subject line.
Please note it’s important that you contact us over unsubscribing problems because
it’s often caused by the fact that it was an older address that was registered,
not your current one, and we will need to search for that. 

To change your address please email with “ADDRESS CHANGE” in the
subject line, advising the new address to be added and the old one to be removed.