Dangerous Racist Sellout Continues
There is an alarming lack of substantive, realistic analysis of the enormity of issues at stake in the resurgence of radicalised Maori demands, focused through an unrepresentative Maori Party which did not manage to poll even 3% at the last election.
This highly radicalised grouping of those basically antipathetic to the interests of New Zealanders at large demonstrably doesn't represent majority Maori. However, more concerning is that reporting of the present interaction between the radical activists of the Maori Party and the ever-obliging Prime Minister John Key, urged on by neo-tribal leaders all scrabbling for self-advantage, is worryingly lightweight. In fact, the disastrous directions undertaken by the National Party is astonishingly naive. No, John Key's greatest legacy will not be "maturing New Zealand's race relations, modernizing social services by embracing private and community providers and thereby addressing disastrous Maori social statistics."
This is sheer bumf. The Whanau Ora undertaking shows every sign of being yet another bureaucratic monolith, unwieldy and costly. Maori tribal leaders themselves have long been quite capable of improving the social statistics of disadvantaged Maori, but have said that they had no intention of doing so. I recall both Tipene O'Regan for Ngai Tahu and Bob Mahuta for Tainui (who apparently squandered a great deal of their very lucrative settlement) being questioned by reporters pointing out that now the lot of the poorest and most disadvantaged of their tribal descendants could be addressed. Both repudiated this undertaking, O'Regan claiming it was the government's job to do so through social welfare. Bob Mahuta's answer was to the same effect - the settlement money was to go primarily to the young of the tribe with a view to their education and future activism - especially to those who undertook to learn Maori and to be active in the affairs of the tribe. The consensus seemed to be in both cases that those the reporters were referring to were essentially no-hopers and these tribal executives weren't going to waste money on them. So much for caring for "our people".
Then what were the hugely controversial settlements for - from the 80s and 90s onwards? New Zealanders with their sense of fair play were prepared for genuine grievances disadvantaging Maori to be addressed, although many very much doubted the wisdom of Geoffrey Palmer's extraordinary opening of that can of worms making it possible for tribes to relitigate their history backwards to the Treaty of Waitangi. Even more perturbing was that there was very good evidence some of these settlements had already been very fairly fully and finally settled in the past. Evidence to this effect was deliberately withheld from scrutiny by the National Government which followed Labour into office.
"Compensation" from the re-settlements did not go to individual Maori, and have not assisted those who most needed a hand up. Maori who have asked for help from tribal executives have been refused, and those Maori with no particular tribal allegiance, living in our cities and often the most needy, received nothing at all. Apparently it was Labour's Mike Moore who decided that the multi-million taxpayer handouts should go to iwi, rather than individual Maori. What was he thinking? Had it been the other way around, given the now nearly $18 billion dollars held in Maori assets, the outcome might have been a lot more equitable. Tribal cliques' stranglehold on the many millions they received seems in many cases to have been to the advantage of Maori corporate executives only - including their extended families. There are numerous instances too, of additional grants for specific purposes to facilitate business and new initiatives simply disappearing with no accountability.
However, New Zealanders understood that the original settlements were made to advantage all Maori - not just to be creamed off by the tribal in-groups. Successive governments' carelessness and worse have required little or no accountability for the money taxpayers have been, and are still, forced to contribute for injustices - some real - some simply invented and/or elasticized - that took place nearly 200 years ago. Arguably, they are not the responsibility of this generation.
Our directions have been managed for us by extremely foolish leaders. Worse, the question of venality arises when the presence of the ongoing gravy train circling around and around taxpayers' pockets has been very much part of the major political parties' securing of radical Maori votes to stay in power. Other countries have long agreed that lost land permanently alienated is just that. Trying to address the wrongs of the past simply creates far more injustices, as we are seeing. And the greatest injustice of all has been to majority New Zealanders, including many of Maori descent.
What is actually happening is a sellout of the country. And in relation to the foreshore and seabed issue, a whole new can of worms has been opened by yet another Prime Minister with apparently little comprehension of what is actually at stake, and of how the governments of the day have continually been outwitted by far smarter tribal negotiators - ill-matched by an apparently under-researched Crown Law Office. The latter already admitted that it was ill-equipped and short staffed when dealing with Ngai Tahu, this powerful, well-lawyered tribe, in relation to their third "full and final" settlement. This was greatly aided at the time by the present Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson, who is apparently generously disposed to favourably regard litigation concerning past settlements now being mounted again. Almost routinely, protests from well-researched historians providing far more comprehensive analysis of these claims than the government-funded academics invariably consulted instead, are simply disregarded, or ignored. We have a situation reaching scandalous proportions where even Crown-owned land, which belongs to all New Z
 | Bruce |
| Monday, September 06, 2010 |
You are so right Amy.....but where is our vehicle?...who is the voice of reason and common sense?
How do we stop this poison? We don't have that long before NZ becomes a Zimbabwe.
| Bruce |
| Wednesday, September 08, 2010 |
It seems that the only party doing well for their constituents is the maori party...
Where the hell is our lot?
| James |
| Monday, September 13, 2010 |
There can be little doubt that various Iwi were unjustly treated - land confiscations were for example imposed on the Iwi which supported General Cameron's campaign into the Waikato and Bay of Plenty. Yes many of the Maori people have been left behind in economic and social development in the 1900 through 1950s and were consequently not well positioned to benefit from the economic opportunites of the latter part of the 1900s. However,not all of this can be attributed solely to earlier 'acts of injustice'. Their own social structures have also acted against 'seizing the opportunities' that were there.
It is easy to look back at 'land deals struck' and state that trading goods of iron, steel, woven goods, muskets and alchol were unfairly used. While perhaps inexpensive to the trader they contained a tchnology not available to the Maori people. In the global market of today we still see the high price obtained by innovative technology which when commonplace is cheap or even rapidly superceeded.
It is also somewhat ironic that the oral tradition of the Maori having been supplemented by the written language of the Northern Hemisphere and electronic media is now combined in arguing disadvantage through the Waitangi Tribunal.
What is becoming more difficult to hold and argue is the 'first people' claim. Perhaps all the earlier settlements failed and faded out due to a failure to adapt as we now know seems to have happened to Viking settlements in North America. Equally it is possible that these isolated pockets of settlement were destoyed by 'warrior explorers.
It is time to step clean away from concealment and secrecy and explore with open minds and hearts the evidence being unearthed and dragged out of archives.
| Amy |
| Tuesday, September 21, 2010 |
Thank you, James and Bruce. I can't dispute the accuracy of your comments, which are spot on. What we are seeing is arguably the sell-out of New Zealand. How totally undemocratic this all is, is perhaps epitomised by the fact that the Minister of Treaty Negotiations, Chris Finlayson,who has made it very easy for the neo-tribal power groups to avoid what should arguably be an appraisal of their claims by the courts, was never even voted into Parliament. However, he appears to have the final say on whether or not to pay out many millions of hard earned taxpayers' dollars negotiating directly with tribal cliques. Majority (part)Maori are just as disadvantaged by these virtually closed door settlements as are all other New Zealanders. For the way forward, to take very practical steps to reclaim a democracy, to in fact reclaim this country for all New Zealanders, check out www.100days.co.nz and follow this site.In the weeks ahead, we'll be outling how not to waste your next election vote. And spread the word, do!
| Ross Baker |
| Saturday, September 25, 2010 |
Amy, what right has the Government to give away our rivers, lakes, seabed and foreshore when they are “held in trust by the Crown, for all the people of New Zealand”? They do not belong to the Government of the day to give away!
Ancient history, the Magna Carta, British Law and the Tiriti o Waitangi did not give the ownership of our rivers, lakes, seabed and foreshore to Maori, therefore the Government has no right to give them to one group of New Zealand Citizens who are no longer the “distinct race of people that signed the Tiriti o Waitangi in 1840”.
Classical Roman law held that "running water is common to all mankind". It is held that this is one of the "Laws of Nature" which is "established by divine providence" and which "remains forever fixed and immutable". 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. (i.e. Queens Chain). 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 the state cannot “abdicate its trust over property in which the whole people are interested and shall not be disposed of piecemeal to individuals as private property”.
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.
There is 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.
As Maori have intermarried of their own free will with other races, they 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 became further and further diluted.
Finally, “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.
| G. Graham |
| Thursday, September 30, 2010 |
May I add to Baker's comment.
At the Otaki foreshore meeting held in the Memorial Hall on the 17th of April, 2010, the Hon. Dr. 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 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.
One identified as Mr Green held up our Tiriti and the English Draft from which it was translated and said "They are not different from each other, but as close as the idiom of translation will allow. Both have been authenticated by a strong, factual, paper trail disclosed by Martin Doutre in his book "The Littlewood Treaty, the true English text of the Treaty of Waitangi found" 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.
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."
As there are no exclusive rights for Maoris in either of those two documents, it could not be said Maoris have any more right to our Marine and Coastal Area than anyone else. It could be said, however, that our Marine and Coastal Area is rightfully owned by the Crown on behalf of all the people of New Zealand.
Hon. Christopher Finlayson, thank you for your honesty in agreeing with Mr Green.