Death of Democracy in New Zealand

Death of Democracy in New Zealand

Equal Rights for New Zealand Whites!

I am almost deafened by the clamour of people racing to brand me and this statement as just racism written down, but I’d like to explain this statement a bit further before they get the opportunity to hang, draw and quarter me.

A good friend of mine who has sadly passed away had this slogan printed on a T Shirt many years ago when the Labour government started to support Maori in their push to gain a co-governance role based on an erroneous interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi and backed up by some provocative edicts from the Waitangi Tribunal.

At the time I thought that this slogan was going to provoke all sorts of reactions and in itself was a very provocative statement.

But with the benefit of hindsight which is always 20/20, it has proven to be a very accurate prediction of where New Zealand was going at that time in our history.

When we look at where we are today we see a country which had a proud record as the first true democracy in the world giving all citizens a vote regardless of race or gender, to the situation now where we have Maori claiming to have the right of co-governance based on their own selective interpretation of the Treaty of Waitangi, which if given credence will institute a system of Apartheid into our country.

Maori make up approximately 18% of the population of New Zealand and yet the so-called elite who are agitating for co-governance seem to think that they deserve a greater right of control than the other 82% of the population. This is far from a democratic position where all citizens have an equal right on the basis of one person one vote with all votes being equal.

We see Maori politicians and others claiming that their ancestor’s property had been STOLEN from them and should be given back. It is quite possible that members of tribal groups did invade and take over territories that others occupied before the introduction of the British system of government.

In the case of transfers of ownership which occurred after 1840 the reality is that many Maori sold their land and instead of demanding unequal privileges they are not entitled to at the expense of the rest of the people, they need to get over it.

The problem is that they have become indoctrinated with a fantasy which has resulted from "viewing" events of the past through the "lens of the present" which distorts the view.

It is always easy to look with 20/20 hindsight and see that people have sold things for less than they bring today but that in itself does not justify demanding their return.

Based on this fantasy view many of the so-called elite Maori are seeking to extort money from the public by using their versions of Treaty obligations.

We see Maori representatives looking to gain representation on local and central government controlled organisations with most of this representation providing a good source of income, channeling money from the public purse.

Some people are saying that regarding and treating individuals with equal respect would be divisive.

Perhaps this is because the current division caused by identity politics is beneficial for themselves.

There has been some debate over the years about what, exactly; Maori believed they were signing in 1840 and did Maori cede sovereignty to the British Crown when they signed the Treaty of Waitangi or, as is now contended by some, did they not?

Sir Apirana Ngata prepared an English translation of the Treaty in 1922 that argued that the Chiefs had “cede(d) absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the Government of all their lands”.

The standard translation used by the Waitangi tribunal in the early 1990’s had been made by Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu. Here is his full translation of the Treaty:

“The first: The chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs who have not joined that Confederation give absolutely to the Queen of England for ever the complete government over their land.

“The second: The Queen of England agrees to protect the Chiefs, the Subtribes and all the people of New Zealand in the unqualified exercise of their chieftainship over their lands, villages and all their treasures. But on the other hand the Chiefs of the Confederation and all the Chiefs will sell land to the Queen at a price agreed by the person owning it and by the person buying it (the latter being) appointed by the Queen as her purchase agent.

“The third: For this agreed arrangement therefore concerning the Government of the Queen, the Queen of England will protect all the ordinary people of New Zealand (i.e. the Maori) and will give them the same rights and duties of citizenship as the people of England.”

Sir Hugh and the Tribunal in this time were in no doubt that the chiefs had ceded sovereignty to the Queen.

The so-called elite Maori have recently tried to dispute this, but after 170 plus years of acceptance this would seem to be a futile attempt to change history, or even deliberate trouble-making, in trying after all these years to upset what has been accepted by both Maori and others for so long.

If ever there was a declaration that we are one people and that Maori have the same rights and duties of citizenship, surely it is Sir Hugh’s translation of the Treaty’s third clause?

It should be remembered that right from the beginning there was a problem defining who was a Maori and the government determined from early times, that a Maori was someone who was a half caste or more.

That was important in defining whether someone was eligible to enroll on the Maori Roll for electoral purposes, or was obliged to enroll on the General roll. The problem was that fewer and fewer people had sufficient Maori blood to be eligible to enroll on the Maori rolls.

In the Maori Purposes Act 1974, the definition of a Maori was altered to that shown below:

“Maori means a person of the Maori race of New Zealand; and includes any descendant of such a person”.

This was a controversial decision by the Kirk Labour Government and over the years it has enabled many people who are almost entirely of Pakeha ancestry to claim to be Maori if they wish to. One suspects that neither the Crown nor the Maori signatories of the Treaty in 1840 would have anticipated or accepted such an extension of the Treaty’s provisions.

 Some efforts have been made to argue that some kind of “partnership" exists between the Crown and Maori, but no one has tried so far as I know to determine whether either of the signatories had in mind a “partnership" between the Crown and someone who is, say, one sixty- fourth Maori, as many New Zealanders are today.

In any event, Sir Hugh’s translation of Article 3 surely rules out any special relationship/privilege for Maori or for their modern descendants over non-Maori. And since there was no such thing as a properly functioning democracy either in England or in New Zealand in 1840, the question of “political rights” wasn’t an issue at the time. Are some people just trying to re-write the Treaty to suit their current agendas?

There most certainly was no implication of special rights, “political” or otherwise for Maori. Their land was protected, but so was the right of Maori to sell that land on agreed terms. And Maori had the same “rights and duties of citizenship” as non-Maori.

Racial harmony is currently one of the biggest issues for all New Zealanders and with approximately 190 different ethnicities, is it conducive to social harmony to accord special political status to those with a Maori ancestor? The short answer being NO!

With Maori rapidly losing their original ethnic make-up through interbreeding of races, how can the rest of society work out who is entitled to any special treatment? Special privileges for some will inevitably encourage the less scrupulous in society to join them. Where does that lead us? And who benefits from the fraud?

The reality is that holding the view that Maori ceded sovereignty is unacceptable to the media, academia, and public sector with the holder likely to be shouted down and hounded for expressing such a view.

So even if you held the same view as my friend did, or another opposing view, there can be no mature discussion about our future as a country until everybody accepts that the Treaty provided for the government to have final authority, with all citizens - no matter their ancestry - having equal rights.