Maori supremacy

Maori supremacy

There currently seems to be a radical agenda to advance Maori supremacy instead of democracy in New Zealand.

This is being supported in a large part by a network of bureaucrats and academics, who, along with a vast array of private sector advocates including many in the legacy media and the unions are promoting race-based changes.

This network of bureaucrats, academics and others who are championing this promotion of race based changes which are supporting the Maori tribal ‘renaissance’ was spearheaded by academics in the seventies, who believed activists should be ‘brought into government institutions to change things from within.

This promotion of race based change to a bicultural; Maori-Pakeha movement in New Zealand is subverting democracy, erecting ethnic boundaries between Maori and non-Maori and promoting cultural elite within Maoridom. It has led to separatism based on the belief that somehow ethnicity should be the primary driver of determining individual rights in New Zealand.

While political rights in most liberal democracies are grounded in citizenship and equality, in New Zealand the support for this bicultural framework is in effect giving Maori ethnicity distinct rights and status over and above other New Zealand citizens.

This support for a bicultural framework has led to claims that there should be systems for co-governance and demands for iwi consultation on all governance functions at both central and local body levels.

A result of this adoption of ethnicity as a main driver in political decision making, it has undermined the democratic principle of equal representation, allowing unelected tribal authorities to gain decision-making power, in many cases without any public scrutiny.

The original version of the “Treaty of Waitangi” has effectively been replaced in our statutory framework by “Te Tiriti o Waitangi”. Described simply as the ‘Maori version of the Treaty’, Te Tiriti embodies constitutional rights that give rise to co-governance, partnership, and race-based entitlement.

Well I say B---S--- to that.

Show me the evidence in the Treaty document that states it is a partnership between the Crown and Maori.

The Treaty consists of three articles (see copy of the Littlewood draft below) and nowhere does it mention any partnership.

Article one: “The chiefs of the confederation of united tribes, and the other chiefs who have not joined the confederation, cede to the Queen of England forever the entire sovereignty of their country.”

Article two: “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. But the chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes and the other chiefs grant to the Queen, the exclusive rights of purchasing such lands as the proprietors thereof may be disposed to sell at such prices as may be agreed upon between them and the person appointed by the Queen to purchase from them.”

Article three: “In return for the cession of their sovereignty to the Queen, the people of New Zealand shall be protected by the Queen of England and the rights and privileges of British subjects will be granted to them.”

There is no mention in the Treaty of a partnership role as a part of the Treaty requirements. A ‘partnership’ between Maori and the Crown is constitutionally-impossible nonsense.

Any such partnership would be a fundamental subversion of democracy. Maori are claiming now that their involvement in decision making should not be on the basis of one person one vote, but instead they are demanding a co-governance role with 50:50 representations.

It is constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into a partnership with any of its subjects. The true position is that the Crown is sovereign but owes duties of justice and good faith to the Maori descendants of those who signed the treaty.

The acclaimed Maori Leader; Sir Apirana Ngata, M.A. LLB. LIT.D explained the intent of the “Treaty” in the pages of his book, the "Treaty of Waitangi". He concludes with the words:

"The Treaty made the one law for the Maori and Pakeha. If you think these things are wrong and bad then blame our ancestors who gave away their rights in the days when they were powerful".

The claim that the Treaty of Waitangi created a partnership between the Crown and Maori is not supported by any of the documentation of the Treaty although based on this latter-day reinterpretation (“Te Tiriti o Waitangi”) it is simply stated as a fact, without any acknowledgement that the assertion is hotly contested, and is flatly contradicted by many of the speeches recorded by Colenso in writing at the time (on 5 February 1840) and flatly contradicted also by speeches made by numerous chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860.

I believe that most New Zealand citizens do want to live in a place where we can respect one another, get along well and foster a better New Zealand, but that won’t happen whilst we have people promoting theories which are patently untrue and in fact do more to spread racial disharmony and ethnic division throughout the population than anything else.

So my challenge is to either; show me the evidence that proves the claim of a partnership under the Treaty or apologise to the people of New Zealand for making statements which are misleading and wrong in fact.

Just prior to winning the 2023 election, in an interview with Mike Hosking, the Leader of the National Party, Christopher Luxon said – “It’s all about management and my personal experience is that CEOs get different results with different management. It’s about expectations and clarity, and there will be a new deal where they have to deliver; I’m absolutely sick of, all the talk and no action. He was, I believe, talking about the CEOs heading government departments.

His government is nearing the end of the second year of their three-year term and those same public servants continue to undermine the government’s efforts and agenda.

When National, ACT and New Zealand First announced they had formed a coalition government post the 2023 election, they promised they would uphold democracy, equality, and put an end to race-based rights and privilege.

But there are a lot of New Zealanders feeling very let down at the moment, given that his government has done little to ease voters’ concerns regards putting an end to race-based rights and privilege.

To many New Zealand voters, the total absence of any strategy to tackle this continuing erosion of democracy and the rapidly expanding influence and authority being given to Maori is a huge concern!

In the 2025 budget, government proclaimed it had allocated over $700 million in funding for Maori.

It is this separate Maori funding that many New Zealanders are questioning in these difficult financial times and why we continue to allocate large amounts of government funds, specifically to one ethnic group.

Why is there Maori-specific funding and why should they be treated differently to any other ethnicity in New Zealand?

It seems that this coalition government is more than happy to accede to the discriminatory demands of Maori leaders and more than happy to promote their division and promote their separatism!

Why would the government willingly and knowingly promote division and separatism rather than rejecting ethnic favouritism?

New Zealand is in desperate need of a coalition which will govern equally for all New Zealanders, irrespective of colour, race or creed!

It will soon be a time for us to make a decision on the next government of New Zealand, time for us to choose at the next election.

I believe that it will, in a large part, come down to a choice between DEMOCRACY or ETHNOCRACY.