The author of this article is John Robinson, author of the recently published book, “Who Really Broke the Treaty?” published by Tross Publishing.
New Zealand is all a-muddle, ruled by false, newly-invented stories of the past. This appears
at first to be ridiculous, nonsensical. But it is not, there is a purpose in it all; the confusion is
a cover for a systematic takeover by a race-based minority.
New Zealand is dominated by a myth of an original ‘race’ (the indigenous people) who are so
important that they must be given priority and special treatment. The basic concept of
equality has been destroyed to the extent that those who dare to argue for equality and
labelled racist and denied a voice (I am just one of many who have experienced that).
This distortion of reality and truth is nonsense, simply bullshit. This insistent dogma, “the
fraud of modern separatism” 1 , is a Big Lie, an article of faith that has become accepted by
constant repetition since nobody would say anything so outrageous unless there was truth in
it. 2 The demands by Maori for compensation and the feelings of guilt of non-Maori have
been propagated by a revision of history led by the Waitangi Tribunal, and augmented by a
myth that the Crown grievously broke the Treaty of Waitangi against Maori, who are
presented as an innocent wronged party, where the truth is the very opposite. 3 The
introduction of race into law (through legislation and rulings by the courts) has set the scene
for complete division, a breakdown of the nation.
Such division of governance by race, now asserted in the recent insistence on partnership, has
been advocated several times in the past.
Even after defeat, some rebels remained defiant. Hone Heke claimed absolute power in
1849: “The missionaries, the gentlemen and the common people are all that I am well pleased
should live here … still the management of my island remains with me” 4 , as did Tawhiao (the
second Maori ‘king’) in 1879: “I have the sole right to conduct matters in my land – from the
North Cape to the southern end.” 5 And the king movement remains today.
In 1894 the newly elected Member of Parliament for Northern Maori, Hone Heke Ngapua (a
great-nephew of Hone Heke), introduced a Native Rights Bill (rejected by Parliament) in
support of the kotahitanga ‘unity’ movement (wanting unity of Maori, not of all New
Zealanders), which sought a constitution for Maori, implementation of the Treaty of
Waitangi, and a separate Maori Parliament (a “Constitution shall be granted to all the persons
of the Maori race, and to all persons born of either father or mother of the Maori race who are
or shall be resident in New Zealand, providing for the enactment of laws by a Parliament
elected by such persons”. 6
In 1975 Matiu Rata, Minister of Maori Affairs and of Lands in the third Labour government,
argued for the creation of the Waitangi Tribunal, which was to be a first step towards mana
motuhake (independent, separate Maori authority; the name of the political party that he
formed soon after when the Labour Party refused to continue with his desired national
transformation). 7
The proposal of divided authority was introduced to a ‘Building the Constitution Conference’
in 2000 (organised by the Victoria University Institute of Policy Studies) by Whata Winiata,
with a proposal for two parliaments: “the Tikanga Maori House for Maori and the Tikanga
Pakeha House for others, overseen by a Treaty of Waitangi House for Maori and Pakeha.”
He was no longer on a marae, surrounded by his like-thinking mates, and most participants in
this forum found the concept unacceptable. 8
The idea of such divided government then went underground, much discussed in Maori
meetings while unknown to others, to become a modern myth and ideology – largely
supported by the ongoing rewriting of history and of the Treaty by the Waitangi Tribunal –
until the 2016 Matike Mai (report to the Iwi Chairs’ Forum, proposed by the Forum in 2010) 9
and the He Puapua report (delivered to Government in 2019, kept secret and not mentioned
in the 2020 election campaign, and only becoming generally known when it was uncovered
in 2021 through an Opposition demand under the Official Information Act). 10 The intention
was made clear in those reports, where their ‘Vision 2040’ includes a diagram displaying the
two separate governments.
This project for such a fundamental overthrow of the basic principles that have guided New
Zealand until recent years signals the end of equality, the end of democracy, the assertion of
race in a comprehensive apartheid system, the breakup of New Zealand into independent
tribal territories. Non-Maori would become second-rate semi-citizens in a country where that
self-declared ‘indigenous’ race holds superior power; which would signal the end to pride of
citizenship, and a sense of belonging to a land that is our land (all of us). If that statement
seems extreme, take the time to read these reports and ponder what is intended.
That power grab is driven by a revival of the old culture, tikanga, with a desire for utu
(revenge for the defeats of the 19 th century rebellions) and mana (power and prestige with
supreme positions for chiefs). That revival of pre-contact tribal ways has been supported by
the courts, as well as by governments through the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty settlements
to iwi.
In 1987 the President of the Court of Appeal, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, introduced the
concept of permanent division, partnership, into New Zealand law, claiming two key
principles of the Treaty of Waitangi – “partnership” and “active protection”, as “the Treaty
signified a partnership between races”. 11 [Note the belief in race, the reference to “races”.]
That further division of the country, fragmentation into tribal enclaves, has been supported by
the Waitangi Tribunal, which has advanced ideas of dual sovereignty, so that hapu and iwi
can each exert their own separate sovereignty (“it is also the case that hapu and iwi are their
own entities. Each will exercise their tino rangatiratanga”), and has ruled that many Maori
never accepted the sovereignty of the government – so that, according to the Tribunal,
sovereignty remains today with iwi and hapu scattered across the country. 12 The Maori Party
demands a Maori Parliament and defines sub-tribes, hapu, as the fundamental units of
sovereignty. “Hapu were the primary political unit in precolonial te ao Maori. The Maori
Party upholds haputanga and recognise that it was the rangatira of hapu that signed Te Tiriti,
and so we would ensure that the Crown negotiates with whanau and hapu and recognises
their mana whenua.” 13
The Supreme Court’s first Maori judge, Justice Joe Williams, took a further step by following
the instructions set down in the He Puapua report and introducing the pre-contact culture,
tikanga, as a rival sets of laws, as well as asserting the distribution of sovereignty among
tribes. “Tikanga Maori will be functioning and applicable across Aotearoa under Maori
(national, iwi, hapu, whanau) authority.” 14
The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples has helped to undermine
equality and individual liberties as it “puts collective-historical rights alongside individual
human rights and principles of non-discrimination.” There is no doubt as to which then
dominates. Indeed, Maori did not want the Treaty of Waitangi to appear alongside human
rights in legislation. 15 The rights of the individual are now placed a distant second to
collective tribal rights – and are effectively destroyed, gone.
A key weapon in this revolutionary takeover has been the priority claimed for the Treaty of
Waitangi – as a sacred text, immutable, fixed and not to be challenged, and to be followed
religiously. Here the only valid text is held to be that in Maori.
Since 1975 a steady process has seen the complete revision and rewriting of that text, with
words changing meaning until it says the very opposite to the original. This is accompanied
by the false claim that the Treaty had always been intended and understood with that new
meaning.
The arbiter in the present definition of the Treaty and the meaning of the text is Maori; none
other have any authority. The fragmentation is so complete that this sacred meaning is in the
hands of individual hapu and iwi. In this strange world, a mix of 1984, Brave new world, and
Alice in Wonderland, we face a solemn accord between races that is both fixed and
immutable, and a “living document” to be redefined at will to suit changing conditions. This
may be nonsense, a web of lies, inconsistent and moving well away from logic and common
sense, but has been remarkably successful.
Such a process has long used to assert domination and power. When a document has been
pronounced sacred in this way, whoever has the supreme authority to decide what it means –
a decision that all must obey – then has absolute power. In the USA the Supreme Court has
overturned a long-held, commonsense understanding of who is the person with a right to life
proclaimed in their Constitution, and has destroyed well established reproductive rights. That
Court has also decided that the Constitution gives a president the right to break any law, to
take any action, so long as that is within his/her official duties – which is in turn left
undefined.
Once Europe was governed and directed in a similar manner. The Bible, another sacred
document, was the rule-book, not to be questioned, with the interpretation handed down by
the Pope in Rome and savagely enforced. Thus, when scholars came to recognise that the
earth goes round the sun, Bruno was burnt at the stake in 1600 for saying so, and Galileo was
questioned by the Inquisition and sentenced to house arrest until his death. 16
All that is needed for this trickery to succeed is the acceptance by others of that supreme
power, and a willingness to bow down to the document and its interpreters. Once a challenge
is successful, the power of that document, and its use to control a population, is ended – as in
Europe with the Protestant revolution when, after a long struggle, each could interpret the
Bible in their own way and the power of the Pope was broken.
The presentation, acceptance, and signing of the Treaty of Waitangi was an important event
in the formation of New Zealand. The meaning was clear then and in the following years:
“we are one people”. But there has been no effort to hold to what was intended and agreed;
the Treaty has been shredded, rewritten, and used as a political football. If it is to return to its
previous position as an important historical document, the full story of its writing (by the
British) and signing must be uncovered, with an acknowledgement that there are now many
and contradictory claims as to its meaning. That destruction of what was once a proud accord
must be recognised – there can be no place now in law for such a shattered and disputed
document.
Once that step is taken, the people of New Zealand – all the people of New Zealand – must
ask themselves just what society we wish to live in and leave to coming generations. That
debate must break free from the shackles of a document that has been turned into a weapon
for racial division.
This is a call for the strength to recognise and to stand up to bullying with firm action.
Despite the hopeful words of the two inter-party agreements, the current government shows no such determination. The National Party is displaying neither awareness nor guts. The
battle for the soul of the country is yet to be fought, and won.
1 Oakley A 2017. Once we were one: the fraud of modern separatism. Tross Publishing
2 Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 41
3 Robinson J 2024. New Zealand nonsense (three). How Maori rebels broke the Treaty.
4 Robinson J 2020. “Hone Heke’s war” Tross Publishing.
5 AJHR 1879 G-2, Te Kopua meeting (reports, etc., respecting the proceedings); Robinson J 2016. “The kingite rebellion” Tross Publishing. Page 348
6 http://www.nzlii.org/nz/legis/hist_bill/nrb1894931171/; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke
the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 87
7 Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, pages 86-87
8 James C 2000. Building the constitution. Institute of Policy Studies, Victoria University;
Robinson J 2024. He Puapua: blueprint for breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing,
pages 88-89; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, pages 112-
113
9 The report of Matike Mai Aotearoa – the Independent Working Group on Constitutional
Transformation. 2016. https://nwo.org.nz/wp-
content/uploads/2018/06/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16.pdf
10 He Puapua: report on the working group on a plan to realise UN Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, 2019. https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-
content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf; Robinson J 2024. He Puapua: blueprint for
breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing
11 https://nzhistory.govt.nz/sites/default/files/documents/All_about_the_Treaty.pdf
12 https://waitangitribunal.govt.nz/publications-and-resources/waitangi-tribunal-
reports/ngatiwai-mandate-inquiry/chapter-3/; Robinson J 2024. Who really broke the Treaty?
Tross Publishing, page 13
13 https://www.maoriparty.org.nz/mana_motuhake
14 Robinson J 2021. He Puapua: Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand. Tross Publishing,
page 98
15 Erueti, A (ed) 2017. International indigenous rights in Aotearoa New Zealand. Te
Herenga Waka University Press. Page 50
16 Robinson J 2023. Our choice for the future: equality or tribal rule. New Zealand Centre
for Political Research. https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/John-
Robinson.pdf. Pages 8-9; Robinson J 2024. Interview on Reality Check Radio.
https://realitycheck.radio/replay/dr-john-robinson-research-scientist-prolific-historical-
author-on-his-book-who-really-broke-the-treaty/.
