A FEW THINGS THAT NEED TO BE SAID

October 6, 2024
, , , Maori, Treaty of Waitangi

By Bruce Moon, co-author of Tross Publishing’s books, Twisting the Treaty, and One Treaty, One Nation.

We must all by now have a pretty good idea that politics and political discussions, however necessary they may be, have a malignant effect on many things which are undoubtedly true and should be accepted as such by all. Nowhere is this more true than in the current and seemingly endless debate on the Treaty of Waitangi: what it meant and its consequences today.

There can be no doubt that the British Government of the day was acting from the highest principles of
international law and practice and goodwill in despatching Captain Hobson to New Zealand in 1839 with
the express objective of establishing British sovereignty over New Zealand with the free consent of the
native population.

Lord Normanby’s 4200-word written instructions given to Hobson on the 14th of August 1839 in England
will undoubtedly have been studied with much care by him on his passage to Sydney by HMS “Druid” en
route to New Zealand. This document is easily obtained on the Internet and should be studied with care by all persons professing to have an informed interest in the Treaty of Waitangi and other related
developments

There had been other significant events in New Zealand in preceding years. Almost the whole country
was coming to the end of decades of lethal combat amongst the Maori tribes themselves; the so-called
“Musket Wars”. As Paul Moon noted, this had caused “almost unbearable anxiety experienced by all
Maori communities” (“This Horrid Practice”, p.151. ISBN 9780143006718,”Penguin”, 2008). Nearly a
third of the population had been killed, this being particularly lethal amongst those of breeding age (and a consequent drop in the Maori population in the subsequent colonial decades, as recorded by John
Robinson; “When two cultures meet, p.66, ISBN1872970311). A common, if understandable,
misconception in colonial society of the times was that Maoris were a “dying race”, a situation remedied
in large part by extensive interbreeding with the “wicked white colonials” themselves, to the extent that
probably all people who describe themselves as Maoris today do have white colonial ancestors, in many
cases the considerable majority!

So come off it, you jokers, who carry on about the agonies suffered by your Maori ancestors from
colonization. If it were not for your white forebears, you wouldn’t be here at all! By contrast, Waikato

tribes could recall the merciless depredations they suffered in pre-colonial times at the hands of musket-
wielding Ngapuhi (Robinson, “Unrestrained Slaughter”, ISBN978187297068, 2020, pp55ff) and Kati

Mamoe (if there are any left) at the hands of Kai[1] Tahu. (though in Timaru in 1988 I did meet one woman who said she was Kati Mamoe). At Goat Island (Mapoutahi), it is said that Kai Tahu slaughtered Kati Mamoe to the last inhabitant, while at Dusky Sound they left a few of their bones in the ashes after a
cannibal feast. (A.C.Begg and N.C.Begg, “Dusky Bay”, 1966, pp113ff.) One young woman remarkably
survived for many years until they went and killed her off too!

And the French?

It would seem that the French were rather slow to learn from the discoveries, principally of Cook, that
fresh and suitably preserved vegetables, especially sauerkraut, in the diet of sailors were the secret of
protecting their health from the dreads of scurvy and other dietary deficient diseases. Thus was the state
of the two vessels of Frenchman Marion du Fresne which limped into the Bay of Islands in April 1772.
He proceeded to set up a hospital for sick crewmen and did his utmost to establish friendly relations with
the local tribe, Ngati Pou. In due course, Marion set off to enjoy his favourite pastime of fishing.
However, in doing so, Marion unwittingly broke a local tapu and his fate was sealed. All but one of his
party who escaped by swimming ashore. were summarily killed and eaten by the tribesmen, one of whom
bedecked himself with Marion’s uniform jacket. After further skirmishing, a large body of Maori
warriors proceeded to attack the Frenchmen’s hospital. Of course the French defended themselves
valiantly with firearms, killing a large number of chiefs who wore a distinct headdress, and saving their
hospital. It was this incident which led to Maoris developing a mortal fear of the French which soon
became widespread. For the full story, see “The Great Divide” by Ian Wishart, ISBN97809876573-6-7,
2012.

This fear endured – thirteen powerful Ngapuhi chiefs writing on 16 November 1831 to King William of
Britain, saying “we pray thee to become our friend and the guardian of these islands.” So, a variety of
developments occurred in the succeeding decade. James Busby was sent to the Bay of Islands but with no
ability to back up his authority he was soon dubbed by observant Maoris as “the man o’ war without
guns”, as every schoolboy knew in my far off day!

Well, events moved on. These included a well-meaning but futile attempt, principally by Busby and missionary Henry Williams, to get some sort of order out of chaos in Maoridom, concocting in 1835 a so-
called “Declaration of Independence: He Whakaputanga” by “A Confederation of United Tribes”. Michael King, was scathing about this effort (“The Penguin History”; ISBN0-14-301887-1, p.155), saying
it “had no constitutional status [and] also had no reality”. King was confirming the earlier words of E
Jerningham Wakefield[2] that the so-called “confederation” was “a mockery” which never met nor
transacted any business and soon war broke out amongst its tribes and senior chief Titore was killed. All
that doesn’t stop some latter-day part-Maoris lauding it to the hilt!

Getting nearer to a formal British presence

In 1837, Captain William Hobson, RN, commanding HMS “Rattlesnake” was sent to New Zealand to
assess and report on the situation. Hobson recommended the establishment of a set of “factories” such
had been developed in India in order to establish British presence.

Paul Moon, singing a somewhat different tune in “Hobson, Governor of New Zealand 1840-1842”, ISBN
0-908997-5425, 1998, remarks “the meagre schooling Hobson received might have suggested that he was not the most suitable person to be devising recommendations on the future of this part of the British
Empire.” (page 19).[3] Be that as it may, it was Hobson who was selected by Lord Normanby of the
Colonial Office to proceed to New Zealand to establish with the Maori chiefs the conditions for the
establishment of a British colony in New Zealand. The 4200-word brief that Hobson received from
Normanby was actually written initially by James Stephen, his Permanent Under Secretary. Note that it is
easily “googled” on the internet and any person with pretensions of knowledge to the subsequent Treaty
of Waitangi should, indeed must, become conversant with its contents. Paul Moon does indeed quote
from this document (Bay of Plenty Times, 18/9/24): “acknowledging New Zealand as ‘a sovereign and
independent state’” – but omitting Normanby’s further words: “so far at least as it is possible to make that
acknowledgement in favour of a people composed of numerous, dispersed, and petty tribes, who possess
few political relations to each other, and are incompetent to act, or even to deliberate, in concert.”
Readers may make up their own minds up about the significance of my namesake’s very selective
quotation!

Well, on Christmas Eve 1839 Hobson duly arrived in Sydney where Governor Gipps proceeded to provide
him with support staff “selected for their known incompetency”[4] and of whose services he wished to
dispose. One of these was JS Freeman, a product of Eton and Oxford and, to put it bluntly, a snob who
was to be Hobson’s private secretary. So equipped, Hobson arrived in the Bay of Islands on 29th January He contacted the Paihia mission station immediately and by next day, mission printer, William Colenso had produced two important documents for him. The first proclaimed Hobson “to be Lieutenant- Governor in and over any Territory which is or may be acquired in Sovereignty by Her Majesty…” The second, concerning land stated in part: “Her Majesty… does not deem it expedient to recognise as valid any Titles to Land in New Zealand which are not derived from of confirmed by Her Majesty”. Nothing could be fairer than that.

    And the Land??

    Much – too much – has been written about the dispossession of Maori land by ruthless white men.
    NOTHING COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH! In fact, Maori chiefs had been almost
    falling over themselves in their haste to exchange European consumer goods for land they did not need
    with their hunter-gather lifestyle becoming obsolete with the development of European farming methods.
    [5] In fact no less than 179 South Island sales had been registered in Sydney by 1840 with reserves set aside for the former Maori owners. In Taranaki, multiple sales of the same land were frequent, in one
    case, five times over![6]

    Now land was indeed confiscated from defeated rebel tribes following the various rebellions in the North
    Island, this being a well-recognized Maori practice, and some was actually returned to former rebels to
    provide adequately for their livelihoods. In fact 90% of the land was freely sold by Maori tribal owners,
    about 4.5% confiscated and the remainder left in their hands. (Mike Butler, “Tribes treaty MONEY
    power”, 2014, ISBN187290389.These figures do not include normal land purchases since in the ordinary
    course of business.

    Indeed the bleating about land loss seems to have intensified since one Sacha McMeeking, then a member of the Council of the University of Canterbury, claimed[7] with reference to settlement of Ngai Tahu claims “the decision was to settle cheaply – accepting $170 million when even treasury value of
    dispossessed lands lay between $12 and $15 billion”. Note well that in 1840 nearly all her “dispossessed
    lands” were an uninhabited wilderness, not remotely like its condition today. A1996 study of Ngai Tahu
    claims by Alan Everton[8] concluded that they were fraudulent. Why does the Government today not
    pursue an investigation of this activity perpetrated under the aegis of the Waitangi Tribunal upon
    the taxpayers of New Zealand?

    And the Treaty itself?

    I cannot imagine that anywhere else in the world but New Zealand, such a short, succinct and
    straightforward document as the Treaty of Waitangi should be as manipulated and misrepresented, nearly
    200 years after being written, as that rat-eaten specimen!

    It was translated overnight on 4-5 February 1840 into the Ngapuhi dialect of Maori from Hobson’s
    English text written the previous day, by Henry Williams and his son Edward, 17-year residents in New
    Zealand and both competent in that language. Both texts were read out to the assembly at Waitangi the
    following day, the English by Hobson and the Maori by Henry Williams and nobody said their meanings
    were different.[9] Since Article Third was inapplicable to existing British subjects and not intended to
    apply to those of other nationalities, one word, “maori”, was indeed added to it by the Williams,
    compelling evidence that Hobson’s English text had been written previously and indeed correctly dated
    4th February.[10]

    The history of Hobson’s English text is full of irony. A virtually verbatim copy was sent to the United
    States Secretary of State later in February by Clendon, in whose house it had been written, in his capacity
    as United States Consul. It was subsequently lent to Commodore Charles Wilkes, visiting commander of
    the USS Vincennes who wished to “enquire into the state of these islands.” Wilkes, or his writer, copied it
    to the extent of including Busby’s spelling mistake “sovreignty” while adding a few of his own. This was
    included in Wilkes’ despatch No.64 to the US Authorities.[11]

    In the stressed state of affairs in New Zealand following Hobson severe stroke on 1st March, his final
    English text came into the possession of Henry Littlewood, Clendon’s solicitor. It reposed in the hands of
    the Littlewood family until found by Beryl Needham among the effects of her late mother, Ethel
    Littlewood, in March 1989.

    Authorities in this country have largely ignored or seemingly done all they can to discredit this pivotal
    document, Margaret Wilson, then Associate Minister of Justice, writing on 27th September 2004 with the
    absurd excuse that it was not signed.[12] She goes on to extol the validity of the rejected copy of
    Freeman’s own ideas in English of what the treaty should say, used in an exigency at Waikato Heads by
    missionary Maunsell to gather chiefs’ signatures when the official copy in their own language intended to
    be used had not arrived. In the 1975 “Treaty of Waitangi Act” this deeply flawed document was legislated
    to be “the Treaty in English”.

    Thus have New Zealanders[13] been hoodwinked, misled and deceived at many crucial moments in their nation’s history!

    THE CRUCIAL MESSAGE

    It is absolutely critical that the true facts of our nation’s constitutional history be straightened out and
    accepted before any effort in made to establish second order derived hypotheses about what may be the
    “Principles of the Treaty”.[14] Anything else would only lead us more deeply into the mire.

    29 September 2024 Copyright ©
    [1]South of the Rakitata River, with rare exceptions, “k” replaces the “ng” of the north. Thus: ‘Waitaki’,’Waitangi’.
    [2] “Adventure in New Zealand from 1839 to 1844, London,1845, Vol 1, p.11
    [3]Holding a commission as an instructor officer in the RNZNVR (now retired) I can testify from my own experience that naval
    education at sea was both rigorous and extensive, perhaps more so in pre-Internet days than today!
    [4]T.L.Buick, “The Treaty of Waitangi”, 1914,p.94
    [5] J.Jackson,”Mistaken Maori Land Claims”, Book Seven, Treaty Series, Vol.2.,2007
    [6]B.Wells. “The History of Taranaki”, Edmondson and Avery, 1878.
    [7]“The Press”, p. C5, 2nd July 2011
    [8]Free Radical 26-8 August-December 1996
    [9]Proceedings were carefully minuted by Colenso and checked by Busby at the time though not published until 1890
    [10]As pointed out by Martin Doutré
    [11]Full details may be found in Doutré, “The Littlewood Treaty Found”, ISBN 0-473-10140-8, 2005, shunned by authorities in this country..
    [12] Ibid, p.127
    [13]With possibly the said former minister amongst them!
    [14]Several excellent and informative books exist on topics covered here. The author may be contacted for details.

    From the Tross book “Once We Were One” by Andy Oakley

    August 17, 2024
    , , , , Book Chapter, Treaty of Waitangi, Uncategorized

    CHAPTER 10.

    The Pakeha to Maori Illusion – Stephen O’Regan Exposed

    As we learned in Chapter 1, race is just an illusion and the fact is that everyone alive to-day is a 100th cousin of everyone else. However, although science and biology rule out the concept of “race” it still
    dominates the political landscape in New Zealand. We do have a few politicians and lobby groups such as Winston Peters and NZ First, Hobson’s Pledge and Muriel Newman’s New Zealand Centre for Political Research, warning us of the corruption that such race based policies will bring.

    As far as I am aware none of the people warning us that race based policies are taking our country in the wrong direction have been recognised for their efforts and are unlikely to be in the future. Instead
    they are ridiculed and vilified by the political class and mainstream media – just as Churchill was in the 1930s when he warned of the growing dangers of Nazi Germany’s rearmament. On the other hand several ministers and others in charge of treaty handouts have been awarded knighthoods for services to “Maori” people.

    Sir Douglas Graham and Sir “Tipene” O’Regan are two who come to mind, the former having been in charge of giving taxpayers’ money to iwi and the latter bullying the government for more and more of it.
    After taking so much off the taxpayer to enrich the tribal elite, Graham and O’Regan, both of them being “Maori” by virtue of a mere teaspoonful of Maori ancestry, went into the business world where they were responsible for tens of thousands of New Zealanders losing their life’s savings through the collapse of the Lombard and Hanover finance companies. It seems that these two tribal elitists regard ordinary New Zealanders as nothing more than cannon fodder to be fleeced of their money by fair means or foul. 

    Douglas Graham, a director of Lombard, was convicted in the criminal court for making a false statement to investors, while O’Regan and his fellow directors faced a $35 million claim from the Finance Markets Authority over their behaviour at Hanover, a claim that was later dropped.

    When Hanover Finance collapsed in 2008, with O’Regan as a well-paid director, it owed $554 million to approximately 16,500 investors, many of them elderly, who lost their life’s savings.

    Both of these rotten company directors should have been stripped of their knighthoods but that’s no longer how things work in New Zealand. In the words of Ron Asher in The Jaws of the Dragon, “The Key
    government has corrupted New Zealand in much the same way as the Clintons corrupted America during the husband’s presidency”. In the Key-English government loyalty to your mates trumps any values of honesty.1

    Graham, O’Regan and Ngai Tahu’s lawyer, Christopher Finlayson, colluded secretly to bring about the excessive Ngai Tahu Treaty settlement, by far the dodgiest of all Treaty settlements (and that’s
    saying something!). Ngai Tahu bullied the minster (Graham) and his department as they knew that, on the facts, they did not deserve the huge amount that they got. As is so often the case with Treaty claims,
    intimidation prevailed over honesty.

    In 2013 Bill English appointed O’Regan as the co-chair of the Constitutional Advisory Panel even though at the time O’Regan (and his fellow directors of Hanover) was facing a claim of $35 million from the Government’s Finance Markets Authority. In this capacity O’Regan accused those opposing the continuing separatism of our society at the behest of the tribal elite as “Nazi sympathisers”. This was a lie and is typical of what appears to be O’Regan’s deceitful character. David Round, a law lecturer at Canterbury University and a member of the Independent Constitutional Review panel, wrote a letter of complaint to Bill English, the minister in charge of the Constitutional Advisory Panel. English replied that he was perfectly happy with O’Regan’s behaviour, thus showing his trademark cowardice when confronted by bullying forces – be they a smear merchant like O’Regan or the Chinese Embassy in Wellington, which forced English to cancel a scheduled meeting in Wellington in October 2016, with Anson Chan, former head of the Hong Kong civil service, and Martin Lee, a prominent Hong Kong barrister, because China’s dictatorship did not like their democratic credentials.2

    The Tipene O’Regan Enigma: Maori speculator or Pakeha denier?

    We see regular headlines warning us of the number of children living in poverty in New Zealand and yet Sir Tipene O’Regan’s specialty seems to be one of diverting money from the taxpayer straight into the pockets of wealthy corporations. Whether it is by fleecing the investors of Hanover or repeatedly raping the middle and lower class taxpayers through his excessive and unjustified Ngai Tahu deals it seems that wherever there is an opportunity to make the rich richer, Sir Tipene is close by.

    He has redefined the words “full and final settlement” as his alleged tribe, Ngai Tahu, has now had FIVE “full and final” settlements from taxpayers over the years. Ngai Tahu thought so little of their land that they had sold most of the South Island to Australians before the Treaty was even signed in 1840. Governor Hobson gave an undertaking to investigate these sales as a result of signing the Treaty, opening the way for Ngai Tahu to get back land they had sold (without reimbursing those who had paid them for it) and sell it all over again. They subsequently sold most of the 15,121,483 hectares of the South Island again in ten deals over a twenty year period from 1844 for a total of 14,750 pounds.3

    These events are all the more incredible when it is remembered that Ngai Tahu only went to the South Island in the mid 1700s and, with the aid of Ngati Apa, they exterminated Tumatakokori, who had confronted the Dutch explorer, Abel Tasman, in 1642. They annihilated the peaceful West Coast tribe who were the guardians of the greenstone that they claimed as their own and they killed and ate the few Ngati Mamoe survivors whom Captain Cook had met in Dusky Sound.4

    Despite all this these Johnnie-come-latelys were given the ownership of ALL the greenstone of the South Island (and it is found only in the South Island) by their crooked Treaty settlement that was cooked up behind closed doors by O’Regan, Finlayson and Doug Graham.

    Since the first “final” settlement that they received in 1868 Ngai Tahu have been given other “settlements” in 1906, 1920 and 1944. Payments of $20,000 a year in perpetuity were awarded to Ngai Tahu in 1973, the tribe’s fourth settlement, and then they were given a further $170 million of taxpayer dollars in 1998 by Doug Graham and the National Government. This was the tribe’s FIFTH “full and final settlement”. All this cash and land from the rest of us has given Ngai Tahu a net worth of close to $900 million and they will soon pass the billion mark as, unlike others, they don’t pay tax on the profits from their business enterprises as they are registered as The Ngai Tahu Charitable Trust.

    Settlement 1: In 1868 Ngai Tahu grievances were examined in the Native Land Court. On top of land they had been given back after initially selling it, Judge Francis Dart Fenton reserved a further 1,995 ha
    in Canterbury and Otago and set aside a number of small fisheries and easements.5

    Settlement 2: The South Island Landless Natives Act 1906, granted Ngai Tahu 57,652 ha of land to settle.6

    Settlement 3: The Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1944 awarded 300,000 pounds as a final settlement.7

    Settlement 4: The Labour government in 1973 introduced a Bill to facilitate payments of $20,000 per year with Maori Affairs Minister, Matiu Rata, arguing that the 1944 settlement was accepted only on the
    basis that more was to come in the future.8

    Settlement 5: Ngai Tahu was awarded $170 million in another full and final settlement in1998.9

    The most disturbing thing about all these ongoing and fraudulent settlements is that, like other tribes such as Ngati Toa, the land that they sold to the Government in the 1800s (and for which they are being paid more to-day) had been gained by them through their extermination of men, women and children – the previous owners of the land who were murdered by Ngai Tahu colonization. They have done nothing to earn or deserve all the money and other assets they have been given by reckless and dishonest governments, other than stating that at least one of their ancestors happens to be of the “Maori” race. This opens the door to preferential treatment and the swiping of assets from New Zealanders in general for the benefit of small private groups they call “tribes” – even though tribalism was ended almost two hundred years ago by the Treaty of Waitangi. Instead, a new tribalism has now been created purely for
    financial reasons.

    All this undeserved and ill-gotten wealth is posing problems in our society, especially when the gains are invested in a tribal corporation that dodges tax by claiming “charity” status. Our gutless Parliament had
    to overturn the sensible and longstanding common law definition of “charity” so as to accommodate these rich corporations which invest only a tiny fraction of their wealth back into anything that will address the poverty of their own or other people. And, of course, there is a growing problem of poverty; all people who are poor, including those who identify as “Maori”, are equally deserving of our help.

    Despite the Maori tribal elite having an asset base of some $37 billion, those who identify as “Maori” are grossly over represented in all of the measures of a bad society. Poverty, prison and bad parenting are all
    huge problems for people who identify as “Maori”. What we are seeing is a direct correlation between the Treaty “settlement” money laundering that began in 1975 with the inception of the out-of-control Waitangi Tribunal and the steadily worsening social statistics, especially for Maori. Thirty years ago poverty was an issue for 14% of the population; to-day it is 17%. Had there been no Treaty industry lining the pockets of wealthy people like O’Regan, there would have been an extra $3 billion plus to address poverty and no doubt the 14% of thirty years ago would now be lower and not higher.

    O’Regan and others cunningly and cynically use “Maori” poverty as the reason for them to extract ever more money which finds its way into the pockets of the tribal elite. The result, however, is that the statistics for poor people who identify as Maori continue to worsen in an awful downward social spiral.

    So, who is this self-professed Maori kaumatua who has been rewarded with a knighthood by the Crown for swiping so much money from the taxpayer for himself and his tribal elite?

    Born Stephen Gerard O’Regan, his father’s side were poor West Coast Irish Catholic immigrants made good. Grandfather, P.J. O’Regan, became a celebrated politician and a judge of the Court of Arbitration,
    not having gone to school until the age of twelve. Stephen’s father, Rolland O’Regan, was a successful Wellington surgeon.10

    Stephen grew up in a European world – and a privileged one at that. The O’Regan home, on Wellington’s Mount Victoria, overlooking Evans Bay, was a two storey mansion with a tennis court – a rarity in Wellington due to the scarcity of flat land. They also owned a two- storey house on the next door property and they had a maid – a European lady who was a type of family retainer. Stephen had two adopted siblings – both European. This was a rich and privileged white family and the very thought that the taxpayer should have to give money to one of them for alleged matters in the long distant past is both absurd and morally repugnant.

    After leaving his private school Stephen attended Wellington Teachers College where the story goes that someone once called him a Maori, whereupon the pale faced O’Regan took off his jacket as if to fight and declared loud and clear that he was an Irishman. At least he would have got that right.

    At Victoria University he was secretary of the students’ Socialist Club. At the time it was not legal to have a Communist club on campus and many of Marx’s fellow-travellers gathered in the Socialist Club, which was far to the left of the Labour Party club.

    Stephen, a one-sixteenth Maori, married a blonde European, Sandra. and their children, including Maori rights crusader, Hana (Hannah), are one thirty-second part Maori! They moved from Wellington to Christchurch and Stephen did not change his name to Tipene until he reached middle age and the financial merits of being “Maori” as a result of the Treaty process were becoming plain.

    Usually people who change their names – especially in later life – do so to hide something. Often it is to hide the truth about the person, and hiding the truth is plain deception. Possibly the only other person in
    New Zealand to change his name from Stephen to Tipene in his mid-forties was Mark Stephens, the serial rapist who was known as the Parnell Panther. I went to school with this sicko in Porirua and he has
    had many subsequent convictions for indecent assault and intimidation since his release from prison. He changed his name to Mark Tipene in his forties for similar reasons to Tipene O’Regan – to alter the truth.11

    Altering the truth allowed Mark Tipene to place himself in situations where he could commit further crimes, usually against women, without people suspecting his motives. And altering the truth of who he is seems to be the reason for O’Regan’s change of name – just as he changed from being a “Socialist” (Marxist?) to the greediest capitalist of all.

    Mark Tipene not only changed his name, he also changed locations Porirua to Parnell. It seems for similar reasons O’Regan moved to Christchurch, to remove himself from all those in Wellington who knew him in his previous life as “Stephen”.

    It is only fair to point out that other members of the O’Regan family have been seriously embarrassed by Stephen’s shameless money-grubbing activities and all the shenanigans that go with it. When
    Stephen’s father was in an old people’s home in Wellington, Stephen paid him a visit and announced himself to the staff as “Tipene O’Regan”. The nurse went to old Mr. O’Regan and said, “Your son,
    Tipene, is here to see you,” whereupon the old man roared out, “I have no son called Tipene. Who is this man, Tipene? I don’t know any Tipene and I don’t want to see him.”

    Stephen O’Regan’s mother, Rena Bradshaw, was a Southlander in an area where many people are descended from the Waitaha and Ngati Mamoe as well as from the Ngai Tahu invaders, who were latecomers to the area. Ngai Tahu exterminated many Waitaha but inter-married with others.

    The Waitaha “nation” goes back 2,000 years, according to Gavin Menzies. In his book, 1434, he states that two hundred tribes of the Waitaha nation settled in New Zealand and were then decimated by the
    warlike tribes who invaded New Zealand some 800 years ago – an eerie precursor of the massacre of the Moriori in the Chatham Islands by tribes from Taranaki in the 1830s.12

    In his 1995 book, Songs of Waitaha; the Histories of a Nation, Barry Brailsford claimed that the ancestors of a “Nation of Waitaha” were the first inhabitants of New Zealand, three groups of people of different
    origin, two of light complexion and one dark, who had arrived in New Zealand through an unspecified location in the Pacific.13

    The Waitaha claim that they pre-empt the Maori and therefore challenged the Ngai Tahu claim in the Waitangi Tribunal. Waitaha leader, Rangimarie Te Maiharoa said that the Ngai Tahu settlement
    would “extinguish customary rights and aboriginal title of our people”.14

    None of this should be of public concern in the twenty-first century and it wouldn’t be but for money – the money that racist and crooked governments rip off the taxpayer, to redistribute on a race basis to the
    newly created tribal elite of very pale faced “Maoris” with far more European blood in them than Maori. Money is the root of the problem and will remain so until the Waitangi Tribunal is closed down. That is a
    necessary pre-condition for returning to the type of egalitarian, non-racist and fair society that we had before Geoffrey Palmer so foolishly extended the remit of the Waitangi Tribunal, to investigate all sorts of fanciful claims that go all the way back to 1840 – way beyond anyone’s memory or knowledge.

    As far as I am aware there is no current definition of what a Maori is. I have written a number of letters to the Waitangi Tribunal to ask them for a definition but they do not respond. The answer is simple. Anyone can state that they are “Maori”; it is just that you will not be allocated privileges, extra rights and money via the Waitangi Tribunal unless you can prove that at least one of your parents happens to be related to someone who has the teeniest amount of Maori blood in them; but with no definition for “Maori”.

    As we have seen there were no people known as Maoris in New Zealand until the 1850s. Until then they were called “natives” or “New Zealanders”. The term “Maori” as a reference to people was coined
    more than a decade after the signing of the Treaty. Before that date there were approximately 600 separate groups of people in a constant warring state of flux. These people had arrived from different lands and at different times and some were not related at all except that they were human beings. None were known as Maori.

    To-day the term “Maori” is a reference to self-identification by indoctrination. It is a quasi-religion and Tipene O’Regan is a pastor in the church of Maori. The following is a sublimely ridiculous example of
    how this Irish pastor, Stephen O’Regan, delivers his Maori sermon. It is from the launch of the new book, Tangata Whenua:

    “I think one of the great challenges facing us is a really decent study of Pakehatanga. What makes the character of Pakeha, Pakeha? There is not just non-Maori because in my view Pakeha have now been here ….THEY do not belong anywhere else now, THEY are indigenous to this place, THEY are acclimatised, THEY are here and the great challenge for biculturalism is that Pakeha are better able to articulate what being Pakeha is in this place.”15

    The context of his verbal diarrhoea was in a room of well-known separatists expounding the virtues of being a different race to everyone else, i.e. Maori. Patricia Grace, an ex-teacher of mine, was there and
    Ranginui Walker, both of whom have wallowed in Western ways of living but seem to deny any other ancestry that they may have, except for Maori.  What O’Regan is really saying is that, although he is a
    Pakeha; was raised as a Pakeha; his siblings are Pakeha; has been married to a Pakeha for more than fifty years; had a father and grandparents who were fully Pakeha; and a mother who was seven-eighths Pakeha; he has no idea what it is to be a Pakeha!!!!! This is because he implies that he is a Maori and, as such, puts it out there to Pakeha to write this history of what it’s like to be a Pakeha. If this is not the ultimate deception, then I don’t know what is.

    Coming from a rich and privileged white family in Wellington O’Regan knows more than most what it’s like to be Pakeha. Biologically he is one himself – at least fifteen sixteenths of him is. He has tried to hide it with his name change and hopes that we have forgotten who he really is.

    This is the kind of racist nonsense that needs to be stamped out. There is no room in New Zealand for people who are intent on driving a wedge between humans who have everything in common. Unfortunately some are susceptible to the quasi-religious and false indoctrination by people such as the person who calls himself Tipene O’Regan. Perhaps it’s time for him to consider returning to Ireland, the land of his forebears. That would be a positive for New Zealand but a negative for Ireland, which over the centuries has had more than enough of the divisions between humans that O’Regan preaches.

    Here we have the ex-chief negotiator for Ngai Tahu treaty settlements who is now stating that Pakeha are also indigenous to New Zealand. How generous of him! While Pakeha might be every bit as indigenous as anyone else I would like to know how this statement affects every Treaty settlement. How does it affect every one of the almost $200 million that Ngai Tahu has extracted from the taxpayer by dubious means; and how does it affect the activities of the Waitangi Tribunal? How can this manipulator and smear merchant use the term “biculturalism” as the reason to separate people, when he is the perfect example of how a Pakeha is a Maori and a Maori is a Pakeha?

    Culture is the amalgamation of the ideas, customs and social behaviour of a particular people or society. Stephen O’Regan wears a suit, drives a car, flies all round the world (on a passport that is allegedly in the name of “Stephen” and not “Tipene”), watches TV, goes to the movies, shops at the mall, and uses a microwave like every other New Zealander. Yet apparently he belongs to a culture that cannot understand this way of life, and so he advises the people who live this way to write a book to explain it! What sort of absurdity is this?

    He is so cunning and manipulative that he even managed to incorporate this absurdity into the 1998 Ngai Tahu settlement whereby the Crown gave up 72 public camping sites alongside lakes and river banks for the EXCLUSIVE use of members of the Ngai Tahu tribe between mid-August and the end of April each year, all seasons except winter when people don’t go camping. Each site is about one hectare in area.

    Why are the public now banned from these formerly public places? So that those Westernised New Zealanders of the twenty-first century who just happen to have as one of their ancestors a person who defines as Ngai Tahu, can have “an opportunity to experience the landscape as their tupuna did and to rekindle the traditional practices of gathering food and other natural resources”. Well, that would be a change from McDonalds.

    These “noahanga” sites “were an integral part of the mobile lifestyle of Ngai Tahu as they moved around the South Island in pursuit of food” – including the flesh of the Waitaha people and anyone else that got in the way of these ruthless invaders from the North Island.

    And who was it who stole these prime lakeside sites from the general public? Douglas Graham of course. Just further evidence of how Graham’s character is such that it is a continuing disgrace that he should have a title. How do the other knights feel about having to share their order with a type like him?

    The grounds for creating these racially exclusive “noahanga” sites was that the Ngai Tahu members of the twenty-first century are such lovers of their environment that they want to savour it.  Since actions speak
    louder than words I shall quote from my earlier book, Cannons Creek to Waitangi (Page 12): “It seems that Ngai Tahu’s main object is to rape the wilderness. We are talking about the proposed “Maori monorail”
    that would have ruined Greenstone Valley and the proposal for a road and a gondola via Caples Valley. Both these formerly publicly owned valleys were given to Ngai Tahu in 1998. We are talking about Tipene O’Regan being one of the investors in the Milford Dart Tunnel proposal. Thankfully these Ngai Tahu/O’Regan money grabbing proposals have been rejected by government on environmental grounds.”16

    For a millionaire like O’Regan, living in a mansion full of mod cons, to claim that non-members of Ngai Tahu have to be kicked off public land (the “noahanga” sites), has nothing to do with Ngai Tahu’s need to catch fish in the wilderness to provide them with food in the twenty-first century; but everything to do with O’Regan’s barely concealed self-loathing of his European self.

    This self-loathing seems to have been passed on to his daughter, Hana (Hannah), a Maori rights activist whom the deeply compromised and biased Christopher Finlayson, appointed in 2009 to his carefully loaded “Foreshore and Seabed Review Panel”, to “advise” him on his theft of the foreshore and seabed from the people of New Zealand so that this precious resource can be handed out to his chosen tribes. Hana O’Regan recommended that the foreshore and seabed be taken out of public ownership. This gave Ngai Tahu, her “tribe” insofar as a one thirty-second part “Maori” can have a tribe the potential to grab 40% of New Zealand’s coast. This potential turned into a reality on May 1 st , 2017, when Ngai Tahu made their claim to almost all of the South Island.

    Hana O’Regan’s conflict of interest as a member of Ngai Tahu and also as a member of the Foreshore and Seabed Review Panel became clear and an effective collusion between Hana O’Regan and Chris Finlayson had been shown to blossom into what appears to be full-scale fraud when Ngai Tahu claimed the foreshore and seabed of most of the South Island.

    It is a sad day for democracy and honesty when a self-interested person like Hana O’Regan is appointed to, and accepts a position on such a panel. Unfortunately it is typical of the secrecy and bias, if not
    corruption, which have contaminated the Treaty Settlements Office since the deeply compromised and not very honest Christopher Finlayson, became the Minister. Although on paper a National List
    M.P., Finlayson’s politics are more those of the separatist Maori Party than of National – something that Key and English either have not yet worked out or, even worse, condone.

    The snow flake Hana O’Regan has done very nicely for herself by trading on her one thirty-second teaspoonful of Maori blood despite the ridiculousness of such a situation, When she was about eighteen a Wellington man asked her what she wanted to do with her life. “I want to help our people,” she said sanctimoniously. “What a good idea.” he replied. “The Irish always need help.”

    Stephen O’Regan and his daughter Hana are a stark and ugly reminder of the ways that New Zealanders have been indoctrinated over the years. This fraud has fooled a generation into thinking there is such a thing as Maori, and they have fooled us into thinking that they are one of the chosen ones, Maori. They have fooled us into believing that this made-up and apparently separate people that are alive to-day deserve more rights, more public resources and ever more cash handouts from the taxpayer, because of nothing more than the accident of birth. That is not a recipe for a modern democracy or a fair and healthy society. No society that has ever embraced a separatist agenda has finished up in anything but tears.

    1 Asher, Ron. The Jaws of the Dragon. Wellington: Tross Publishing. 2016. pg 180 2 Ibid.
    3 Butler, Mike. Ngai Tahu. Otago Daily Times. 9 Oct 2013
    4 Begg, AC and Begg NC. Dusky Bay, Whitcombe and Tombs,1966 5 Butler, Mike. Twisting the Treaty, Tross Publishing. Wellington. 2013.Pages 123-167.
    6 Ibid
    7 Ibid. Page 85
    8 Ibid
    9 Ibid 10 McCrone, John. Man of mana. Stuff. 8 th Feb 2014. 11 Binning, Elizabeth. Youth worker appears on two sexual assault charges. NZ Herald. Nov 2006. 12 Menzies, Gavin.1434. London. HarperCollins Publishers Ltd. 2008.
    13 Brailsford, Barry. Songs of Waitaha: the Histories of a Nation. Christchurch. Wharariki Publishing. 2006.
    14 Maiharoa, Rangimarie. Mana of Waitaha must not be silenced. Evening Post, 5 Apr 1993; p.5 15 YouTube. The launch of Tangata Whenua.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=557Q3c5j75o  Data Retrieved 11.07.17 16 Shuttleworth, Kate. Milford tunnel proposal rejected. NZHerald. Jul 17. 2013

    Myths, Lies & Legends

    July 28, 2024
    , , , Democracy, Treaty of Waitangi

    Maori myths, lies and legends taken from the popular Treaty Booklet distributed throughout New Zealand.

    Myth No. 1.
    The Maoris are indigenous to New Zealand
    Wrong. Unlike the Indians in North America and the Aborigines in
    Australia, who have been on their land for thousands of years, the
    Maoris arrived in New Zealand about 1250 A.D. – a mere 400 years
    before Abel Tasman. At Cape Reinga there is a hillock that, according
    to Maori lore and the accompanying sign, the spirits of dead Maoris
    leave from on their journey home to Hawaiki, thus showing that even
    the Maoris don’t believe that they are indigenous.

    Myth No. 2.
    The Maoris enjoyed an idyllic life before the arrival of the white
    man.
    Before the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840 New Zealand was divided among
    numerous warring tribes. Between 1800 and 1840 about one third of
    their population (43,500) had been killed as a result of tribal warfare
    and all lived in constant fear of being attacked by a stronger tribe with
    better weapons. Cannibalism, ritual human sacrifice, slavery, female
    infanticide, witch-doctory and a lack of any form of law and order
    were features of their Stone Age existence.

    Myth No. 3.
    The Maoris did not cede full sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840.
    This lie was put out in 2014 by the Waitangi Tribunal at the behest of
    part-Maori radicals. By Article One of the Treaty the chiefs ceded full
    sovereignty of these lawless islands to Queen Victoria forever – as the
    words clearly state – as do the speeches of Rewa, Te Kemara, Kawiti
    and other chiefs of the time. Twenty years later at the Kohimarama
    (Auckland) conference, the largest gathering of chiefs in New Zealand
    history, they declared that full sovereignty had been ceded in 1840. If
    the chiefs did not cede sovereignty, they would have continued their
    cannibalism, which meant a lot to some of them.

    Myth No. 4.
    Those tribes, like Tuhoe and Tainui, whose chiefs did not sign the
    Treaty, are not bound by it.
    The obvious answer to this is that Tuhoe, Tainui, etc. should return
    to the taxpayer their recent substantial Treaty settlements as how can

    you take a treaty that the forebears of your
    tribe did not sign? However, as is so often the case, the obvious is not
    the truth. By living peacefully under the law for several generations

    paying taxes, receiving welfare benefits, fighting in the armed
    services, etc. – these and other tribes have, by their actions, accepted
    the sovereignty of the Crown. Whether or not their forebears signed
    the Treaty is irrelevant. End of story.

    Myth No. 5.
    The Treaty of Waitangi was a “partnership” between the Crown
    and Maori.
    It never was. Full sovereignty was ceded to Queen Victoria by Article
    1 of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1840. Britain, at the time the greatest
    empire in the history of the world, did not go in for “partnership”
    agreements with Stone Age chiefs who had been unable to bring peace
    and order to their land. Indeed, one of the instructions of Colonial
    Secretary, Lord Normanby, to Captain Hobson, was to walk away if
    full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have
    no legal basis for bringing order and peace to the islands. No special
    concessions or “partnership” were mentioned in the Treaty for the
    simple reason that there was no partnership.
    This was clearly understood by all parties until the Maori radical
    movement got off the ground in the 1980s. Realising that by the
    words of the treaty they could not get superior rights over other New
    Zealanders, they invented the “partnership” concept for that very
    purpose. For reasons of cowardice, treason or self-interest, others –
    politicians, judges, bureaucrats – have accepted this lie. It is also being
    taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a
    whole new tranche of tribal demands.

    Myth No. 6.
    There are principles of the Treaty.
    No, the Treaty was a very simple document of only three Articles,
    none of which mentions “principles” or “partnership”. Since the Treaty
    gave equality for the first time to all the people of New Zealand, the
    grievance industry of the late twentieth century knew that they could
    not get special race based privileges from the Treaty itself and so, 150

    years after the event, they invented for the first time the fictions of

    “principles” and “partnership” to give them what the Treaty does not.

    Myth No. 7.
    There are two conflicting versions of the Treaty –
    one in English and the other in Maori.
    There is only one treaty – in Maori – (Te Tiriti o Waitangi), that was
    signed by around 500 chiefs. It was constructed from the English
    draft, known as the Littlewood Document (see Appendix B on page
    31). Hobson’s secretary, James Freeman, acting improperly, later
    made some English “versions” of the Treaty in what he considered
    more suitable language to send to dignitaries overseas. These were
    neither drafts of the Treaty nor translations of it but one of these
    unofficial English documents was signed by some chiefs at Waikato
    Heads because there was not enough space on the genuine document
    for all the signatures. By creating the Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975 the
    government has adopted this incorrect document, signed by a mere 49
    chiefs in the abovementioned circumstances, as the “official” treaty,
    displacing Te Tiriti that was signed by nearly 500 chiefs!!!!

    Myth No. 8
    The Treaty of Waitangi is a “living document”.
    Not correct. The Treaty was merely the pre-condition for establishing
    British rule, which Governor Hobson did by proclamation later
    in 1840. By the end of 1840 the Treaty had performed its function,
    viz. acceptance by the chiefs of British sovereignty in exchange for
    full British citizenship for all Maoris. It is only a “living document”
    for those who want to expand its meaning so as to give ever more
    questionable rights to the tribal elite, thereby denying other citizens
    their equal rights.

    Myth No. 9.
    Colonisation was bad for Maoris.
    The Treaty of Waitangi and British colonisation brought the advantages
    and restraints of civilised government to New Zealand for the first time.
    This was the catalyst that brought New Zealand from a state of war
    and anarchy to one of peace that ended the cannibalism, infanticide
    and inter-tribal warfare that had been features of Maori society since

    time immemorial, thus giving them a right to freedom and personal
    security that they had not had before.
    Conflict resolution came to be through the courts and no longer by
    savage battle with victory going to the more powerful, where might
    was right. Limits on the power of chiefs benefited all Maori. Chiefs
    themselves lived with greater security, no longer forced by the demands
    of utu to risk their lives while taking the lives of others.
    British law, recognising Maori ownership of land until such time as
    they decided to sell (as many did), gave Maoris titles guaranteed by
    law to virtually the whole of New Zealand – something they had never
    had before as land ownership under the old Maori law of tikanga was
    determined by military might; any tribe could be attacked during the
    night by a stronger one with better weapons, ensuring a change of land
    ownership.
    The Treaty of Waitangi freed all the chiefs’ slaves (about 10,000 of
    them). They were then free to take work on things like road building
    contracts, thus earning money and being able to spend it how they
    liked.
    For a society that had not even invented the wheel or writing,
    colonisation brought all the advanced inventions, comforts and modern
    medicine of the Western world. In 1840 the average life expectancy of
    a Maori was less than 30 years. In 2013 it was 73 years for men and
    77.1 years for women.

    Myth No. 10.
    Maori had to wait 27 years after 1840 before being granted the vote
    in 1867.
    Not so. Maoris had the same representation as all other New Zealanders
    from the very beginning – after all, the Treaty had given them the full
    rights of British subjects. In 1853 all men over twenty-one who owned
    property (with no distinction for race) could vote. At the time about 100
    Maoris (mainly leaders) were enrolled to vote and by 1860 some 17%
    of the electorate were Maoris. The special Maori seats in Parliament
    were introduced in 1867 when all Maori men over twenty-one (with

    no property provision) could vote. By contrast, a property qualification
    still applied to Europeans so that many remained excluded. In 1893
    all women, including Maori, were granted the vote. Now that Maoris
    are so fully integrated into society there is no longer any reason to
    continue the race-based Maori seats in Parliament.

    Myth No. 11.
    In 1863, during the Maori War, Governor Grey “invaded” the
    Waikato    .
    This misrepresentation has been bandied about for several years –
    usually by so-called “professional historians” with an axe to grind. The
    word “invade” implies a hostile entry by a foreign power –e.g. Hitler
    invading Poland in 1939 and Argentina invading the Falkland Islands
    in 1981. Since Grey was the Governor of New Zealand, holding legal
    jurisdiction over the whole country, how could he “invade” part of it?
    What he did was to send troops legally into the Waikato to suppress a
    rebellion against the sovereign power – something that every state is
    entitled to do. That is not an “invasion”.

    Myth No. 12.
    Confiscation of lands from rebellious tribes during and after the
    Maori Wars was a breach of the Treaty.
    In the words of Sir Apirana Ngata, the first Maori to graduate from
    a university and probably the greatest thinker that Maoridom has yet
    produced, “The chiefs placed in the hands of the Queen of England
    the sovereignty and authority to make laws. Some sections of the
    Maori people violated that authority. War arose from this and blood
    was spilled. The law came into operation and land was taken in
    payment. This itself is a Maori custom – revenge, plunder to avenge a
    wrong. It was their own chiefs who ceded that right to the Queen. The
    confiscations can not therefore be objected to in the light of the treaty.”
    Ngata also said in 1940 that the Treaty was “a gentleman’s agreement
    which on the whole has not been badly observed”.

    Myth No. 13.
    There is no harm in ”co-governance agreements” between Crown
    and Maori.
    Incorrect. Co-governance agreements are a violation of both
    democracy and national sovereignty. Co-governance undermines the
    power of our democracy to make decisions for the general good since
    unelected tribes have effective veto powers and see things only from
    their own narrow interests. Co-governance agreements drive a sword
    through the nation’s sovereignty and are undermining our hard won
    democratic institutions.

    Myth No. 14.
    The Maori name for New Zealand is Aotearoa.
    Pre-1840 the Maoris did not have a name for the whole of New Zealand
    as they had no sense of a Maori nation – just tribes.
    In 1643 the country was named New Zealand by the States-General
    (Parliament) of Holland and this has been its name for 370 years.
    “Aotearoa” as a fanciful name for New Zealand began only in 1890
    when S. Percy Smith used it as a make-up name for the whole country
    in his fictional story of Kupe. The word “Aotearoa” did not appear in
    the Treaty of Waitangi – for obvious reasons.

    Myth No. 15.
    Tuheitia of the Waikato is the Maori king.
    Like all other New Zealanders Tuheitia is a subject of Queen Elizabeth
    II and no monarch can be the subject of another. It is legally impossible.
    He might be a chief – even a high chief – but a king he is not. He is not
    even regarded as a king by tribes other than his own.

    Myth No. 16.
    Maoris (“tangata whenua”) have a greater claim to New Zealand
    than other New Zealanders.
    There is no such thing as an ethnic Maori and there do not appear to
    be even more than a few half-castes – a result of several generations of
    Maoris preferring to breed with Europeans rather than with their own
    kind. What we now have is a successor race of part-Maoris with more

    European blood in them than Maori, thus negating the concept of so-
    called “tangata whenua”.

    Furthermore in a modern democracy that is committed to equal rights
    for all citizens it is both absurd and offensive that any racial group
    should have superior rights to other New Zealanders. The mere chance
    of whose boats arrived first is irrelevant.

    Myth No. 17.
    Maoris deserve special grants and privileges because they are at the
    bottom of the socio-economic heap.
    Yes, a certain percentage of part-Maoris are not doing well – certainly
    a higher percentage than for other groups. However, poorer people of
    all races should be helped on the basis of need and not race.
    Far too much of the taxpayer funded Treaty settlement and other race
    based monies have gone into the pockets of the pale-faced tribal elite –
    people like the multi-millionaire Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias
    Tipene) O’Regan (one-sixteenth Maori).

    Myth No. 18
    The modern revival of tribalism is a good thing.
    No, it’s not. It was tribalism that caused the Musket Wars (1800-40)
    in which around a third of the Maori population were killed (around
    43,500 killed as opposed to 2,800 killed ON BOTH SIDES during the
    Maori wars of the 1840s and 1860s).
    It was to get away from this terrible chain of killings – one utu
    (revenge) leading to another – that the chiefs signed the Treaty of
    Waitangi so as to become united under a single and indivisible Crown.
    For governments to try to re-tribalise one part of the population of our
    diverse democracy is an affront to those like Tamati Waka Nene and
    the other wise and far-sighted chiefs who signed the Treaty in 1840.
    Tribalism didn’t work for New Zealand before 1840 and it won’t
    work now. It is a curse that should be kept in the past instead of
    the tribal elite and appeasing governments using it to undermine

    the sovereignty, unity and democracy of the nation through “co-
    governance agreements”, a fictitious “partnership between Crown

    and Maori”, separate Maori wards in local government, etc. that are
    creating a new type of apartheid of two nations instead of one.

    Myth No. 19
    Treaty settlements are for the redress of historical grievances.
    Not any longer. More than $3 billion have been transferred from the
    taxpayer to small, private tribes of part-Maoris and there is no record
    of any one of them ever saying “Thank-you”. In assessing how many
    millions of dollars to hand over to these re-created tribal groups the
    Office of Treaty Settlements uses a “quantum” basis. The size of the
    settlement will depend largely on the number of people to-day who
    claim membership of a particular tribe, even though they may have
    less than 4% of Maori blood in them.
    Other determinants of the amount are “the benchmark set by existing
    settlements” and the amount of land that the tribe held in 1840 regardless
    of how much of it they have sold since. These periodic handovers of
    tens and hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are based on factors
    other than genuine “historical grievances”. It is effectively a protection
    racket – buying off the bullying tribal elite so that they won’t mount
    big protests that disrupt society and the economy – and they are sold to
    the public as “redress of historical grievances”.

    Myth No. 20.
    The Waitangi Tribunal acts like a court.
    No, it doesn’t. Not true to its original purpose, it has become a biased
    Maori advocacy group that accepts unreliable oral evidence ahead of
    written documents so as to extract as much money out of the taxpayer
    as possible. Telling lies – as it did when it said that Maori did not
    cede sovereignty in 1840 – is a normal part of its racially biased and
    verbally fabricated behaviour. This Tribunal is the enemy of truth,
    honesty and a unified nation.
    In South Africa the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, that was
    set up to deal with the problems that had occurred under apartheid,
    was wound up after five years, having achieved a task much more
    challenging than in New Zealand. The Waitangi Tribunal has been
    going for nearly 40 years, providing an army of cultural consultants,
    etc. with millions of taxpayer dollars. It has already done enough harm
    to the country and needs to be abolished.

    Myth No. 21
    The high imprisonment rate of part-Maoris is the result of
    colonisation and the Crown not honouring the Treaty of Waitangi.
    No, people are imprisoned for things they have chosen to do. By
    1936, Maoris/part-Maoris made up just 11% of the prison population.
    This was much closer to the period of colonisation than now. The
    fact that 83 years later part-Maoris make up around 51% of the
    prison population is due not to colonisation but to bad choices made
    by so many of them.

    Myth No. 22
    In the 1800s Maoris “lost” most of their lands.
    Apart from the relatively small percentage of land confiscated as a
    punishment for rebellion in the 1860s (See Myth No. 12) Maoris did
    not “lose” their lands; they sold them for valuable consideration at a
    mutually agreed price. Whether they spent the proceeds wisely or not
    was their own choice. There is a world of difference between “losing”
    something and selling it. In addition to “Maori land”, people of Maori
    descent also own general land.

    Myth No. 23.
    Most New Zealanders see nothing wrong with Maori privileges; it is
    only a few fuddy-duddies who object.

    Some polls:
    79% No to special Maori seats in parliament
    (Submitters to the Constitutional Advisory Panel)

    82% No to compulsory Maori language in schools
    (yahoo Xtra poll)

    96% of non-Maori students of Year 9 and above do NOT learn Maori
    despite it being an available option in many schools
    (NZ Herald, 23 July, 2014)

    85% No to special Maori housing
    (Bay of Plenty Times, 20 April, 2013)

    81% No to “Maori are special” (Close Up poll, July, 2011)

    81% No to Maori names for North Island and South Island (Stuff
    poll, 2/4/13)

    82% No to “h” in Wanganui
    (Referendum conducted by Wanganui District Council, 2006)

    79% No to a special Maori voice on the committees of Rotorua
    Council (Rotorua Daily Post, 9/5/14)

    79% No to Maori wards, Waikato District Council, April, 2012

    80% No to Maori wards, Hauraki District Council, May 2013

    79% No to Maori wards, Nelson District Council, May, 2012

    52% No to Maori wards, Wairoa District Council, March, 2012

    68% No to Maori wards, Far North District Council,
    March, 2015

    82% No to special Maori wards on New Plymouth Council, May, 2015

    80.03% No to Maori wards, Kaikoura District Council,
    May, 2018

    78.2% No to Maori wards, Western Bay of Plenty District Council,
    May, 2018

    77.04% No to Maori wards, Manawatu District Council,
    May, 2018

    68.87% No to Maori wards, Palmerston North City Council, May, 2018

    56.39% No to Maori wards, Whakatane District Council,
    May, 2018

    70% want Maori wards in local government abolished
    (Consumerlink, Colmar Brunton poll, March, 2012)

    68% want the Waitangi Tribunal abolished (Ibid)

    Myth No. 24.
    Those who oppose special rights and privileges for part-Maoris are
    “racists”.
    This is a contradiction in terms and is propagated by people who are
    either mischievous or just misinformed. Special rights/privileges for
    one race are a violation of the democratic principle that we should
    all be treated equally. To demand this is not being “racist”. The real
    racists are those of the radical tribal elite who are trying to subvert our
    democracy with their never-ending race-based demands.

    1 2 3
    Copyright © 2023 Tross Publishing. All rights reserved.