Exposing intended apartheid: the He Puapua ‘Vision 2040’
By John Robinson
The Big Lie of colonial oppression, with the rewriting of history and the Treaty of Waitangi, is well established and has the support of an extensive ‘Treaty industry’. The final aim is the overthrow of democratic government and its replacement by a system of two governments and two laws, with the dominant Maori government organised by tribal tikanga.
Extreme Maori objectives, formerly kept secret, have now been set down clearly within the He Puapua Report to Government1, which proposes “the breaking of the usual political and societal norms and approaches … The vision is that, should Maori have the ability to exercise full authority over our lands, waters and natural resources, uphold our responsibilities as kaitiaki and implement indigenous solutions with resources and support to do so, Aotearoa will be a thriving country for all.” The words insist that supreme power, “full authority”, must go to Maori.
Not all Maori agree with those ideas. The visions and the claims calling for separation by race into ‘indigenous’ Maori and others (often labelled ‘pakeha’) are by no means universal among those who identify, or are identified, as Maori (most, probably all, being of mixed ancestry). References here to those calling for separation by race apply to the tribal elite, rangatira, and their followers, not all Maori.
He Puapua presents their “Vision 2040”, a totally transformed system of government by the 200th anniversary of the signing of the Treaty of Waitangi, just 15 years from 2025. This is a repeat of the policy set down in the 2016 Matike Mai report to the Iwi Chairs’ Forum2. The hope is for “a breakthrough where Aotearoa’s constitution is rooted in te Tiriti o Waitangi [the revised concept, not the original] and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples”. Their vision is that by 2040, “the government will have implemented the relevant instruments to share power more fairly with Maori in our constitutional arrangements”. To ‘share fairly’ is not government by, and for, an equal and united people. It is a race-defined minority holding separate power over the whole people of New Zealand, and there is nothing fair in such an arrangement.
New Zealand is to be broken apart with three government entities; there is no pretence of inclusiveness or unity. “The [separated] Rangatiratanga sphere reflects Maori governance over people and places”, where Maori have complete control and autonomy. “The Kawangatanga sphere represents Crown governance” – meaning, of course, the elected government, the place for all New Zealanders, including Maori – as they insist, “Maori must be able to participate in Crown governance” and Maori seats must remain. “There is a large ‘joint sphere’ where Maori and the Crown share governance over issues of mutual concern”; that is the two parties in this divided nation, this proposed apartheid system, meet to negotiate, with an effective Maori veto. The proposed overturn of an egalitarian way of life and form of government to Maori-dominated apartheid has been made explicit.
These changes would be accompanied by an upsurge of propaganda calling for a new indigenous concept of patriotism and nationalism. The rebuttal of the Westminster system of government includes a desire to cut all ties with Britain, including the monarchy – which is likely to be replaced by a native monarch, provided by the Maori king movement which has been waiting in the wings and steadily building public acceptance. This would be the completion of tribal sovereignty.
There is international support for such special rights to ‘indigenous’ people, from the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples and many regional indigenous movements, not recognising their very different experiences of colonisation. Once the world was united against separation and different rights by race; apartheid ended in South Africa after a long and intense international campaign. There is now the very opposite: strong support for such separation on grounds of race, which no longer meets with condemnation. Current indigenous apartheid has widespread international support, so this will be accepted by other nations, welcomed as a particular New Zealand ‘Pacific’ way.
There has been a strong push towards the goals of Vision 2040 with the co-governance policy of the Jacinda Ardern Labour government, strongly supported by the Green and Maori parties, against strong resistance from the ACT and New Zealand First parties. The attitude of the National Party is ambiguous, refusing to take a firm stand: the party “is opposed to co-governance and believes that New Zealand’s public service should be governed under one system. However, they also believe that co-governance of natural assets involving iwi working with central and local government in the context of Treaty settlements is long-standing and they continue to support it.”3
Activist expectations are of comprehensive apartheid created by the insistence of separatist activists with a determined, long-term goal, to be achieved by the hoped-for date of 2040. Any interruption will bring the threat of violence, already expressed dramatically in the opposition to the Treaty Principles Bill. That Bill drew criticism from opposition parties Labour, Green, and Te Pati Maori, Maori leaders and the Waitangi Tribunal. Some legal critics argued that the bill sought to undermine Maori rights and disrupt their ‘established’ interpretations of the Treaty. It was said that ACT’s Treaty Principles Bill would “undo the fundamental principle of partnership between the Crown and Maori, which would cause further mistrust, division and damage, leading to uncertainty and social disruption, which would then jeopardise New Zealand’s economic, social and cultural progress.”
Such claims that the Bill led to disruption are absurd; threats and mass rallies have come only because it laid a challenge of equality and this stirred up a hornets nest among those who had gained domination through apartheid policies. The Bill desired debate, while the disrupters acted to stifle debate – as they did in their efforts to stifle Julian Batchelor’s ‘Stop co-governance meetings.
This has been the success of years of brainwashing, a sustained and comprehensive propaganda campaign by the Waitangi Tribunal and Treaty industry to seize control of the hearts and minds of the population – a combination of a directed narrative (putting out false stories of colonial wrongdoing, harm to Maori, and a need for compensation) and a play on feelings, where the impact of that misinformation has been bolstered by a campaign of symbolism and rhetoric, rallies, chants and haka aimed at the heart, not the brain. This has established a dictatorship of ideology as the only accepted beliefs are their own, all others being proscribed.
It would be unrealistic to expect a majority counter-revolution any time soon; rather another change in government (a recurring feature of fluctuating political fortunes) is likely to take the country back to a policy of co-governance, moving again towards the division of ‘Vision 2040’.
The country may then be well down the path to separate governments before any reaction gains traction, finally resulting from frequent experience in practical matters of the loss of freedom – such as limits on access to beaches and mountains, ever more unequal taxes and laws, and experiences of losing court battles or failure to get employment simply because the other party is Maori. Certainly, the Maori anger and probable conflict following any move to challenge their domination has been made more evident over the past few years.
While an eventual push-back against separation remains probable, the timeline has been substantially lengthened – it will be some time away yet, perhaps only after New Zealand has moved perilously close to the attainment of the Vision 2040 apartheid, suggesting a long period of struggle for those who support equality.
Calls for tikanga and tribal identity raise fears of a return to the past of widespread and vicious tribal conflict.4
“Before the coming of Europeans, Maori lived in tribes. As members of a related unit, they were largely isolated from all others by territorial animosity, and welded together by territorial defence. All too often the stranger was hated, the fellow tribesman protected. In that system, for the foreigner there must exist no measure of tolerance or charity or peace; for the countryman one must feel at least rudimentary loyalty and devotion. The individual must protect the group; the group, the individual.
That lifestyle, with a multiplicity of tribes scattered across the country, provided conditions that readily give rise to war: the separation of men into groups, the alliance of men and territory, and the latent capacity for the enmity code to dominate man in his relation to a hostile neighbour. …
There is danger here, in addition to the destruction of democracy and the end of free speech and equality. Maori society has always been fractious, traditionally with savage warfare among the tribes – which was murderous in the early decades of the nineteenth century when one-third of Maori perished directly in the tribal wars and the full impact was a population decline of half. The arguments and disruption that are evident now may soon spread throughout all of New Zealand.
One possible scenario for the future is civil war among tribes, a return to pre-colonisation Maori society in a failing state. As well as conflict between tribes, there will also be differences within each tribe, keeping in mind that most disagreement will be settled under the dictates of tikanga and only appealing to national law in extreme cases.” 5
Maori are returning to the ways of a tribal people, holding together for now by feelings of collective unity against a common enemy – those who call for equality of citizens rather than equality between racial groups, Maori and the other. But tribal rivalries and disagreements continue, and should they win that struggle and gain power the need for unity will diminish, at which point the call of tikanga will re-establish tribal identity and tribal loyalty, destroying any loyalty and common feelings for others. Tribal squabbles may then lead to warfare, as in the past.
Young people in New Zealand have never been taught the value of the principles of equality and democracy, or the long history of the evolution of our form of government, correcting many mistakes along the way – some of which are being foolishly reintroduced, such as the handing over of supreme power to followers of one extreme ideology with all others required to follow and obey their dictates. As a result, the risk of cultural fragmentation is now real.
The ideology of indigenous people following the old tikanga has gained in membership, confidence and strength of purpose, to become a powerful crusade, while the movement provides struggling young Maori a place where they can feel that they belong.
A few are even vowing to reject the most basic rules of their societies, to voice sympathy for violent extremists, or even to engage in acts of homegrown terrorism. That possibility exists here with expressions of considerable anger and an intention ‘to fight on, forever, forever, forever’. A warning sign was in 2006, when “investigating potential breaches of the Terrorism Suppression Act, the New Zealand Police observed paramilitary training camps in the Urewera mountain range, with recruits practising bush warfare.”6
Leadership for equality has been lacking. Some have fought for the evils of racism and apartheid: Tariana Turia, Jacinda Ardern and Nanaia Mahuta. They have faced weak, pusillanimous, unprincipled Prime Ministers: John Key and Christohpher Luxon, both from the world of high finance where cash flows have priority, lacking any visible moral code, more willing to compromise and make pacts with the devil in order to hold power than to assert any moral code – fitting representatives of a nation that itself lacks any moral compass or moral fibre.
Together such politicians have constructed a country hell-bent on a path to separatism, where anyone calling for equality, sovereign unity, and security of property ownership (including those voted into Parliament by a concerned electorate in 2023) is met with angry mass demonstrations and ugly verbal attacks.
Such actions, and more importantly the frequent lack of action, have created a future rife with dangers of ongoing conflict or even war.
Doctor Robinson is the author of the book “He Puapua; Blueprint for Breaking up New Zealand”, available from: www.trosspublishing.com
1 Working Group 2019. He Puapua: report on the working group on a plan to realise UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Aotearoa/New Zealand, https://www.nzcpr.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/He-Puapua.pdf; Robinson J L 2021, He Puapua: Blueprint for breaking up New Zealand, Tross Publishing.
2 Matike Mai 2016. The report of Matike Mai Aotearoa – the Independent Working Group on Constitutional Transformation. 125 pages. https://nwo.org.nz/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/MatikeMaiAotearoa25Jan16.pdf.
3 https://www.democracyaction.org.nz/where_the_parties_stand_on_co_governance
4 Robinson J L 2020. Unrestrained slaughter, the Maori musket wars 1800-1840. Tross Publishing.
5 Robinson J L 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, Chapter 6
6 Robinson J L 2024a. Who really broke the Treaty? Tross Publishing, page 12