By John McLean
In April, 2010, the leader of the Maori Party, Peter Sharples, very quietly sneaked out of New Zealand to sign the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. This was done at the behest of the race-based Maori Party which at the time had five seats in Parliament (representing a mere 2.39% of the New Zealand population) but they supported John Key’s National government and so, as a result of Key’s cowardice and treason, this Maori Party tail was allowed to wag the National dog.
The word “treason” is used with care as the Declaration (known for short as UNDRIP) states that “indigenous people” have a right to “self-determination, autonomy and self-government of their local and internal affairs” and the recognition of customary law, etc. In other words, the breaking up of our unitary and sovereign state, which can fairly be described as “treason”. The signing of this Declaration, that is so hostile to our rights and the traditional strengths of our nation, did not go through Parliament or apparently even through Cabinet. Just a decision by Sharples, Key and Treaty Minister Christopher Finlayson, all of whom are noted for their arrogance and deceit.
None of these men had the wit or the honesty to admit that the special, race-based rights that UNDRIP gives to so-called “indigenous” people are incompatible with Article 3 of the Treaty of Waitangi which gave the Maoris all the rights of British subjects. Therefore, like any others, they are equal before the law and not entitled to superior rights by any tinpot Declaration by the United Nations which did not even exist until a century after the Treaty of Waitangi.
The previous Labour government of Helen Clark refused to sign the Declaration on the grounds that it is “fundamentally incompatible with New Zealand’s constitutional and legal arrangements” – as indeed it is .”Labour was particularly concerned about clauses which a) would guarantee Maori rights to ‘lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned’ – in other words, the entire country; b) required that all lands “taken” be replaced by others of equal size and quality – which is impossible because it ignored the legitimate claims of everyone else, and also ignores full and final settlement of historic claims; c) would effectively grant Maori a veto over all laws and decisions which might affect them, including plans for national resource management”, wrote David Round in the book, Twisting the Treaty.
At the time John Key declared in his usual smarmy way that this Declaration, violating equality and liberal democracy, was only “an expression of aspiration” that “does not alter New Zealand’s domestic law” But he was wrong – as National’s current Free Trade Agreement with India proves.
To sign our wonderful country up to UNDRIP was a fraud as it was based on the lie that the Maoris of 2010 are indigenous – which they are not since they arrived here in their canoes only about 300 years before Abel Tasman. As David Round further wrote in Twisting the Treaty, The Declaration “is not compatible with the integrity of the state of New Zealand…..If, in our own country, the descendants of Maori might run their own affairs according to their own customary law and develop their lands and laws as they please, and the Crown must seek their consent before doing anything which affects them, then at once we have separate racially defined communities on their own territories and exempt from the ordinary laws of the land”.
UNDRIP declares that certain human beings, simply because of their (undefined) status as “indigenous”, have special rights over and above those enjoyed by other citizens – just because they happened to arrive in New Zealand a few generations before the settlers from Britain, which latter were the ones who actually built the country by their sweat, toil and imagination.
Even the Maoris know that they are not indigenous as they erected a signpost at Cape Reinga saying that that was the place from which the spirits of dead Maoris leave New Zealand to return to their native land. “They then continue on their journey to Hawaiki, the spiritual home”, states the sign. Since “indigenous” means that one has always been in a place since time immemorial and so has not knowingly come from anywhere else, it is a fraud to call Maoris “indigenous” as no definition of the word could ever apply to them in respect of New Zealand.
Further evidence of fraud is that, even if, just for the sake of argument, Maoris were deemed to be indigenous at any time in the past, they are certainly not indigenous to-day. The last full blooded Maori died in the 1950s and in the twenty-first century there are apparently not even any half-bloods – just a successor race of part-Maoris with more European blood in them than Maori. This situation has been caused by their preference over the years to mate with Europeans rather than with their own people. Sharples himself has a white father of British born parents and a part-Maori mother.
Genetically there are to-day no Maoris – only part-Maori who, with less than 50% Maori blood, could not realistically be said to come within the Declaration. There is no definition of “indigenous” in the Declaration. As David Round wrote, “without such a definition the number of opportunists on a very lucrative gravy train will only continue to increase”.
Now it is another National government that, contrary to John Key’s guarantee that the Declaration is “aspirational” only without altering New Zealand’s domestic law, is for the first time going to entrench this wretched and racist Declaration into New Zealand law by including it in the Free Trade Agreement with India that Christopher Luxon and dumb little Todd McLay have master-minded in yet another National Party betrayal of the rights of New Zealanders and the sovereignty of the nation.
They have deviously sneaked into what is meant to be a free trade agreement a clause (13.2.2 a) which AFFIRMS the UNDRIP in the proposed Agreement which is the exact opposite of what we were told when Sharples and Key signed the Declaration in the first place. This gives it a binding status since a treaty is an instrument of international law. The effect of affirming the Declaration is that opportunist lawyers acting for the tribal elite will be able to cite this fact in their court cases seeking more dosh and resources for “Maori”. In the words of that perceptive lawyer, Gary Judd K.C., “New Zealand’s acceptance that UNDRIP is binding such that its principles may be utilised in the interpretation of legislation and as influencing the common law”.
Why did the National government do this? The utterly unnecessary insertion of Article 13 (2) does not improve market access for our exports to India, nor does it reduce tariffs, assist exporters or grant any clear benefit to New Zealand. It is inappropriate to bung a constitutional issue into a trade agreement and one is reminded of Stop Co-governance’s Julian Batchelor’s constant refrain that Luxon is an activist who is enthusiastically pursuing the interests of the tribal elite at the expense of ordinary New Zealanders. Constitutional matters should never be included in a free trade agreement and nor should immigration matters – and here Luxon is the Double Offender or, if you like, Double Traitor.
In addition to tens of thousands of Indians pouring into New Zealand each year by existing immigration pathways the Free Trade Agreement allows IN ADDITION the immigration of thousands more each year by three new avenues: temporary employment, a working holiday scheme, and the right of entry for specific “iconic occupations” – presumably curry cooking.
New Zealand employers are particularly happy with the “temporary employment scheme” which will wave an extra 5,000 Indians annually into New Zealand, each of them being allowed to stay here for three years, after which they can apply for (and almost certainly get) permanent New Zealand citizenship. If experience is anything to go by, these workers will undercut local wages and take jobs away from New Zealanders at a time of growing unemployment, as well as putting further pressure on the housing market. Quite a few recent cases of exploitation of labour in New Zealand have involved local Indian employers.
The “working holiday scheme” will allow an additional 1,000 Indians into New Zealand for a period of twelve months, thus providing further opportunities for exploitation of cheap labour.
India is a country with a poor human rights record. Besides the current BJP Hindu government stirring up communal violence and persecuting “dissidents” and journalists, there is also much family violence – especially against women as well as against the lower castes and religious minorities such as Sikhs, Muslims and Christians. The victims are unlikely to get any protection from government authorities in India but guess what! When they arrive in New Zealand under Liuxon’s open immigration scheme they can claim refugee status on the grounds that in India they are subject to violence and/or persecution and so gullible New Zealand will almost certainly take them in as permanent residents on the grounds that they are “persecuted refugees”.
The number of ethnic Indians already in New Zealand is around 350,000 with most of them living in Auckland. By 2023 they constituted the largest group of Asians in New Zealand and were 5.8% of the New Zealand population. About half of them are Hindus but there are also turbaned Sikhs and Christians.
In 2011 there were only 155,000 of them and so more than half of the present Indian population of New Zealand have arrived in the last fifteen years. In Australia in 2025 Indian born people made up the largest proportion of those born overseas, displacing British people for the first time. None of this is surprising as it is the Indian government’s policy to send as many Indians as possible to Western countries so as to bend those countries’ policies India’s way. All this fits in with the Great Replacement theory, which seeks to swamp white countries with Third World immigrants and “refugees” so as to displace the European population. And how they are succeeding! One only has to look at Britain – once the greatest and richest country on earth and now not much more than a repository for cunning Third World chancers.
This trick is always played in the name of “multi-culturalism” to the applause of the Western heritage-hating “liberals” in the public service, the teaching profession and our increasingly corrupt and biased media. However, the experience of multi-culturalism shows that they are wrong. In the words of Angela Merkel, former Chancellor of Germany, speaking in 2004, “We always knew the idea of a multi-cultural society cannot succeed. It is doomed to failure”. And the distinguished Canadian psychologist and author, Jordan Peterson: “Multi-culturalism is unlikely to succeed due to differing characteristics of different cultures. If you think you can import a multitude of cultures without a unifying rubric and not import the problem of interpersonal and social conflict, you’re either blind or stupid or both”.
By its very nature a multi-cultural society cannot be as safe, as trusting or as stable as a largely homogenous one, and New Zealand has already gone quite far enough down that perilous path. We have more than enough people in New Zealand of Third World extraction who have difficulty fitting into a modern Western society and we neither need nor want any more. It is time to stop all further immigration from the Third World. Diversity is not strength as the multi-culturalists so mindlessly chant. It is an inherent source of weakness. And yet by the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement the National government is unnecessarily exacerbating the apparent problem of “too many Indians”. And there are millions more of them to come. As already stated, their numbers have already doubled since 2011 and the rising curve is becoming ever more acute.
The population of Indian is 1.48 billion. They live in filthy cities and villages that stink of cow dung due to the fact that the Hindus regard the cow as sacred and so these beasts are free to walk the streets and do their droppings wherever they like.
Indian cities have poor infrastructure, endless traffic jams with hundreds of horns being blown by impatient drivers, millions of homeless sleeping on the streets, and pollution smothering virtually every city. In 2024 the hundred most polluted cities in the world were in Asia; eighty-three of them were in India, shaving off between three and six years of people’s lives. Why wouldn’t millions of them want to exchange all this filth, poverty and misery for a clean and spacious country like New Zealand?
India is a very corrupt country where bribery is part of daily life and there have been several recent court cases in New Zealand – often involving Indian real estate agents in Auckland – to suggest that this cultural habit does not disappear when they land at Auckland airport from the sub-continent.
India is more corrupt to-day – especially under the BJP nationalist government of Mr. Modi – than it ever was under the British Raj. The explanation is quite simple. The Englishmen of the Indian Civil Service during the Raj were well-paid professional administrators who could give their all to the task of governing India and dealing with its problems. The thought of acting so as to secure a personal financial advantage in some way or another was never part of their ethos. Since Independence the prime aim of the political/administrative class that has governed India has been to secure their own self-advantage – to feather their own nests – and therefore trying to improve the lot of the people has fallen down the priority list.
According to an Indian commentator, Jayant Bhandari, the Indian mind cannot comprehend fairness or morality or impartiality since these are European concepts that are alien to India. He claimed that human rights, especially respect for the individual (as opposed to caste groups), are a Western concept that in India are not understood.
Indian elections are rife with voting fraud and this is something that we don’t want to see introduced to New Zealand. Dajlit Singh, the President of the New Zealand Central Sikh Association, was found guilty of registering ineligible voters in Auckland in 2010 and of dealing with forged documents. Of course, he complained of “anti-immigration rhetoric”. Such behaviour is alien to New Zealand and undermines our electoral integrity and democracy.
In the local body elections of 2025 there was a team of Indians who stood as the Papatoetoe-Otara Action Team for a District Board in Auckland. None of them had been on the Board before but all were elected, with long established Board members losing their seats. At least 79 voting papers were cast without their rightful owners’ knowledge. The population of Papatoetoe is 40% Indian. For the first time in New Zealand history the High Court quashed the election result and ordered a re-election.
Indians have made a big enough mess of their own country and it is a risk too far to allow them into New Zealand in the numbers that Luxon and McLay are aiming for. So far the only political party in Parliament that has had the courage and the patriotism to speak out against this wretched Free Trade Agreement has been New Zealand First and all credit to them for doing so. The party leader, Winston Peters, has correctly described this economy sapping trade agreement as “a disgraceful sell-out”.
Indians bring to New Zealand not our common heritage from the British Isles but an alien culture, heritage and religion that, in the numbers in which they are being waved in, will erode not only our own culture and heritage but our very identity as New Zealanders as well. In the words of the former New Zealand Prime Minister, Mike Moore, writing in 2006, “We reject the historic memories of core European values and law at our peril, because these are the values and institutions that have taken us from a primitive, lonely, lovely group of islands to the front rank of nations in regard to all those things nations aspire to. In recent years we have followed the politically correct principles defined elsewhere as post-modernism and relativism. These deeply embedded theories claim that all truths are relative….Post-modernism argues the decline of absolute truths.
All values are not equal. There are modern and universal values that reflect the memories of our European history. Western societies do better in the main because of the lessons from the Age of Reason, the Enlightenment when human rights, freedom from religion and of religion, equal rights under the law, and, eventually, democracy were born….All these ideas make up modern and successful New Zealand. To get First World results, you need First World policies…..That’s why it’s chilling to see Third World values creeping into New Zealand, often done in a sense of goodwill toward cultural sensitivity”.
One of the most menacing features of a multi-cultural nation is the reduction of free speech so as not to “offend” minorities. To take a recent example, in May, 2026, Mr. Dries van Langenhove, an ex M.P. In Belgium, was convicted of “inciting hate speech” and sentenced to a year’s imprisonment as well as a fine arising out of a lecture that he gave about mass migration and changing demographics at a university in Leuven, Belgium, in February, 2024.
Using statistics and scientific data he showed that mass immigration from the Third World was linked to the rise in crime, declining school standards, prison overcrowding and was bringing strain to the social security budget. He claimed that inequality was caused by group differences rather than structural racism. All this is true. Even the judge admitted the truth of what he is alleged to have said. However, the judge pointed out that he was not being charged with spreading false information but with “presenting FACTS in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law”. The court did not even bother to say how or against whom he incited the so-called “hatred”.
The introduction of “multi-culturalism” without any democratic mandate from the people is such an unnatural and dangerous development that it is only to be expected that the native born would be opposed to it and yet people like Mr. van Langenhove, who speak the truth about it, are hounded by the courts for the terrible crime of daring to oppose the official narrative. “If you live in a country that still has free speech, never let them touch it however noble they make the motives sound because this is where it leads to”, he warned. Shades of Jacinda Ardern and her continuing war against free speech!!
The undermining of our traditional right of free speech that goes hand in hand with increased immigration has already reared its ugly head in respect of this India Free Trade Agreement; a small immigrant activist group called Remigration New Zealand claims that it was attacked by the police in a nation wide operation with armed officers, arrests and seizures of phones, laptops and other electronic devices. Why? Because they exercised their traditional right of free speech by advocating the remigration back to India of some who are already in New Zealand.
The police action was apparently the result of a complaint made by the New Zealand Indian Central Association, the national organisation of Indians in New Zealand. This attack on free speech by an immigrant organisation is not the only mischief of this Association as one of its officials has been reported as calling for a New Zealand government apology and a formal recognition of historic racism in New Zealand against Indians, such “apology” obviously being the first step towards a demand for monetary compensation from the New Zealand taxpayer for imagined grievances dating back a century or more.
The Indians of New Zealand also have their own race-based, national newspaper called The Indian Week-ender which was granted $705,000 of taxpayers’ money via Ardern’s Public Interest Journalism Fund for no other reason than to buy the Indian vote for the Labour Party.
Instead of making themselves unpopular in New Zealand by their endless complaints, these people should be thankful to be living in a free, prosperous and comfortable country where they can make more money than in India and live in a clean environment which is so unlike the dirt of the country they come from.
It could be argued that Indians are more likely to be hostile to our heritage than other Third World immigrants since in their education system they are brought up on the teachings of Mahatma Gandhi, one of the most sinister enemies that Western countries have ever had. This insufferable fraud, liar and hypocrite spent his entire working life in an anti-British campaign, whipping his excitable followers into such a frenzy of hysteria and hatred that they would then go on the rampage, burning down police stations, looting shops and attacking perceived opponents, including at Chauri Chaura where they beat to death twenty-two Indian policemen and burned their bodies.
Gandhi had little or no care for the lives of his fellow Indians. In his backward way he urged them not to get injections against smallpox and he was responsible for the death of his wife, Kasturba, because he forbade her to have an injection that would have saved her life because injections were against HIS principles. This chauvinistic treatment of his wife as a chattel shows the difference between the Hindu and Western attitudes to marriage.
Gandhi’s hatred of our British heritage and interests was so extreme that in 1942, as the Japanese enemy was preparing to invade India from Burma, he started his massive “Quit India” campaign whereby he and his followers tried to sabotage the Allied war effort by destroying 1,318 government buildings in India, 208 police stations and 332 railway stations as well as digging up rail tracks and destroying signal boxes. Fifty-seven battalions had to be deployed to deal with the internal enemy and this emasculated or delayed training, troop movements and airfield construction. At the time some 2,500,000 million Indians of the Indian Army were fighting against the Japanese – mainly in Burma – and they did not need Gandhi to put the knife into them in this way.
New Zealanders were also fighting for the British Empire and the Allied cause and so Gandhi was also an enemy of our country, its values and its interests. And yet not so long ago a statue of him was erected outside Wellington Railway Station, with Mayor Kerry Prendergast supporting it so as to secure the local Indian vote at the forthcoming council elections. One may as well have erected a statue of Hitler or Mussolini. Wellingtonians are forced to look at this insult to our servicemen of the Second World War every day when they catch the train. And this is the man whose teachings modern Indians have indoctrinated into them in their education system! Hardly likely to make them sympathetic to our British and Western ways.
We need to maintain the nation that our ancestors created and defended so that it may be recognisably the nation of their descendants. If we fail to maintain the identity of the nation, it will cease to exist in any meaningful sense and so the hopes and labours of our pioneer forebears would have been in vain.
In the words of Sir Charles Dilke, a Radical M.P. at Westminster in the time of Gladstone, “Unrestricted immigration may destroy the literature, the traditions, the nationality itself of the invaded country….A country in which Free Trade principles have been carried to their utmost logical development must be cosmopolitan and nationless”.
Multi-culturalism is intended to provide a substitute national identity. But it can’t since it is not in itself an identity and by its very nature dilutes and will ultimately destroy our existing character. This will harm both the nation and individuals since the ability to identify with one’s ancestors, with their history and culture, anchors the individual in time and place. It gives him a pride in his blood and a heritage and context for his life. From these comes an inner strength that is a shield against rootlessness and demoralisation.
Therefore, if we are to have a future as free and as good as our past, we must say No to any further immigration from the Third World – be it from Luxon’s beloved India or anywhere else. New Zealand belongs to its existing people. It is OUR country and nobody else’s. It’s not a matter of disliking Indians and others from the Third World; it’s just that we don’t want to be swamped by them and lose our culture, traditions, freedoms and identity in the process. If (probably “when”) that happens, New Zealand will be changed forever – from our own magnificent Western civilisation which has made us the fortunate country that we are – to something that is alien and far less attractive.
As part of this process the India-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement is our enemy and not our friend – as the lies of the government are trying to tell us. Any M.P. who votes for it when it comes before Parliament is unworthy of a single patriotic vote at the forthcoming General Election in November. As per the title of this article, this “Free Trade” agreement with India absolutely stinks.
