ANOTHER PROPOSED “TREATY” RACKET

Guess what! The pale faces of the tribal elite have just thought up a new way of extracting more money out of the long-suffering taxpayer. This time it’s TEETH.

That master of one-sided bias and misinformation, the taxpayer funded Radio New Zealand, reported on 20 March, 2026, that the reason why so many Maori have bad teeth is because of “colonisation”. Without bothering to check the accuracy of what it was reporting it gave its piece the blazing headline of “Calls grow for Universal Te Tiriti consistent dental care”. Where in the Treaty can be found – or even implied – anything to do with teeth? Nowhere, as it was a treaty of cession (Article 1) by the chiefs to get rule by a single sovereign so as to bring about a much needed peace and good order to a land and society that was being destroyed by endless tribal war and cannibalism.

Some character called Jasmine Taankink, speaking for “Dental For All” claimed that “poor oral outcomes for Maori could not be separated from colonisation”. She went on, “We know that upon arrival to Aotearoa [she doesn’t even know the name of the country], English settlers were really impressed with the overall physical health of our tupuna Maori, especially their oral health……Our tupuna Maori didn’t have cavities, they didn’t have massive oral health problems. So poor oral health is just another negative implication of colonisation and us not being able to exercise our tino rangatiratanga”. She said that solutions must be grounded in “Maori led approaches. We have the expertise within our own communities to develop solutions that work for us”, implying that dental treatments that work for all other human beings somehow do not work for “Maori”.

This outburst was reinforced by Leeann Waaka, described as a “dental therapist of the Maori Dental Association”. [Yes, they even have to have a race-based dental association that is separate from the rest of New Zealand]. Leeann Waaka is by appearance European but, like so many on the separatist express, she has disfigured her chin by having it etched with scribble that resembles a map of the London Underground. This, of course, gives them more “street cred” in the highly lucrative separatist industry. This is what she said, “pushing for a Te Tiriti consistent system which would mean properly RESOURCING Maori providers and enabling iwi and hapu to design services that meet the needs of their people”. No dental qualifications needed! Just more money for iwi and hapu.

The key word in her quote is, of course “resourcing” which means sucking on the teat of the taxpayer in a very big way just as the corrupt and worthless Whanau Ora health racket has poured money into the tribes without any apparent positive results. Other people of all races go to the doctor, dentist and hospitals when they need to but Maori are deemed to be so different from all other human beings that they have to have their own non-science based “health system”. Why don’t they just call it a money racket and be done with it?

In demanding “resourcing” from the taxpayer they are following the lead of Whanau Ora which was set up in 2010 by the Maori Party co-leader, Tariana Turia – another example of John Key cheating the taxpayer by caving  in to the demands of the tribal elite. Its stated purpose “to provide health and social services to Maori” was not only racist but every bit as deceitful as Mrs. Turia’s earlier claim that the colonisation of New Zealand was a “holocaust” This was a straight out lie and brings into question her credibility on any other matter.

Her Whanau Ora, which has already cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars, is more a slush fund for iwi than a health service. It has created numerous back office jobs and private ticket clipping without producing any noticeable improvement in the health of Maoris.

As soon as it got off the ground thousands of people claiming to be “Maori” were able to access up to $20,000 of Whanau Ora cash for family get-togethers, as Winston Peters told Parliament on 7 February, 2012. He said that many of those who allocated all these hundreds of millions of dollars on behalf of Whanau Ora were working for the recipients (their own families, tribe), creating a conflict of interest.

Otaki’s Rahui Rugby and Sports Club received $60,000 in 2011 “to undertake whanau development research on resilience and community leadership” – a “bro-ocracy” in Mr. Peters’ words. One Hawkes Bay “whanau” of only twenty members received $5,000 to run a hui (booze-up) to “finalise spiritual balance” and “family development”; this included $500 each for two “facilitators”, $400 for a venue, $1,000 for a hangi, $600 for a chef, a $500 administration fee (of course!), $300 for travel, and $1,200 for “resources”. And there is no reason to suppose that giving tax dollars to unqualified iwi and hapu for TEETH would be any different.

To say that the poor state of teeth of to-day’s part-Maoris is a result of colonisation is a lie for which any radio station other than Radio New Zealand would be utterly ashamed. As for stating that those Europeans who had early contact with Maoris were impressed by their teeth and general good health, all the evidence points in the other direction.

Fern root was more or less their daily sustenance whereas kumera was regarded more as an occasional luxury. They would dig, dry, beat and roast the fern root and then chew it. In the words of John Nicholas who accompanied Samuel Marsden to New Zealand in 1814-5: “Being thus prepared for use, the cooks throw it [the fern root] round in handfuls to the chiefs and other persons, who chew it till all the sacharine or nutritive matter is extracted; and, spitting out the fibrous part, they go on again and continue in this manner till they have satisfied their appetites. The fern root, when hot, has a pleasant, sweetish taste and, on being steeped in water, deposes a glutinous substance resembling jelly”. (Narrative of a Voyage to New Zealand, Vol. I. P. 190-1)

War parties ate only fern root as it was the food of Tu, the god of war, “kumera and all other kinds of food are forbidden till the war is over”. (Te Rou, or the Maori at Home, John White, P. 114) However, the constant gnawing of the tough roots of the fern as well as the gritty shellfish and other hard foods wore away the teeth so that by about the age of twenty the teeth at the back of the mouth were worn to stumps. It didn’t help that they also chewed the big stalks of the pampas grass (toetoe).

“Early European observers such as Captain Cook frequently misjudged the age of Maoris as their toothless state made them appear much older than they were”, wrote Bill Benfield in The Third Wave; Poisoning the Land. (P. 14) Needless to say, colonisation brought dental care as the first decades of the nineteenth century saw tremendous strides in the skills and knowledge of dentistry throughout the Western world. Part-Maoris of to-day, who have their teeth, have reason to be grateful for this aspect of colonisation, which lifted them out of a veritable dental disaster with all its pain and inconvenience.

The poor state of their teeth was matched by the poor state of their general health. In the words of the early New Zealand historian, Elsdon Best, who was able to observe the early Maoris, “Native knowledge of medicine may be described as non-existent in former times. No attempt was made to study it because it was believed that sickness and disease were caused by atua (evil spirits).”

One of the worst failings, based on superstition and enforced by the wretched tohungas, was to abandon the sick and the dying into some outhouse away from the huts, as it was believed that to die in a normal hut would thereby make that hut tapu (forbidden). “So, in order to save the house for future use, when death was expected the sick man would be taken to an open shed,” wrote Rev. James Buller in his book, Forty Years in New Zealand. (P. 219) And the Church of England missionary, Rev. William Williams in his book, Christianity Among the New Zealanders, “The friends of the dying person prevented every kind of food from being given to them, water only being allowed. Thus the poor sufferer was literally starved to death” (P. 184) To-day, thanks to colonisation, their descendants die in comfortable hospitals and similar places.

It was the early Protestant missionaries who first introduced the natives to health care and Western medicine but it was an uphill struggle against the power of the tohungas who didn’t want to lose their influence. In the 1840s a small number of hospitals were set up by the colonial authorities specifically for Maoris to be treated with Western medicine. Improvement in health came first to those Maoris who had the greatest contact with Europeans, and it spread steadily throughout the nineteenth century.

Many of the natives suffered from sore eyes. They had difficulty opening them until the missionary, Thomas Kendall, started curing them by using goulard. It was believed that the prevalence of sore eyes was caused by their sleeping so often in the open air, under sometimes heavy dews and with their heads uncovered. Over the generations since colonisation many Maoris have been able to extend their optical powers by wearing European invented glasses, including the current co-leader of the Maori Party, Rawiri Waititi, who, despite ranting against colonisation and its effects at every turn, wears glasses on his own ink-stained face, thus making himself an object of both ridicule and hypocrisy.

With the introduction of Western medicine and dental care the average life expectancy of Maoris rose from 20 to 25 years (1840) to 77.1 years for women and 73.4 years for men in 2019. As they say in law, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself).

Maoris have benefited enormously from the blessings of colonisation and are now living almost four times as long as when they led such unhealthy lives before European settlement. The hospitals and doctors and dentists that they have benefited from have been the fruits of Western civilisation with its superior knowledge and science. The hospitals and health care have been paid for mainly by European New Zealanders for no group contributes less to taxation on a per capita basis than Maoris. Similarly no group is more of a burden on the taxpayer than these same people. Their latest demand for “resourcing” so that unqualified members of tribes can be paid for giving dental care and treatment is yet another trick that they are trying to play on the rest of us. That Radio New Zealand were too dumb to work this out tells us all we need to know about its ignorance and bias.

More information on the advantages to Maori of British colonisation can be found in the book, New Zealand; the Benefits of Colonisation, by Adam Plover. Available from: www.trosspublishing.com

TO CLAIM THAT MAORI DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY IS SHAMEFUL

By William Chambers

Activists within the Waitangi Tribunal are claiming that the Māori chiefs did not cede sovereignty  by falsely alleging that it was not the intent of the British to have them do so.  And, by deviously misinterpreting the Māori text in the Treaty as meaning they had agreed to self-determination; or to govern in partnership with the Crown.

This fraudulent take on the meaning of the treaty has the potential to result in very serious consequences if allowed to go unchallenged. An example being that Te Pati Māori (The Separatist Party) are using the myth that sovereignty wasn’t surrendered to push for a separate Māori Parliament.

But here’s the kicker  for starters, they’ve already said, quote: “Our Māori Parliament will levy a 2% commission on ALL property sold or leased in Aotearoa.” !*#@=!*!

So, did the Māori chiefs cede sovereignty to the British Crown?

Cede means relinquish.  Sovereignty is supreme authority, i.e. power to govern.

To counteract all the devious fabrication, here is a concise summation  that no matter who might claim that Maori did not cede sovereignty, or the reasons they might come up with as so-called proof … one thing none of them will ever be able to honestly dispute, is all the evidence presented here that the chiefs definitely ceded sovereignty.

FACT:  Evidence of British intent for the Māori chiefs to give up sovereignty can be seen in documents housed in British Parliamentary Papers and Colonial Office archives (e.g., CO 209 series)

Short Relevant Excerpt:  ‘. . . .signaling the Crown’s pivot towards treaty-based sovereignty as a means to pre-empt French claims and protect Maori. . . .

_______________________________________

FURTHER  FACT:  Part of the instruction regarding the Treaty from the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Normanby, to Governor Hobson was to negotiate terms with the natives for the recognition of Her Majesty’s sovereign authority. 

And, to walk away if full sovereignty cannot be ceded; as without it, Britain will have no legal basis for bringing order and peace to New Zealand.

Despite the above evidence, activists argue that the British did not wish to have Maori cede sovereignty at all.  They insist vehemently that British sovereignty was to only apply to European settlers  some of whom were lawless at the time.

This scenario had been considered in earlier proceedings … but was scrapped as not being practical.  Sovereignty by one, encompassing all, was the only viable option.

And let’s be realistic about the silly claim by radicals … if the intent was for sovereignty to apply only to European settlers, then that sentiment would surely have been in the treaty preamble or agreement, or recorded somewhere, or mentioned in a speech by someone.

For more documented evidence of British intent to have the Maori chiefs cede sovereignty … see below.

TREATY PREAMBLE

Source: Te Tiriti O Waitangi/The Treaty of Waitangi, 1840, Museum of New Zealand

Short Relevant Excerpt:  ‘. . . .for the recognition of Her Majesty’s Sovereign authority over the whole or any part of those islands’ . . . .shall be ceded to Her Majesty to invite the confederated and independent Chiefs of New Zealand to concur in the following Articles and Conditions.

Article the First

The Chiefs of the Confederation of the United Tribes of New Zealand and the separate and independent Chiefs who have not become members of the Confederation cede to Her Majesty the Queen of England absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of Sovereignty which the said Confederation of Individual Chiefs respectfully exercise or possess, or may be supposed to exercise or to possess over their respective Territories as the sole Sovereign thereof.

_______________________________

Thus, there can be no argument as to whether the intent of the British was to have the chiefs cede sovereignty.

Of course, to get around this, the tricksters will claim that the chiefs didn’t understand the meaning of sovereignty – so they weren’t aware that they would be under British Governance Authority.

To prove most chiefs knew very well what ceding sovereignty to the British Crown meant, I’ll quote just a couple of them from Waitangi in 1840 during discussions as to whether they should sign the Treaty.

Chief of Ngatkawa, Te Kemara, said: “Were all to be equality, then perhaps I’d say “Yes” but for the Governor to be up, and me to be down low, a worm, a crawler – No.”

Another chief, Tareha added: “We will not be ruled over.”

( Ref. William Colenso’s Journals )

It should come as no surprise that when kicking up a fuss about not wanting to relinquish sovereignty, many chiefs were using the opportunity to frivolously tell the British to go home, in a cunning attempt to get their land back … much of which, they’d rashly given away or sold too cheaply.

With the irony being that the tactic worked  because to ensure the treaty was signed, the Governor promised to write off a lot of those property transactions as being ‘null and void’.

You need to have good think about that, because this one aspect alone, should be all the proof needed to settle any argument as to the “true” intent of the treaty being the cession of sovereignty.  And if not, then WHY would the Governor go to such an extreme measure as to cancel property transactions, and/or reduce the amount of land involved, with no compensation for the affected European settlers

After getting away with that, most of the chiefs gladly signed the treaty, which gave them the security that they’d been wanting for quite some time.  Details of their concerns can be seen in a letter written to King William by 13 chiefs in 1831, pleading for protection from the French; and asking for control of European lawlessness, as well as wanting a stop put to their own self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare.

It should be acknowledged that, due to these concerns, the British had put a proposal to Māori in 1835 to create a Declaration of Independence.  But, only a few chiefs signed.  And the so-called Confederation of United Tribes was abandoned without a meeting, due to internal conflicts among Tribes.

So, in 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was offered as the only definitive way to sort matters.

Regarding the terms of the treaty being conditional on Māori ceding sovereignty … Governor Hobson stated explicitly to the chiefs: “You yourselves have often asked the King of England to extend his protection unto you.  Her Majesty now offers you that protection in this treaty… But as the law of England gives no civil power to Her Majesty out of her domain, her efforts to do you good will be futile unless you consent.”

For more proof that sovereignty was ceded, Ill quote Rev John Warren: “I was present when the treaty was signed.  My impression was that the natives perfectly understood that, by signing it, they became British subjects.  Many natives were in mortal fear of the French, and justly thought they had done a pretty good stroke of business when placing the British Lion between themselves and the French eagle.”

(Ref. ‘The Treaty of Waitangi by T. Lindsay Buick)

Another point is that after the Treaty had been signed, Hobson proclaimed: “He iwi tahi tatoa” (we are now one people).

So, ask yourself  why would he have said that?

And think about it … if the Chiefs really believed they had not ceded sovereignty and become British Subjects, then surely someone amongst them would have disputed that unmistakable “statement” there and then.

Of significance, is that in a book by Dr Bain Attwood, he quotes correspondence in 1843 between Lord Stanley and the Attorney General in NZ, William Swanson … where it was confirmed that “all of New Zealand and all persons inhabiting its territory lay within the domain of the British Crown.”

Also of significance is that in 1858 members of the Ngāpuhi tribe were quoted as saying: “We have a Queen… Queen Victoria. Which is what we agreed to in the Treaty.

And in 1860 the leading chief of the North, Tamati Nene said: “I know no sovereign but the Queen and I shall know no other.”

Then in 1901, Wairarapa chief, Tamahau, was reported in the New Zealand Times as saying, quote: “The British Queen is our Queen.”

In 1940 Sir Apirana Ngata, Minister of Native Affairs said, quote: “The Treaty handed over the sovereignty of New Zealand to Queen Victoria and her descendants forever.”

Despite all the above evidence pointing to Māori having ceded sovereignty, revolutionists (and the naïve folk they brainwash) turn a blind eye to it … and focus on just one twisted aspect of the treaty, i.e. the misinterpretation of the Māori text that the chiefs were guaranteed the right to self-govern.

It needs to be kept in mind that Article 1. deals with sovereignty, and then Article 2. as a secondary progression from 1. focuses on property rights.

The defining point is that Article 1. in the English Draft (from which the Treaty in Māori was constructed) states that the chiefs will cede sovereignty, which means Māori will be governed by the British Crown.

So, in Article 1. of the official Treaty Document, the word sovereignty was translated as “kawanatanga” (“governorship”which believe it or not, is now deviously misinterpreted as meaning governance over Maori land only.  Not over Māori personally!!  You couldnt make this up.  And yet they have.

And it gets worse:  To back-up the shameless twisting, it’s also claimed that “chieftainship” in Article 2. meant chiefs had the right of governorship over their Tribes.

But, theres a ridiculous contradiction at play, because what Article 2. (which focuses on property rights) really refers to is that chieftainship (tino rangatiratanga) was about protecting Māori ownership of their land.  Not self-governance.

You only have to read Article 2. in the treaty to realise that it was all about Maori “rights” to their property ownership.  Because it goes on to say that the Chiefs must grant to the Queen the exclusive right to purchase their land, if they wish to sell.  This was to ensure that Maori wouldn’t get ripped-off by unscrupulous buyers.

Those in responsible positions of influence, including Chris Hipkins … who push the false dogma, are being deceitful, if not treasonous.  Which would become evident if challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here.

Mind you, such people will ignore any proof … and say they stand firmly by the belief that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty because it’s what Hugh Kawharu came up with, when in 1986 he back-translated the Māori text in the Treaty Document.

Yeah well, keep in mind that it’s alleged by many that Kawharu was recognised as an Activist within the Waitangi Tribunal.

Politicians back then should have had the gumption to stand up to such glaringly obvious (irrational) child-like trickery.

Te Papa Museum clarifies what the treaty meant, quote: Kei a Kuini Wikitria te mana kawanatanga, kei nga rangitira te mana rangatiratanga (Queen Victoria holds authority over the country and the chiefs hold right of possession).

In the 1987 “Lands Case” Court of Appeal, Justice Cook clarified what the Treaty really meant, i.e. quote: “The Queen would govern, and Māori would become her Subjects”. 

That this was understood and accepted, was confirmed beyond doubt at the largest ever meeting of chiefs at Kohimarama in 1860 where they unanimously agreed they had consented to become subjects of the British Crown.

Talking about producing indisputable evidence that it had been accepted by most of the Maori chiefs that sovereignty was ceded, youd have to wonder how “Denialists” could wriggle their way out of what is clearly written on an historic headstone:  Tamati Waka Nene died 1871 ‘Chief of Ngapuhi the first to welcome the Queen’s Sovereignty in New Zealand’

NOTE:  University Law lecturer, Dr David Round has said, quote: “Assertions that Māori did not agree to the surrender of their sovereignty at Waitangi is a patent nonsense, a modern invention, and a lie.”

And yet, activists, including all those within the Waitangi Tribunal, twist any evidence contrary to their fraudulent stance.  However, there is one thing that cannot be disputed  and that is, if in their minds the chiefs really believed that they had agreed to self-determination, then they wouldve run their own affairs right from the outset  rather than be “controlled” by the British.  Because at the time, Maori outnumbered them by a considerable margin.

Of course, delusional zealots will question why Māori would allow a minority of Europeans to have ultimate “power” over themin their own country.  Well, in truth, the chiefs ceded sovereignty to Queen Victoria, the Chiefess of the greatest Empire in the World at the time … because they wanted to be part of that powerful regime, so as to share in its “success” and “security”.

Mind you, a defining reason centred around Māori facing the fact that they needed to place themselves under British governance, as being the only way to put a stop to their self-annihilation due to intertribal warfare, especially since the introduction of muskets, that started with Hongi Hika bringing 300 of them to NZ from Australia.  With which, his lot went on the rampage against other Tribes … leading eventually to approx. one third of Māori (over 43,000) being slaughtered in clashes involving modern weapons.

Thus, the ceding of sovereignty not only explains why most intertribal warfare stopped, but also the culture of cannibalism and slavery  due to such practices being outlawed once Māori placed themselves under British sovereign authority.

Of course, itll be claimed that the civilising of Māori really came about due to the influence of Missionaries.  Whilst they undoubtedly played a part, it’s clear that it was not until Māori became Subjects of the British Crown that Universal rules regarding human rights were able to be enforced.

So, how can anyone still insist that the chiefs did not cede sovereignty?

Incidentally: The whole matter can be settled by asking WHY in pre-treaty discussions, or the treaty Preamble, or the treaty “Agreement” was there absolutely no clear indication of what the chiefs were actually signing about (which was causing such angst) if it wasn’t ceding sovereignty (as spelled out in the Treaty Preamble).

You might also ask why Parliamentary seats were set up specifically for Maori.  And why Maori men achieved universal suffrage 12 years before European men.

And here’s the clincher If Maori had not ceded sovereignty and become Subjects of the British Crown, then why would they have been given the right to vote when a “condition” of the ‘New Zealand Constitution Act’ was that only British Subjects could vote?!

NOTE:  If the argument is that Maori were able to vote because Article 3. granted equal “rights” and “privileges”  then just remember that hinged on the rights of citizenship  which could only come about by ceding sovereignty.  End of story.

And yet, the rabid denialists, with their back against the wall of a very deep hole they’ve dug themselves into, still won’t accept any of it, because there is either the lure of a gravy train carrying a pot of gold, or in the case of certain Professors, a matter of their professional ego being at stake.  So, when challenged to dispute all the evidence presented here, they wriggle and squirm every which way.  They’re as slippery as eels.

And rather than admit defeat, they as a last resort, invariably counter-challenge you to read Ned Fletcher’s book about the Treaty, and his conclusion that cession of sovereignty by Maori did not happen.  Soby desperately clutching at that straw, theyre able to crawl out of the hole, and smugly reclaim their moral high ground.

But, like a lot of the nonsensical information they rely on, Ned Fletcher’s book could appear to be based on speculative assumptions made by various people over the course of history, and through twisting of facts to suit an agenda, while at the same time completely ignoring clear evidence contrary to his illogical belief.

And by writing such a huge book, when trying too hard to prove his point, he’s tended to trip himself up, e.g. there is a ridiculous contradiction when he writes that the Colonial Office, being cognisant of the humanitarian concerns, decided that a cession of sovereignty from Māori was a necessary precondition to establishing a colony.

Thus, that ‘stipulation’ is a clear indication of British intent.  So how silly can you be, if including it in a book written specifically to prove that the Treaty was not about Maori relinquishing sovereignty!  For goodness’ sake  it must have taken a lot of twisting and kidding to come to that supposition.  Hence, the book could be envisaged as ideological fantasy.

Take note: Historian, Dr Bain Attwood, has described Ned Fletcher’s book as, quote: “Mythic rather than scholarly”.  

And in case you think Attwood doesn’t have the credence to make such an assessment, he is the author of “Empire and the Making of Native Title” which was the joint winner of the New Zealand Historical Association’s 2021 W.H. Oliver Prize for the best book on any aspect of New Zealand history.

Despite Bain Attwood’s honest appraisal of Ned Fletcher’s book, certain unscrupulous people choose to stand by it … simply because it tells them what they want to hear.

CONCLUSION:  For anyone, especially the Waitangi Tribunal, to claim that Māori did not cede sovereignty is shameful.  In other words, downright dishonest and deceitful (fraudulent).

A former senior Labour Minister, Richard Prebble was appointed to the Waitangi Tribunal  but, after becoming aware of the falsehoods being promoted, such as sovereignty having not been ceded, he resigned on principle.

Prebble described the Tribunal as, quote: “A rogue and self-perpetuating industry of grievance; re-writing history specifically to suit a radical agenda.”

Brief analysis of certain truths and what needs to be done to rid New Zealand of racism

By Rob Paterson

ONE SOVEREIGNTY = ONE NATION =THE REAL NEW ZEALAND STORY

REALITY vs MYTHS. THE TRUTH ABOUT SPURIOUS MAORI CLAIMS AND THE MODERN – DAY TREATY MACHINATIONS.

NO PARTNERSHIP, NO PRINCIPLES, NO SEPARATISM, ONLY NEW ZEALAND.

  1. Sense of entitlements
    Freshwater, air, unoccupied land, foreshore & seabed etc. In an era when major powers were exploring the globe for new territories and resources, Maori and New Zealand could not remain isolated. In 1840, the chiefs accepted what they regarded as the best deal available when they agreed to British sovereignty.
  2. In an era when major powers were exploring the globe for new territories and resources, Maori and New Zealand could not remain isolated. In 1840, the chiefs accepted what they regarded as the best deal available when they agreed to British sovereignty.
  3. Maori are not indigenous, and many findings indicate they were not the first people in New Zealand.
  4. It seems that nobody in New Zealand can claim 50% + Maori ethnicity so, by international definition, no Maori race exists. Everyone currently in New Zealand is non- Maori and so local Maori wards are unnecessary and a non -event because no one now qualifies.The statutory definition of a Maori in the 1974 Maori Purposes Act is a legal fiction and the 1967 definition in the Maori Affairs Amendment Act is correct.
  5. There is only one legitimate 1840 Treaty of Waitangi – the one in the Maori language. No English version exists and the statutory reference to the Freeman fraud is a nonsense. What Hobson said at the time was that the Treaty signed at Waitangi on 6 February 1840, in the Maori language was the only legitimate Treaty. It was created from the final English draft treaty (dated 4 February 1840.) This is known as the Littlewood document located in 1989.
  6. Te Reo is a newly created self -interested language that is not spoken by any other peoples worldwide and is nothing like traditional Maori as recorded by Thomas Kendall (1820), Rev William Williams (1844), and Henry Williams (1852) in their dictionaries. English, our common language, is already the universally spoken language of New Zealand and must be made the only official language.
  7. Sovereignty was ceded by all those Maori chiefs who signed the Treaty (see Tamati Waka Nene’s and other speeches made at Waitangi, the Kohimarama Conference 1860 reconfirmation, and later the 1920s, 1930s and 1940s Sir Apirana Ngata speeches). British sovereignty was proclaimed by Governor Hobson in 1840 over the whole of New Zealand.
  8. Partnership was never a factor other than in the minds of learned fools like Mr Justice Cooke and no principles, etc. are contained in the Treaty and certainly no separatism was ever envisaged.
  9. No customary, so-called Maori tikanga law exists. Despite the disorientation and befuddlement of the current Supreme Court tikanga was never a system of law or laws.
  10. The MARINE AND COASTAL AREA ACT 2011 (MACA) must be repealed immediately and the  Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 of the Clark Labour Government be reinstated.
  11. COURTS, JUDICIARY, and JUDGES. An urgent revamp is needed to recuse/ remove recalcitrant offenders, especially those judges who incorrectly claim tikanga was or is a system of law.
  12. Separate Maori parliamentary seats should be abolished as they are no longer necessary.
  13. The discredited, biased and racist Waitangi Tribunal needs to be abolished.
  14. The New Zealand Flag is the Blue Ensign with Union Jack and four red stars which was adopted as our national flag in 1902.
  15. Aotearoa is a fairytale name. It is not an official name for New Zealand nor even a Maori name for the country which is legally called New Zealand.

Wake up in the morning, smell the roses and thank God you are a New Zealander.

Be proud of it and speak up.

Quotes:

Thomas Sowell “ civil rights used to be about treating everyone the same. But today some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination”.

George Bernard Shaw – “Never forget if you leave your law to judges  and your religion to bishops you will presently find yourself without either law or religion”

Plato “the price of apathy towards public affairs is to be ruled by evil men”

Mark Twain-“ the truth has no defence against a fool determined to believe a lie”

1 2 3 5