TO CLAIM THAT MAORI DID NOT CEDE SOVEREIGNTY IS SHAMEFUL

October 18, 2025
, , , , Maori, New Zealand Government, The British Empire, Treaty of Waitangi

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, I’ll 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 couldn’t 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, there’s 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, you’d 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 would’ve 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 them, in 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, it’ll 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.  So, by desperately clutching at that straw, they’re 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

October 9, 2025
, , , , , , , , Maori, NZ Local Government, Quotes, Treaty of Waitangi

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”

THE PROGRESSIVE TAKEOVER OF NEW ZEALAND BY THE TRIBAL ELITE

September 21, 2025
, , , , , , Maori, New Zealand Government, NZ Parliament, Treaty of Waitangi, Treaty Settlements

A talk given by John of Tross Publishing to Voices for Freedom at Nelson on 20th September, and at Blenheim on 21st September, 2025.
Estimated time to read: 40 minutes.

Modern New Zealand was founded in 1840 on British principles, one of the most important being equality before the law or, if you like, One Law For All. In other words, the same laws and rights for everyone – both Europeans and Maoris – and not different laws for different groups based on race.

For the next century and a half New Zealanders prospered under British law, and in the two world wars our servicemen laid down their lives for the freedom, democracy and equality before the law that underpinned New Zealand society. However, around the 1980s the train started to go off the rails as new doctrines were introduced that sought to drive a knife through our stable, colour-blind society based on equal rights, and to replace it with a new regime of superior, race-based rights for part-Maoris who can claim somewhere in their many hued ancestry at least a teaspoonful of Maori blood.

This racist concept is now destroying some of our age-old rights, increasing our taxes to pay for unfounded “Treaty settlements”, swiping resources from the public and handing them over to private tribes, enriching a new tribal elite of very pale-faced part-Maoris, and driving our best and brightest overseas to Australia and elsewhere.

This remarkable transition of New Zealand society has been achieved by a bullying, lying and self-enriching tribal elite, aided and abetted by feckless governments both National and Labour, crooked judges and an air-headed media that knows everything about the trivialities of the moment but nothing about New Zealand’s history, constitution and heritage. However, the biggest factor in this disaster is the gullibility, ignorance and cowardice of the masses of the New Zealand people who continue to vote  for the two main parties who are fleecing us of our rights and national resources.

In this talk to-night I am going to state some historical and constitutional truths so that at least those who are present will have an opportunity to see things in a different way from the lies and propaganda that are churned out by our smug, biased and dishonest mainstream media.

To understand the issues we do need to go back into history but only briefly. At the time of Captain Cook’s first visit in 1769 the Maoris were a Stone Age people, that definition applying to people who still used stone for their tools and weapons because they had not yet invented metal. In fact, the fish-hooks and nails that Cook’s sailors traded with them for food were the first metal they had ever seen. Nor had they invented the wheel or footwear (they ran everywhere, even into battle, in their bare feet) or even furniture for their huts – not even chairs or seats as they always sat on the ground, which was often damp.

Over the next few decades the Maoris came more and more into contact with the outside world – sometimes serving as crew on the sailing ships that plied the Tasman Sea. However, the early years of the nineteenth century also saw an escalation of their inter-tribal wars. There were approximately 3,000 battles and raids fought among the tribes between 1807 and 1845 in which one third to one half of the Maori population were killed. “This was a time of genocide; a true holocaust”, wrote Doctor John Robinson in his book, “Unrestrained Slaughter; The Maori Musket Wars 1800-1840.”

From about 1820 onwards the tribes were slowly brought round to the view espoused by the missionaries that their endless tribal warfare was wasteful and destructive and so they asked for a single powerful sovereign to rule over all the tribes so as to give them the peace, law and unity that they were unable to achieve themselves. Due to the ever growing strength of the New South Wales colony and its increasing penetration into New Zealand through trade, that sovereign could only be Queen Victoria.

The chiefs were particularly attracted to the British concept of property rights since such did not exist in Maoridom. Any property was held by might only and not by right; a tribe could be dispossessed of everything it had in the event of an attack by a stronger tribe. In fact, nobody owned anything in any legal sense; there was no law apart from the law of the spear. By conceding the right of the British to rule as the sovereign power the chiefs would have their lands guaranteed to them for the first time. Thus they were happy to exchange the sovereignty of the land for the protection of their property against their tribal enemies. This resulted in the Treaty of Waitangi of 1840.

It was a simple document. Its first Article ceded the sovereignty of New Zealand to the British Crown absolutely and forever. The second Article guaranteed to the Maoris the ownership of their land until such time as they might wish to sell it, while the third and final Article extended to all the people of New Zealand (including the Maoris’ approximately 10,000 slaves) all the rights of British subjects – the first time that such valuable status had been bestowed on a native people.

Much of the credit is due to the Maoris of the time for having the wisdom to accept the new – and improved – ways which lifted them out of darkness and insecurity into the light and comfort of the modern world. At the Kohimarama Conference of 1860, the largest ever meeting of chiefs in New Zealand, and on other occasions the chiefs, being the spokesmen for their tribes, stressed the value of the new British order and their disinclination to return to the bad old ways.

And so, for the next century and a half, New Zealand developed as a relatively harmonious society that was the envy of other countries – especially in respect of race relations. At the centenary celebrations of the Treaty of Waitangi in 1940, Sir Apirana Ngata, probably the greatest mind that Maoridom has ever produced, said in his speech at Waitangi, “Let me acknowledge first that in the whole of the world I doubt whether any native race has been so well treated by a European people as the Maoris.”

However, this stability and contentment, that had lasted for several generations, started to become unhinged in the 1980s as a result of various part-Maoris deciding that the Treaty was not what generations of statesmen, teachers, judges and Maori leaders had said it was. Instead, by lies and intimidation, they started to weave it into something entirely different – what some people now call the Treaty of Wellington.

I use the term “part-Maori” in the interests of truth and linguistic precision as the last full-blooded Maori died in the 1950s and to-day there are not even any half-bloods. All those claiming to be “Maori” and to speak for “Maori” have in fact more European blood in them than Maori for the simple reason that over the generations Maoris preferred to breed with Europeans rather than with each other and so Maoris as an ethnic group became extinct. There is no such thing to-day as an ethnic Maori – just a successor race of part-Maoris.

Take for example that loud-mouthed and pushy Irish New Zealander, Stephen (alias “Tipene”) O’Regan, who is believed to be only one-sixteenth Maori and therefore fifteen sixteenths European. He adopted a Maori persona when it became apparent that there was to be a flood of taxpayer dollars to flow into the hands of those who could claim some Maori blood – no matter how small or remote.

O’Regan married a blonde European lady so that their children are one thirty-second Maori or, if you like, more than 96% European. One of these offspring is Hana O’Regan, who was on the Maori gravy train for years and who was instrumental in assisting Christopher Finlayson and the National government to steal the beaches off their rightful and traditional owners, the people of New Zealand, by means of the thieving Marine and Coastal Area Act. And guess which tribe stood to gain the most from this Act by virtue of having the longest stretch of coastline? Ngai Tahu. And guess which tribe the O’Regans claim to be members of? Ngai Tahu.

I have been told that, when she was about eighteen, this Hana O’Regan was at a function in Wellington where she met that master of wit, Bob Jones. “And what do you want to do with your life, Hana?” asked Jones.

“I want to help our people,” she replied piously.

“What a good idea”, said Jones. “The Irish always need help”.

As we have seen, by Article One of the Treaty, the chiefs ceded to the Crown “absolutely and without reservation all the rights and powers of sovereignty”. Couldn’t be clearer than that. However, in 2014 five members of the Waitangi Tribunal – Joanne Morris, Craig Coxhead, Professor Richard Hill, Kihi Ngatai and Ranginui Walker – through either ignorance or deliberate deceit – declared that the chiefs did NOT cede sovereignty at Waitangi in 1840. I am not making this up. By propagating this nonsense contrary to the evidence these five fools simply exposed themselves as public menaces and provided more grounds for abolishing the Tribunal.

To call it a “tribunal” is misleading as that word suggests a quasi-judicial body that hears both sides of an argument and decides issues fairly. The Waitangi Tribunal is an activist organisation that pushes the interests of the tribal elite and corporate iwi at the expense of the rest of us. Unlike a normal tribunal it often discards reliable written evidence, preferring oral testimony that is inherently unreliable, having been passed down about seven generations and added to here and there so that by the time it reaches the Tribunal and the prospective pot of gold it is likely to have become both self-serving and mendacious in order to create the required grievance.

The Waitangi Tribunal is like a cancer on the body politic, distorting history for the benefit of claimants, acting racistly and against the general good of a fair and united society, and costing the taxpayer an ever increasing sum of money that now stands at $4.6 billion as it enriches a tribal elite at the expense of the rest of us. And the only way to get rid of a cancer is to cut it out completely.

After the demise of apartheid South Africa in 1994 the new Black government set up a Truth and Reconciliation Commission to deal with the injustices of the recent past. Despite the size of its task the Commission completed its work in five years and was then closed down.

The Waitangi Tribunal on the other hand, dealing with alleged remote “grievances” of a hundred years ago in which, unlike South Africa, there are no living so-called “victims”, has been going for more than forty years and, rather than completing its job, is forever looking out for new and ever more imaginative opportunities to expand its scope so that it can continue to feed endless historical grievances and give highly paid employment to all the greedy and biased parasites who work there.

Since the budding tribal elite realised that the words of the Treaty did not give any special race-based rights to Maoris they invented two new concepts – “partnership” and “principles” – to get over this obstacle. These concepts were never part of the Treaty or the events of 1840 and neither of these two words was even mentioned in the Treaty. Nor had such ideas ever been dreamt up in the years from 1840 to the 1980s.

In 1840 the British could exercise sovereign authority over the anarchic islands of New Zealand only if they had full sovereignty. The last thing they could ever imagine would be so-called “partnership agreements” with the very same Stone Age chiefs who had failed so spectacularly in bringing any form of peace, security or good order to the country. In fact, one of the instructions to Captain Hobson from the Colonial Office in London was to walk away if full sovereignty could not be ceded as, without it, Britain would have no legal basis for bringing peace and order to these islands.

This was clearly understood and accepted by all parties until the Maori radical movement got off the ground in the 1980s when they invented “partnership” and “principles” that until then had never been associated with the Treaty.

Having signed the Treaty, the chiefs became not partners, but subjects of the Crown, as did all other Maori. As subjects of the Crown, i.e. New Zealand citizens , all those of Maori descent are entitled to the same rights as other citizens. No more and no less.

Group rights, whereby one group enjoys separate, different or superior rights on the basis of group membership, are anathema to a free and equal society. Group rights create two classes of citizenship where only one existed before. They require the intervention of an activist government forcibly taking rights from one group to bestow on another. As Richard Prebble once stated, “One group’s positive discrimination is another group’s negative discrimination” because it is not possible to bestow special rights on one person or group without taking them away from another.

To explain this, let us look at New Zealand’s health system. The Auckland District Health Board prioritises part-Maori and Pacific Island patients for some surgeries, pushing European New Zealanders down the waiting list. This medically indefensible move was introduced by that “kind” Prime Minister, Jacinda Ardern. Priority for an operation should be based on how sick the patient is, how urgently the treatment is needed and how long one has been on the waiting list. Nothing else – least of all racial considerations just to buy Maori votes for the Labour party. Health is too important to be subjected to the politics of race.

Then again in 2023 – also during the Ardern nightmare – Pharmac introduced “ethnicity criteria” – preference for part-Maoris and Pacific Islanders – for drugs for Type-2 diabetes, heart problems, lung cancer and breast cancer.

In New Zealand’s two Medical Schools – Auckland and Otago – non-Maoris are actively and institutionally discriminated against as they can attain higher marks but are rejected from entering medical school so as to enable those with lower marks to be admitted solely because by accident of birth they happen to have some Maori or Pacific Island blood in them.

After 2020 these two Medical Schools got on the apartheid train and went full steam ahead so that by 2016 Maori and Pacific Island students entering Otago Medical School increased by 179% – not on merit but on race.

In 2020 Otago had 202 places in its Medical School but 120 of them (more than half) were reserved for the “privileged categories”, leaving only 82 places (40%) for others. How on earth is New Zealand ever going to get a competent medical profession with policies like these?

In 2020 Auckland University’s Medical School had 185 places, with part-Maoris and Pacific Islanders taking up 52 of them – again not on merit. These Maori and Pacific Island candidates are not selected by the entry exams but are assessed “by reference to special material provided by applicants about their engagement with their communities”. In other words, take an active part on the marae on week-ends and you should get into medical school. It would be hard to make this stuff up.

These policies stink as they breed resentment on the part of white and Asian students who are rejected in favour of those with lower marks but who can tick a certain racial box, they reduce the prestige of the two medical schools, and they lower the standard of competence within the medical profession.

It also stigmatises those students of Maori or Pacific ancestry regardless of whether they got in by means of a racial leg-up or on their own merits. It is here that one of the worst injustices occurs. If, for example, a part-Maori or Pacific Island student sits the general entrance exam with the other students (European and Asian) and passes with  flying colours and without any race-based help and then becomes a doctor, he/she is likely to be looked at with a certain amount of suspicion by the general public who would say – wrongfully but understandably – “I’m not going to a Maori doctor because they only got there by racial preference rather than competence”.

The lie that the Treaty created a partnership between the Crown and Maori has been embraced for their own reasons or to indulge their own prejudices by politicians, bureaucrats and judges – including the notorious Robin Cooke (Lord Cooke of Thorndon), who said that the Treaty was “akin to a partnership”. The reason why Cooke propagated this lie was to create confusion, which it most certainly did. Then, out of the confusion the judges barged in and grabbed more powers for themselves at the expense of our democratically elected parliament. It was a dirty trick but is unfortunately characteristic behaviour of the senior judges of to-day.

The lie of partnership is also being taught in our schools in an effort to soften up the next generation for a whole new tranche of tribal demands.

Worse came in 2020 when New Zealand’s media companies were in dire financial straits, with all of Stuff News being sold by its Australian owners to its local New Zealand manager for ONE DOLLAR. Spotting an opportunity to control the media by a much needed taxpayer funded bribe, the Ardern government dreamt up the Public Interest Journalism Fund which showered $55 million of taxpayers’ money on to the media companies. They all accepted the bribe except The Platform, RCR Radio and the Westport News.

Of course, there was a snag since bribes are not usually given out without conditions. One of the conditions was that the media had to report Treaty of Waitangi issues in accordance with government policy, which itself is based on the lie that the Treaty was a “partnership” between Crown and Maori when it was no such thing.

The actual words were that the media must “actively promote the principles of Partnership, Participation and active Protection under Te Tiriti o Waitangi, acknowledging Maori as a Te Tiriti partner”. Nothing about reporting the news honestly and objectively. Such lies and propaganda are at variance with editorial independence. And so, in taking the money, the mainstream media has committed itself to telling lies and those who read or listen to what the media has to say should always bear in mind that what they are seeing or hearing is not necessarily the truth.

The other big lie that the Maori supremacists rely on is that the Treaty has “principles”. Once again nobody had thought this one up in the century and a half between 1840 and the 1980s for the simple reason that there were no principles – just the black and white words of the document.

Like certain other destructive policies that have been inflicted on New Zealand in recent years the new idea that the Treaty had “principles” came out of the confused mind of Geoffrey Palmer who had earlier been responsible for the folly of allowing tribes to take their “claims” for so-called “grievances” all the way back to 1840 – way beyond the experiences or knowledge of anybody living and so ripe for malicious fabrication by tribal leaders and their friends in the Waitangi Tribunal. Palmer tried to justify this nonsense by saying that he did not believe that there would be many claims, thus showing how little he understands the issue and the nature and extent of the greed of the tribal elite.

On the matter of “principles” all sorts of opportunists – politicians and judges – put in their sixpenny bit so that to-day there are several newly invented sets of principles of the Treaty which in 1840 had no principles.

The possibility of “principles” gives the Treaty whatever meaning somebody wants to give it simply by inventing a list of “principles” and these are invariably to the advantage of the tribes and to the disadvantage of the rest of us. The worst offenders have been the judges – unelected creatures who are always trying to increase their own powers at the expense of our democratically elected parliament.

Thus by bastardising the Treaty of Waitangi and making it into something that it wasn’t or isn’t, the governing elite of politicians, judges, the Waitangi Tribunal and mainstream media have destroyed our once equal and harmonious society which was enjoyed for several generations. Instead they have introduced not only a race-based society not all that dissimilar from apartheid South Africa but also a new tribal elite of greedy, undeserving and very pale-faced part-Maoris who are inventing a new tribalism so as to keep part-Maoris apart from the rest of New Zealanders, and in the process they are increasing a mood of racial hatred against the white man that is being stirred up by no end of troublemakers on maraes, in the kohanga reo (total immersion Maori language schools) and in the Maori Language Departments of the universities. This is no way to build a harmonious, unified or prosperous society.

Tribalism in the 21st century is harmful not only to the integrity and unity of the State by part-Maoris identifying more with their tribe than with the nation but it is also harmful to those whom it engulfs, giving them a backward looking world view. And it doesn’t help that Maori tribalism has traditionally been enmeshed with violence.

This new tribalism is the very thing that the chiefs of 1840 were trying to get away from by signing the Treaty and now we have a bunch of people with majority European blood trying to bring it back for their own financial purposes – people like O’Regan, Willie Jackson, John Tamihere and all the others who always have their hand out.

As Doctor John Robinson pointed out in his book, “Who Really Broke the Treaty?”, the Treaty of Waitangi imposed on the Maoris who were brought within its fold the same obligations as other British subjects – namely to obey the law and not rebel against it. This some of them failed to do, e.g. Hone Heke’s rebellion in Northland in the 1840s  and the later Kingite Rebellion in the Waikato in the 1860s.

On the other hand the only obligation that the Treaty imposed on the Crown was to govern the country, which it has done democratically and by the will of the people through elections. That’s all. Nothing more.

And yet we have had governments – both National and Labour – that have handed billions of dollars of cash, national resources and superior rights over to the tribal elite by means of what are erroneously called “Treaty settlements” for “breaches of the Treaty”. There is no justification for these by the Treaty for, as already stated, the Crown had no more obligation to Maoris than to any other New Zealanders. Their obligation was simply to govern the country.

These so-called :”Treaty settlements” have been justified on the grounds that somehow somewhere the Crown “broke” the Treaty in respect of this tribe or that tribe. This is pure fiction or, if you like, straight out lies. And yet on the basis of these lies some $4.6 billion has been transferred from the taxpayer to the tribes in 107 Treaty settlements to date. Since the Crown never broke the Treaty all these settlements for so-called “breaches of the Treaty” are fraudulent.

If any of these grievances are genuine – and some of them might be – the correct remedy would have been for the tribe adversely affected to seek redress through the courts for breach of contract or a tort or whatever. If, for example, the Crown took land off a tribe for a public purpose and was required to return the land when that purpose ceased to exist and yet failed to do so, that is not a breach of the Treaty but a breach of contract for which damages could be sought in a court in the normal way. And yet the so-called “clever” lawyers in Parliament and the bureaucracy claim that such is a “breach of the Treaty” when it is no such thing. Instead, they have showered over $4 billion in lump sums on the tribes on the most spurious of grounds and on the recommendations of that most biased of organisations, the Waitangi Tribunal.

And never once has any tribal leader or other recipient of this largesse been recorded as having said “thank-you” to the taxpayers. All that they ever say – and with considerable surliness – is “We’ll take it but it should have been more”. Ingratitude is a feature of Stone Age societies. The Maoris did not even have a word for “thank-you” until the missionaries arrived and introduced them to the concept of gratitude. Sadly the ill will of the tribal elite has grown in proportion to the goodwill showered on them by taxpayer dollars.

One of the stated reasons for these Treaty settlements was that they would bring harmony by satisfying tribal demands. Instead they have done the contrary as, the more money and special rights that are given to part-Maoris, the more they demand.

The most important  thing to remember about Treaty settlements is that they are first and foremost a power grab and a money grab by a small number of private tribal hands to seize priceless national resources – beaches, rivers, forests, that were once owned by all of us and still should be.

These grasping millionaires in the tribal elite – Stephen O’Regan, Willie Jackson and all the rest of them – who are so loud on “Maori rights” are, in fact, enemies of a united and non-racial nation. And the only way to deal with an enemy is to defeat him – not appease him.

Our soldiers did not fight and die in two world wars to make non-Maori New Zealanders second class citizens in a racially divided society – as is now happening. Part-Maoris have no reason to think and act like a nation apart and, in fairness, it should be pointed out that most of them don’t.

For any group  like the tribal elite to regard itself as a people apart is a recipe for division, conflict and the eventual break-up of the nation. The recent He Puapua Report has even set out the steps for breaking up our unified country and destroying our democracy by the year 2040. That’s how serious it is and all their little tricks such as co-governance and special Maori wards on local councils are all part of a much wider plot.

To get the nation out of the mess that National, Labour and the judges have got us into there must be a return to equality of citizenship without any race-based privileges for any group. In other words, a colour-blind state free of all race-based favouritism. One Law For All.

When this noble principle was put to the National Party’s Treaty Minister, Christopher Finlayson, he damned the idea as “nuts”. Then, when tens of thousands of concerned New Zealanders joined together in Coastal Coalition to try to prevent the theft of the nation’s beaches from the public so as to make them available for tribal ownership, Finlayson dismissed such people as “clowns”. This is the type of arrogance, ignorance and bigotry that we are up against.

“One Law For All” must be unqualified and non-negotiable if New Zealand is to have a future as good as its past. This would be of benefit to everyone – especially part-Maoris who would be forced to stand on their own feet instead of increasingly being regarded as bludgers off the taxpayer. No doubt they would be pleasantly surprised at what they could achieve without the ongoing flow of special, race-based funding.

I must stress again that this is nothing more than a naked power and money grab by a group of very pale-faced part-Maoris in the name of a race that no longer exists. It would be hard to think of anything more fraudulent.

So, having seen through the various Treaty lies that are destroying our society, stealing our rightful resources, pushing white people down hospital waiting lists and threatening our accountable democracy, what you might ask can one do about it? The worst thing would be to throw up one’s hands and say “There is nothing I can do about it”. That would be both cowardly and unpatriotic. Better to keep informed of the issues and spread the truth as widely as possible. As Longfellow wrote in his wonderful poem, A Psalm of Life:

“In the world’s broad field of battle,
 In the bivouac of life,
 Be not like dumb, driven cattle!
 Be a hero in the strife!”

1 2 3 … 5