- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Monday, October 29, 2007

Bloody Angry

"There is mounting frustration and anger, right across the country by Maori genuinely aggrieved by the continued loss of lands, the denial of the Treaty; and now these raids, smashing into Maori homes and terrorising Maori communities. Of course Maori are bloody angry. Why wouldn’t they be?

But guess what folks – none of this is news. Maori have been protesting land theft for 150 years, and the state forces have always opposed them.

How many times have you heard Maori say they are prepared to fight and to die for their land? For heaven’s sake, Shane Jones used to talk like that before Helen Clark got him by the b…, tongue. Tariana Turia came to this House as a dedicated Maori Activist, and hasn’t changed one iota. Hell – I only got in here because of a tidal wave of unrest, and an absolute rejection by Maoridom of the thieving ways of this government.

So, is this terrorism threat serious? Hell yes !!!

The actions of the NZ Police, who contrary to the Minister are not separate from the government, but are in fact an arm of the government, highlight:

an ongoing ignorance of the Maori community by the NZ Police;
a reluctance to engage Maori, but a willingness to arrest Maori;
a refusal to allow their own Maori officers to negotiate on day-one, to save the country a million dollar surveillance operation over the next 18 months;
and a readiness to brutalise Tühoe in exactly the same way they did 100 years ago, even using 70 armed constabulary like they did back then.

The recent actions of the New Zealand Police, with the support of this Labour government, signal clearly not just to Tühoe, but to the rest of Maoridom, that hell yes !!! the terrorism of the Maori community has in fact, never, ever ended, and continues unabated in the new millennium."
- Hone Harawira (in Parliament last week)

26 Comments:

At 29/10/07 10:29 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Massive cultural, social and economic change, otherwise labelled globalisation, postcolonisation, or postmodernity, has to be managed – but how?

 
At 29/10/07 11:41 am, Blogger Jeff said...

You DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE SOMETHING BY FORCE.

So hypocritical of the extreme left when they say the above for foreign policy but when its local, well we have serious grievences so well beep it we have the right to train to do stuff that makes 98% of NZers sick in their stomachs.

You do not have the right to force views by use of arms, simple. Its why the US is wrong in Iraq, Iran etc but it applies just as much locally.

Simply put you don't negotiate with people willing to resort to violence. You don't make a matre of them but I doubt that this will as much as you say.

Using the T laws may be over the top, I don't know as the public does not yet have the info that they acted on.

Maori have genuine greivinces, I won't deny that, and they are often not resolved satisfactorly.

But at least there is some effort to do so, all these actions will do (threaning violence) is make it less likely that the constiuents will want to continue to do so.

Not saying that those apprehended are bad people, sure they genuinely believe in what they did could poss help and genuinely have greivences. But where I stand violence has no place in todays age, none.

 
At 29/10/07 2:15 pm, Anonymous Cameron said...

Open Letter To Bomber about the Dawn Raids

http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/74018/index.php

Bomber please read this and also pass it onto your friend Chris Trotter.

 
At 29/10/07 2:38 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

What a poorly written and horribly biased article, the amount of plain outright lying and completely misrepresentation is shocking.

Its whole premise seems to rest on the fact that 'these people couldn't possibly be guilty because of the groups they belong too and what they look like" without a shred of supporting evidence.

It seems that anyone who choses to wait for the facts to come out rather than jumping on the hysterical anti-police bandwagon immediately are now to be branded traitors to the cause. I always thought group-think and blind obedience was more of a fascist doctrine.

If it all comes out in the wash and the Police were correct I wonder if there will be another post apologizing to the Bombers and Chris Trotters of the left and other traitors who dared think independently.

"N"

 
At 29/10/07 3:17 pm, Anonymous orewa 1 said...

So let me begin by asking, what sort of nation do we want to build?

Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

But the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi was expressed simply by then Lt-Gov Hobson in February 1840. In his halting Maori, he said to each chief as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou. We are one people.

 
At 29/10/07 3:55 pm, Anonymous son of orewa said...

NATIONHOOD
An address by Don Brash Leader of the National Party to the Orewa Rotary Club on 27 January 2004

Ladies and gentlemen,

This is the second occasion on which I have addressed your Club on the last Tuesday of January, and I very much appreciate your invitation.

Soon after becoming leader of the National Party, I outlined my five main priorities.

First, we must, as a country, take vigorous steps to counter the long-standing relative decline in New Zealand incomes, which sees our per capita incomes now around $180 lower per week – or about $9,000 per year – than those enjoyed by Australians. The Labour Government is doing nothing to bridge this gap, but is instead erecting barriers to faster growth at almost every turn.

Second, we must deal with the fact that too many of our children leave school massively handicapped by illiteracy and innumeracy. Today's education system is failing many of our children, particularly the least privileged. If education is the passport to a better future, too many of our children currently have no chance of getting there. The Labour Government is failing to deal with this issue, and has made things worse by removing the elements of parental choice which the National Governments of the nineties introduced.

Third, we have to face the reality that traditional kiwi values are being destroyed by a government-funded culture of welfare dependency. National will stop communities wasting away on welfare. Sitting at home on welfare should never be an option, as the Labour Government seems to believe.

Fourth, we must deal with the issues of security, and especially the current half-hearted attitude towards enforcing the law in New Zealand. Under a National Government, when people step over the line which marks the boundary between honest and criminal activity, between civilised behaviour and that which preys on the community, they will be punished. Labour, by contrast, appears to be much more concerned with the rights of the criminal than with those of the victim.

And fifth, the topic I will focus on today, is the dangerous drift towards racial separatism in New Zealand, and the development of the now entrenched Treaty grievance industry. We are one country with many peoples, not simply a society of Pakeha and Maori where the minority has a birthright to the upper hand, as the Labour Government seems to believe.

Over the next few months, I plan to give a major speech on each of my five main priorities, but today I want to speak about the threat which “the Treaty process” poses to the future of our country. I am focussing on this topic because, just before Christmas, after Parliament had risen for the year, the Government announced its foreshore and seabed policy, a policy with potentially huge significance for the future of our country.

So let me begin by asking, what sort of nation do we want to build?

Is it to be a modern democratic society, embodying the essential notion of one rule for all in a single nation state?

Or is it the racially divided nation, with two sets of laws, and two standards of citizenship, that the present Labour Government is moving us steadily towards?

But the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi was expressed simply by then Lt-Gov Hobson in February 1840. In his halting Maori, he said to each chief as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou. We are one people.

A number of issues flow from this. They are complex, highly sensitive, even emotionally charged.

But I believe in plain speaking. So let me be blunt.

Over the last 20 years, the Treaty has been wrenched out of its 1840s context and become the plaything of those who would divide New Zealanders from one another, not unite us.

In parallel with the Treaty process and the associated grievance industry, there has been a divisive trend to embody racial distinctions into large parts of our legislation, extending recently to local body politics. In both education and healthcare, government funding is now influenced not just by need – as it should be – but also by the ethnicity of the recipient.

The Nelson-Tasman Primary Health Organisation is a good example: PHOs are explicitly established on a racial basis, and the Nelson-Tasman PHO is required to have half of the community representatives on its board representing local iwi, even though the number of people actually belonging to those local iwi is a tiny fraction of the population covered by that PHO.

Much of the non-Maori tolerance for the Treaty settlement process – where people who weren’t around in the 19th century pay compensation to the part-descendants of those who were – is based on a perception of relative Maori poverty. But in fact Maori income distribution is not very different from Pakeha income distribution, as sociologist Simon Chapple pointed out a couple of years ago in a much publicised piece of research.

Maori-ness explains very little about how well one does in life. Ethnicity does not determine one's destiny.

It is the bottom 25% of Maori, most of them on welfare, who are conspicuously poor. They are no different to Pacific Islanders or other non-Maori on welfare; it’s just that there is a higher percentage of them in that category.


The myths of our past

Let me now counter some of the myths of our past. Too many of us look back through utopian glasses, imagining the Polynesian past as a genteel world of “wise ecologists, mystical sages, gifted artists, heroic navigators and pacifists who wouldn’t hurt a fly”.

It was nothing like that. Life was hard, brutal and short.

James Belich shows us that, once guns fell into Maori hands in the early years of the 19th century, ancient tribal rivalries saw Maori kill more of their own than the number of all New Zealanders lost in World War I. Probably 20,000 Maori were killed by Maori in the 1820s and 1830s.

Equally, however, the initial Maori contact with Europeans was hardly a contact with the cream of European civilisation. The first Europeans that Maori encountered were explorers, whalers, escaped convicts from Australia, and then settlers hungry for land to build a new life. Many were none-too concerned about the niceties of the Treaty. And none possessed any appreciation of the interpretations of its meaning that some are trying to breathe into the document today.

Any dispassionate look at our history shows that self-interest and greed featured large on both sides. Pakeha tried hard to separate Maori from their lands, and usually succeeded, although at various points the Crown endeavoured to ensure that proper procedures, consistent with the Article 2 guarantee to Maori that they were able to sell freely and fairly, were upheld.

Yet in spite of these problems, and in spite of all the turmoil, the shocks from the collision of two cultures and the chaos of unprecedented social change, the documentary evidence clearly shows that Maori society was immensely adaptable, and very open to new ways. That adaptability and resourcefulness, that openness to opportunity, that entrepreneurial spirit, is something that survived the trauma of colonisation, and is today reflected in a Maori renaissance across a wide range of business, cultural and sporting activity.

We should celebrate the fact that, despite a war between the races in the 1860s and the speed with which Maori were separated from much of their land – partly through settler greed, partly through a couple of generations of deficient leadership by some Maori – our Treaty is probably the only example in the world of any such treaty surviving rifle shots. Those who said a hundred years later that New Zealand possessed good race relations by world standards weren't wrong. While we try to fix the wrongs of the past, we should celebrate the good things and shared experiences that underpin our nationhood.

All Maori got the right to vote, and had it long before 1900. By the 1930s, they possessed equal rights of access to state assistance, be it pensions or subsidised housing loans or access to education. One standard of citizenship was gradually working, and the gaps that existed in every other colonial country were closing here as Maori took advantage of full employment.

Although he listed a number of land grievances in his centennial speech at Waitangi on 6 February 1940, Sir Apirana Ngata told those present that in the whole world it was unlikely that any “native” race had been as well treated by settlers as Maori.

Let me be quite clear. Many things happened to the Maori people that should not have happened. There were injustices, and the Treaty process is an attempt to acknowledge that, and to make a gesture at recompense. But it is only that. It can be no more than that.

None of us was around at the time of the New Zealand wars. None of us had anything to do with the confiscations. There is a limit to how much any generation can apologise for the sins of its great grandparents.

There are a few radicals who claim that sovereignty never properly passed from Maori into the hands of the Crown, and thus ultimately into the hands of all New Zealanders, Maori and non-Maori. They are living in a fantasy world. These claims come from the more radical Maori end of the spectrum. They can be seen for what they really are: a negotiating position.

What worries me about the current Treaty debate is that we find ourselves now, at the beginning of the 21st century, still locked into 19th century arguments.

Too many Maori leaders are looking backwards rather than towards the future. Too many have been encouraged by successive governments to adopt grievance mode.


The Treaty process

I want, now, to briefly review the more recent history of the Treaty process.

We have moved from a badly drafted and ambiguous Treaty document of 1840 , through a long period of colonisation to an attempt to live by the simple principles that seem to underlie that document.

In 1975, the Waitangi Tribunal was established to hear Maori grievances about contemporary problems. The powers of the Tribunal were greatly extended in 1985. In a fateful decision, it was given authority to cover claims going back as far as the 1840 Treaty itself – this despite the fact that "full and final" settlements had been made with Tainui, Ngai Tahu and others, decades before.

A poorly drafted Act in 1985, coupled with inadequate attention to its implementation, allowed a major grievance industry to blossom.

Only a year later, in the State-Owned Enterprises Act 1986, the Government, not foreseeing the consequences of its decisions, made a last minute amendment to the Act. It read into the bill under urgency, without any reference back to a Select Committee, a revised section 9, which stated that “Nothing in this Act shall permit the Crown to act in a manner that is inconsistent with the principles of the Treaty of Waitangi”.

Whether intended or not, Parliament had created a new concept – the “principles of the Treaty”. But these principles were never defined – nobody had a clue what they might be. In the end, it was left to un-elected Court of Appeal judges to determine an interpretation of the Treaty's meaning that the politicians most certainly never intended.

Thus, an accident of litigation, which related to a specific provision in a piece of economic legislation, and the Court’s attempt to make that legislation work without adequate guidance from Parliament, ended up by providing a basis for building an entire constitutional relationship between Crown and Maori.

Since 1987, and especially since 1999 when the current Labour Government took office, governments have included references to the “principles of the Treaty” in legislation, still without defining them. Even the Cabinet Manual now states that Ministers must specify whether proposed bills comply with “the principles of the Treaty”. It doesn't define those principles either.

In 1988, there was another development of great significance. The Government's decision to sell off some of the state forests resulted in a judicial ruling that the Crown could not do so until ownership of the land beneath the trees had been determined by the Waitangi Tribunal process. To speed up what was becoming a much more drawn out process than had been envisaged in 1985, ministers came up with the idea of a Crown Forest Rental Trust that would receive the cutting fees as the forests were managed, and use the money to speed the hearing process about the land under the trees.

Far from speeding the process, it quickly slowed down. As one commentator has observed: “A growing number of bees – some busy, others drones – swarmed around this new, lucrative [Crown Forest Rental Trust] honey pot.” The troubles surrounding this particular honey pot continue to this day, and only very belatedly, and after a lot of very adverse publicity, is the current Government moving to clean up the Crown Forest Rental Trust process.

The biggest problem we face with the Treaty process is a lack of leadership. For 20 years now, mischievous minds have been interpreting the document in ways that they envisage will suit their financial purposes. We need proper leadership on the issue, and the next National Government will provide it.

One principle above all others guides my thinking: The Treaty of Waitangi should not be used as the basis for giving greater civil, political or democratic rights to any particular ethnic group.

The direction in which the current Government is heading is fundamentally different and it is wrong. For the sake of our future, it must be changed.


Treaty references in legislation

As I’ve noted, there is now a wide range of legislation making reference to the “principles of the Treaty” without any definition of what that means – including the Environment Act 1986, the Conservation Act 1987, the Education Act 1989, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Crown Research Institutes Act 1992, the Arts Council of NZ Toi Aotearoa Act 1994, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

The only conclusion we can reach is that successive governments have believed that this 19th century treaty has something to say about today’s SOEs and national parks, today’s schools and universities, how we go about approving or declining building permits, what science we should study, what art we should look at, and even how we should regard the new frontier of genetic science!

Well, it doesn’t.

Local government now also has statutory obligations with respect to the undefined principles of the Treaty. The anachronism of the Parliamentary Maori seats (created as a temporary device in 1867 when tribally-organised, rurally-based Maori still formed the bulk of the Maori population) is now being extended by Labour to include local government. Some local authorities are introducing Maori wards without regard to whether the guiding democratic principle of "one person, one vote, one value" is violated.

The Local Government Act also requires local authorities to set up special consultation with Maori, over and above the extensive consultation already required with local communities, as if somehow Maori are not part of local communities. As a result, iwi are developing a central role with respect to local government. They possess the power to veto many development projects, projects which could provide us all with jobs.

Where does this all stop? And what group is driving this process?

As one commentator observed recently, a number of non-Maori radicals, having climbed high into our social hierarchy, wield considerable political, economic and judicial influence, and now “constitute a powerful fifth column in the Maori cause.”

It is bizarre that, in a society where the Prime Minister refuses to allow grace to be said at a state banquet, because, she says, we are an increasingly secular society, we fly Maori elders around the world to lift tapu and expel evil spirits from New Zealand embassies; we allow courts to become entangled in hearings about the risks to taniwha of a new road or building; we refuse to undertake potentially life-saving earthworks on Mount Ruapehu lest we interfere with the spirit of the mountain; and we allow our environment law to be turned into an opportunistic farce by allowing metaphysical and spiritual considerations to be taken into account in the decision process. It is a farce that could all too quickly turn to tragedy.

Spiritual beliefs are important in any society. They should be respected. They should never be mocked. But personal spiritual beliefs should not be allowed to drive our development as a modern society.

I am sure most Maori are as embarrassed by the present situation as most non-Maori are astounded. We are becoming a society that allows people to invent or rediscover beliefs for pecuniary gain. This process is becoming deeply corrupt, with some requirements for consultation resulting in substantial payments in a system that looks like nothing other than stand-over tactics.

These are crucial issues for the future of our nation. Unless they are dealt with properly, they will ultimately undermine the very essence of what it means to be a New Zealander.

Chris Trotter – who writes in the Dominion-Post in Wellington, and The Independent nationally – is not known for his sympathy for the National Party. He writes unashamedly from the political left, but what he writes is intellectually honest and always arresting. He recently asked:

“Shall New Zealand go forward into a new century as a modern, democratic and prosperous nation; or shall it become a culturally divided, economically stagnant and aristocratically misgoverned Pacific backwater, like the Kingdom of Tonga or the Republic of Fiji?”

He asked that question presumably because he thinks, as I do, that under the present Government, the answer is the latter. We’re going downhill.


The foreshore proposals

Now to a current problem that gets to the heart of today's mismanagement of Treaty relations. Just after the closing of Parliament last year, when MPs couldn't debate the issue, the Government released its proposals for dealing with the foreshore and seabed following a legal decision that overturned 125 years of settled law.

The simple option was to legislate to establish the Crown ownership that almost everyone believed already existed. Instead, the Government has come up with a convoluted notion called "public domain". On the face of it, it sounds good. But it leaves room for much more than just limited recognition of "customary rights", and in fact embodies vast powers, including the right to a Maori veto.

First, Government documents make it clear that the proposed “customary title” will allow the development of commercial activity arising from customary use. This “development right” will mean an expansion of traditional customary rights.

Secondly, along with commercial development, customary title also gives Maori a veto power over anyone else’s development, whether commercial or recreational. As I read the papers released by the Government, anyone wanting to build a small jetty on a coastal property where customary title has been established will need iwi consent. And what we know from experience is that this is likely to require a substantial payment to smooth the path for consent.

Thirdly, Maori also gain a new role in the management of the entire coastline. Customary title will give commercial development rights, which over time will inevitably erode public access. In addition, 16 newly-created bureaucracies will give Maori a more dominant role than other New Zealanders in the use and development of the coastline, not only where customary title is granted, but elsewhere as well. All these committees will be taxpayer-funded. Maori will gain access to even more taxpayers’ funds for consultants, lawyers and hui to “build capacity” to take part in this process.

It is not hard to envisage what is going to happen.

The additional costs in any development process will make a small number of people much better off, but will make all other New Zealanders, including most Maori, worse off, by slowing, and in many cases blocking entirely, the potential for development of our resources, especially aquaculture.

There are massive conflicts of interest in all of this, and they will inevitably invite corruption. Under the proposals, Maori can now be owners, managers and regulators, all at the same time, thereby ensuring their own developments can succeed. They can block others if they can show to sympathetic authorities that their customary right is adversely affected. It is astonishing that the Government could establish such a conflict-ridden model. It is an absolute recipe for disaster.


A multi-cultural melting pot

Let me turn briefly to what we mean by “Maori”.

The short cut of referring to Maori as one group and Pakeha as another is enormously misleading . There is no homogenous, distinct Maori population – we have been a melting pot since the 19th century – although there is, of course, a highly distinctive Maori culture, which many people see as central to their identity.

Our definition of ethnicity is now a matter of subjective self-definition: if you are part Maori and want to identify as Maori you can do so.

The Maori ethnic group is a very loose one. There has always been considerable intermarriage between Maori and Pakeha. Anthropologists tell us that by 1900 there were no full-blooded Maori left in the South Island. By 2000, the same was true of the North Island. Today, nearly 70% of 24 to 34 year old New Zealanders who identify as Maori are married to someone who does not.

And most of the rest are themselves of multi-ethnic identity, itself a consequence of two centuries of intermarriage. As a consequence, a majority of Maori children grow up today with a non-Maori parent.

Many people feel it is somehow impolite to mention these facts. But by ignoring them we create an oppositional picture of race relations in this country, and we overlook the many powerful forces that can promote social cohesion.

What we are seeing is the emergence of a population in New Zealand of multi-ethnic heritage – a distinct South Seas race of New Zealanders – where more and more of us will have a diverse ancestry. Hopefully, we will get joy and pride from all the different elements that go to make us who we are.

My own family is racially mixed. My 10-year-old gains both from his New Zealand-European and from his Singaporean-Chinese heritage.

There is plenty of evidence that most New Zealanders are happy to see New Zealand develop in this way. In spite of the heightened rhetoric from the publicists of ethnic difference, most people treat their ethnic allegiances fluidly. For many people, aspects other than their ethnicity matter much more to them – their religion, their profession, their sports club, their gender, and their political allegiance.


What do I conclude from all this?

First, we need to look at our past honestly, not through a lens which projects current values onto 19th century New Zealand, and not by stripping away the context of the past.

The Treaty contains just three short clauses, and deals with the government of New Zealand, property rights, and citizenship. Those principles must be upheld. Where there has been a clear breach of the Treaty – where land has been stolen, for example – then it is right that attempts to make amends should be made.

But the Treaty is not some magical, mystical, document. Lurking behind its words is not a blueprint for building a modern, prosperous, New Zealand. The Treaty did not create a partnership: fundamentally, it was the launching pad for the creation of one sovereign nation.

We should not use the Treaty as a basis for creating greater civil, political or democratic rights for Maori than for any other New Zealander. In the 21st century, it is unconscionable for us to be taking that separatist path, and this Labour Government deserves to be defeated on that basis alone.

The National Party has an honourable record of resolving historical Treaty grievances. Virtually all of the major financial settlements achieved to date occurred under National in the 1990s. They included settlements for the Fisheries ($150 million), Tainui ($170 million) and Ngai Tahu ($170 million). The leadership shown by Prime Minister Jim Bolger and Treaty Negotiations Minister Sir Douglas Graham was crucial in establishing a national consensus on the need to resolve historical grievances as part of the process of reconciliation.

The settlement process has slowed considerably since Labour took office, with claims resolution bogged down due to lack of leadership and commitment.

Let me make it quite clear. National is absolutely committed to completing the settlement of historical grievances. We will ensure that the process is accelerated and brought to a conclusion. It must then be wound up. It is essential to put this behind us if all of us – and Maori in particular – are to stop looking backward and start moving forward into this new century as a modern, democratic and prosperous nation.

We intend to remove divisive race-based features from legislation. The “principles of the Treaty” – never clearly defined yet ever expanding – are the thin end of a wedge leading to a racially divided state and we want no part of that. There can be no basis for special privileges for any race, no basis for government funding based on race, no basis for introducing Maori wards in local authority elections, and no obligation for local governments to consult Maori in preference to other New Zealanders.

We will remove the anachronism of the Maori seats in Parliament.

We will deal with the foreshore issue by legislating to return to the previous status quo – the settled legal situation before the Court of Appeal decision. That is a position where for the most part the Crown owned the foreshore. In so far as there was uncertainty about the situation before, we will clarify the position. Public ownership leaves room for recognising limited customary rights, but we will not allow customary title. If this Government issues such title, we will revoke it.

Having done all that, we really will be one people – as Hobson declared us to be in 1840.

I acknowledge that there are problems of Maori socio-economic disparity in some places, mostly rural. We will focus our welfare reform efforts on those areas. We will not have entire townships, and some suburbs, on the dole.

Welfare recipients will be offered retraining, and offered some activity by which they can earn, and be seen to earn, their welfare cheque. Their children will see their parents constructively engaged in the community each day, not marginalised by it. That, more than anything, will restore their dignity.

But these are not Treaty issues: they are social welfare issues, and Maori New Zealanders who are in need are as entitled to assistance as any other New Zealanders who are in need.

Similarly, a National Government will continue to fund Te Kohanga Reo, Kaupapa Maori, Wananga and Maori primary health providers – not because we have been conned into believing that that is somehow a special right enjoyed by Maori under the Treaty, but rather because National believes that all New Zealanders have a right to choice in education and health.

Finally, we ask Maori to take some responsibility themselves for what is happening in their own communities. Citizenship brings obligations as well as rights. The Maori translation of Article 3 was very clear about that. We all have an obligation to make the effort to build a culture of aspiration – as the great Maori leaders of the past, and indeed some of the Maori leaders of the present, have advocated – not a culture of grievance. Like everybody else, Maori must build their own future with their own hands.

Most are doing that already, and it is crucially important that government policy encourages this, not discourages it.

The spirit evident in the Maori response to the new opportunities that emerged in the mid-19th century is alive and well today. It is displayed in the outstanding performance of Maori in fishing and other primary sectors, and in a range of entrepreneurial business, sporting and cultural activities.

Their efforts, their aspirations, and their focus are light-years away from the handout mentality being fostered by this Government.

A culture of dependence and grievance can only be hugely destructive of the Maori people and, if left unchecked, destructive of our ability to build a prosperous nation of one people, living under one set of laws.

Let me make one final concluding comment.

In many ways, I am deeply saddened to have to make a speech about issues of race. In this country, it should not matter what colour you are, or what your ethnic origin might be. It should not matter whether you have migrated to this country and only recently become a citizen, or whether your ancestors arrived two, five, 10 or 20 generations ago.

The indigenous culture of New Zealand will always have a special place in our emerging culture, and will be cherished for that reason.

But we must build a modern, prosperous, democratic nation based on one rule for all. We cannot allow the loose threads of 19th century law and custom to unravel our attempts at nation-building in the 21st century.

Dr Don Brash
Leader of the National Party
27 January 2004

Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0401/S00220.htm.

 
At 29/10/07 4:01 pm, Anonymous orewa 3 after hone said...

SPEECH: THE MAORI PARTY
Orewa Rotary Club
Dr Pita Sharples, Co-leader, Maori Party
Tuesday 26 September 2006

I am honoured to be able to speak at the ‘legendary’ Orewa Rotary Club, and I acknowledge President Doug Parker, and Assistant Governor, Ian Carpenter in extending the invitation to me to speak to the esteemed members of District 9910.
Last year, a very significant event occurred, right here, in Orewa.
Yes, it is just over a year in fact on the 15 September 2005, since Hone Harawira, my esteemed colleague spoke at the Orewa Rotary Club - He was welcomed by Ngati Whatua and accorded the respect of manuhiri to this club - but as you probably know the clubrooms were rented for the night - and the club itself was not present. It is great that tonight both sides are represented - I wonder, have we come full circle?
But no, the significant event I was thinking of, happened just down the road at Grand Drive, at the Northern Gateway Alliance offices.
The event was a pre-dawn ceremony in which Ngati Whatua officially handed over their responsibilities for eighty-two mokomoko to Ngati Manuhiri. Ngati Manuhiri would take over the guardianship role for the native lizards in their new home, the open sanctuary at Tawharanui Regional Park.
It was the largest ever relocation of gecko in Aotearoa, and is the first major release to be monitored. The geckos have been in gradual decline and the relocation was essential in investing in their long-term survival.
The event was important for researchers, for environmentalists, for conservationalists, for local Government, and of course for tangata whenua as we view mokomoko as very significant in their role as kaitiaki or guardians.
And yet, I would hasten to suggest that when the location of ‘Orewa’ is mentioned nowadays, it is not the consequences of the mokomoko release that first come to mind.
‘Orewa’ has become a code name for a brand of political conservatism; an abbreviation associated with conflict, with condemnation, with division.
I think it is interesting to note that although the Orewa Rotary Club has long been perceived to have a close association to National, marked by the late Rob Muldoon delivering his State of the Nation addresses here, it has only been in our recent history, that the Orewa experience has generated such hostile public and media perceptions. And as they say in politics, perception is everything.
Yet the volatile political climate that erupted after a speech given in January 2004, at this very Rotary Club, revealed that the judgements issued by Dr Brash have hit a raw nerve.
The challenge now, is how can the nation recover from the damaging impact of that speech, and Labour’s equally harmful response to it? I hope, tonight, to put forward some ideas about the vital need to move forward, together, respecting, recognising and appreciating tangata whenua and all other New Zealanders.
Can I firstly say, that I believe it is extremely sad that the beautiful area of Orewa has been re-defined as a marketing tool for political branding.
My own association with Orewa has always been so positive - your long white sand beach yields such richness of resources which have been enjoyed by my children in the seventies and lately by my grandchildren as well.
Orewa is a base for fishing and gathering shellfish; close to the Mahurangi shark fishing grounds and the Puhoi and Waiwera rivers; and of course also boasts immense forestry resources close by. The large totara and kauri of this region have been prized resources for the construction of waka.
The abundance of natural resources has also been matched with an abundance of other forms of wealth, with a rapid growth in high-rise apartments giving Orewa a reputation of a luxury beach resort.
These associations - and others you in this room will have - are far more diverse than one linking Orewa to an attack on race based policies.
And there will be others not here tonight - those who are proud of their mana whenua connection to this area -who have histories and stories and waiata and haka passed on through the generations that tell another tale of Orewa.
And indeed, even here, in the Orewa Rotary Club, there are stories to be told which go far beyond the limits of political perception.
There is the remarkable work you are doing with the North Shore Hospital Foundation, particularly your support for the advanced cardiac investigation and treatment unit.
There’s the work you do in supporting both short and long-term international youth exchange programmes; the innovative ‘fitness freaks fellowship’, and indeed the national leadership you are currently involved in, in your management of Conference 2007; with I believe a little help from your friends in Kerikeri, Waipapa and others.
Yet these initiatives and realities seldom make the headlines. Does that make them any less worthwhile? Any less honourable? I would suggest not.
I wanted to introduce the Mokomoko recovery project for another reason. The mokomoko is a guardian of wisdom and knowledge and a protector of tribal leadership. When I think of Orewa, I think of Ngati Whatua, and how absolutely fitting that I should be here in Ngati Whatua territory, able to speak of my respect for Professor Sir Hugh Kawharu Paramount Chief of Ngati Whatua, Chairman of Ngati Whatua o Orakei Trust Board for over a quarter of a century and my own personal teacher at Auckland University.
The nation has lost a distinguished leader of the people, a highly respected academic, an authority, an intellectual giant, a chief, and always a quiet, but inspiring diplomat. He has left an impressive legacy of wisdom from which to steer a path forward.
Just four months ago, Sir Hugh presided over the signing of an Agreement in Principle to settle with the Crown, regarding the historic breaches of the Treaty that occurred in Ngati Whatua land. After the signing ceremony on 9 June, Sir Hugh had this to say:
“I do urge people to read the Agreed Historical Account as knowledge of the past adds richness to our lives. I also want our people to understand more about our history, our customs and our language as we are tangata whenua and will be for generations to come.”
It speaks a great deal to me, to the Maori Party, about our ongoing journey forward, as tangata whenua and all other New Zealanders continue to negotiate our understanding about what it means to live in Aotearoa.
So where to from here? Over the weekend there have been some more unfortunate political utterances suggesting that respect for Maori should be predicated on the level of blood quota. The argument put, was that Maori are a ‘diluted race’ and that because of inter-marriage, there are few, if any full-blooded Maori left.
I want to just put on the record, my absolute horror that this argument of blood-quantum, is being perpetuated in this land, at this time, for political gain. The concept of blood-quantum (literally degree of blood) can be traced back to the United States in 1705 when the colony of Virginia denied civil rights to any ‘negro, mulatto or Indian’ - and of the course the rest is history.
The race-based prejudice attached to the blood quantum theory has many serious flaws, - here’s just a few….
1. It creates an impression that an outside authority (in this case a politician) can tell you if you can or cannot be Maori.
2. It creates a negative judgement about the impact on inter-marriage, as diluting or threatening the racial purity of the genealogy - which is not helpful nor takes account of the fact that ethnic intermarriage rates for Maori are high.
3. The argument of blood quantum - by implication - also denies the proud heritage of European New Zealanders, who are identified by a rich combination of cultural backgrounds comprising their blood quantum - from Celtic roots, Anglo-Saxon roots, indeed from a vast roll call of nations.
4. And most disturbingly: it guarantees the extinction not only of Maori, but potentially of every iwi in this country. By this standard, indigenous nations vanish when a certain blood threshold is reached and white becomes the default identifier. This is what has happened in the United States where identity based on blood quantum is legislated for and has led to the elimination of individuals from their tribal origins and status as indigenous people. The blood quantum ethos also operates in Hawaii and has led to the establishment of different ‘classes’ of Hawaiians.
5. The irrational nature of this type of thinking is that a politician might through blood quantum legislation deem me not to be a Maori and by doing so, will that also mean that I am not a Ngati Kahungunu? Are such politically motivated utterances designed to catch votes as a speech prior to last year’s elections certainly appeared to have achieved? Are they the thoughts of a naive politician or are they a cleverly crafted ploy at playing the race card once again?
This concept of dividing our blood into parts - how Maori are you - flies in the face of one of our strongest values - the concept of whakapapa - our genealogy. Whakapapa tells us everything about who we are, from whom we descend and what our obligations are to those who come after us.
Many New Zealanders marvelled at the experience of the tangihanga (funeral) of Te Arikinui Dame Te Atairangikaahu - a key component of which was this connection through whakapapa to the generations of tupuna beyond. Whakapapa was recited, tracing the descent line, connecting the late Queen and her descendants, as mokopuna of the iwi, literally a grandchild of the people.
Ngati Kahungunu lawyer, Moana Jackson, sums up for me, our opposition to this ‘part-Maori’ concept. In talking of children who have a non-Maori parent, he had this to say:
“The parts of their heritage which might be English, Chinese or Samoan is never denied, but in Maori terms they are simply mokopuna because it is impossible to have only a “part grandchild”. Whakapapa is not divisible because mokopuna cannot be divided into discrete parts”.
The Maori Party firmly believes that our pathway forward must be a broad path where we can walk together, with our distinct cultural differences valued and acknowledged.
The nation has had enough of talk which divides and fragments. Maori have had enough of being cut into bits, ‘part-Maori’; ‘half-caste’; diluted. We need the whole story, not chapter by chapter.
When I went to England I knew which statue was which in London. I knew about Sir Walter Raleigh, Sir Francis Drake, about William the Conqueror.
But I was depressed that New Zealanders did not know about Te Whatuiapiti a warrior chief, who reigned supreme over Hawkes Bay his whole life. Our history as Maori is not known, the movement of the tribes, the settlement patterns; the rich experiences of tangata whenua have been neglected and rendered inferior simply by omission.
And now we have a Government which seeks to delete the Treaty of Waitangi from our school curriculum; from our legislation; which will threaten our very foundations as a nation.
Our pathway onward must be based on Te Tiriti o Waitangi as the moral and legal source of legitimacy for all whom call this land home. The Treaty is our sacred covenant where chietainship - rangatiratanga is pivotal, and kawanatanga (governance) provides a foundation for the relationship of Maori with the Crown.
The Treaty provides us with the lead in promoting justice; respectful relationships, responsible governance; and guardianship of resources. It provides us with the inspiration for our conversations together to advance, for our mutual benefit.
The Treaty of Waitangi can also be looked upon as this country’s first formal immigration document - inviting settlement from Britain, - inviting the establishment of a Government, and - describing the conditions by which Maori and Pakeha could live together with mutual respect for each others customs and beliefs.
And today, the Treaty still remains in this guise, to take all New Zealanders forward together, to build a strong nation respecting each others differences, but promoting our own brand of unity. By accepting the challenge that the Treaty offers we can work together to progress on what connects us, rather than what divides us.
If we had a chance to talk together, we may find we have common points of view about the remarkable victory of North Harbour in the Ranfurly Shield. We might have similar concerns about the persistent access our grandchildren have to violence on their television screens. And they in turn might share common frustrations about our inability to successfully navigate our blackberry phones, or our DVDs.
We may agree that the pride of knowing one’s family tree is instrumental in strengthening our knowledge, and is a vital treasure to be passed on. We may also share how the old songs, the poetry, the stories passed on to us, are important links to our history; that the ongoing links to our families are invaluable.
And through our connections together, we may build a pathway to respecting our differences, to seeing that diversity can only strengthen us, that a better, more just future, is where we can all express our voice.
We must look to a future where we can celebrate all that is distinctive and treasured about all the peoples who inhabit this land. Where mention of ‘Orewa’ astounds everyone with all there is to offer; where people are not divided into bits or parts, but cherished for all of the experiences which constitute their identity. Where they can be as proud of being Ngati Whatua, or Ngati Wai, or Ngati Kahungunu as they can be of being Pakeha.
One of the most exciting times for me, in thinking of our pathway forward, was the inaugural Tarara Day held in 1999, which celebrated the joining of Maori and Croation cultures on the gumfields more than a century ago. More than 10,000 people attended to rejoice in the thriving Tarara heritage - providing families of Croatian-Maori descent an unique opportunity to be who they are.
Just as the gecko, our mokomoko, has been given another chance to thrive and survive - our nation deserves every chance to celebrate who we are - to create our pathways forward, together. It is a challenge which we can all meet - this meeting tonight has shown me that where there is goodwill, everything is possible.
Tena tatou katoa.
Available at: http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0609/S00578.htm

 
At 29/10/07 4:06 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

...
Open Letter To Bomber about the Dawn Raids

http://indymedia.org.nz/newswire/display/74018/index.php

Bomber please read this and also pass it onto your friend Chris Trotter.


Danyl you write very well and you are an assett to the Indy community. I agree with a lot of what you have written and you have presented your arguement well - and I agree we will find that many of the Urewera 17 are exactly as you suggest, totally innocent of any of this - HOWEVER - some of these people they have been playing soldier with are some very unpleasent people - the grenade launcher was attempted to be purchased by elements of that faction - there seem to be two groups, those roped in and those planning something - yes the cops are pricks, I've seen that first hand, been on the recieving end of it and have seen mates of mine screwed over by them - but at the highest levels a decision like this needed to be ticked off by a lot of fair minded police and those people were genuienly worried by the evidence they have - how do you think middle NZ will react to photos of activists in balaclavas and AK47s? How is the activist community helping feed this with images like that? How can we claim to be pro peace with an AK47? And if the cops were just there to break balls - why was it that no one was busted for drugs or paraphanalia when they searched those houses? Hell in one home the cops found things but they didn't bust anyone for that, they weren't remotley interested in taking anyone down for drugs, which if this was all just a beat up they would have done (activists and drugs, it's an oldie but a goodie). There is much yet to play and I really fear the consequences to our movement and the way we could be discredited for the actions of a few fools who were manipulating the conscience of some good people. I hope I am wrong and you are right, I really do.

 
At 29/10/07 4:20 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Bomber is going to be one of the few left leaning commentators who isn't going to be left red-faced and embarrassed when the evidence comes out.

Its a shame that moderate reasoned positions such as his are being drowned out amidst all the hysteria from the extreme left.

The easy option for him and perhaps more expected one would have been to jump on the bandwagon and slag off the raids and the Police. It's pathetic that he's being slighted and ostracized for keeping to the strength of his convictions.

"N"

 
At 29/10/07 4:29 pm, Anonymous Roald Dahl said...

What a Crock

 
At 29/10/07 5:40 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

But the spirit of the Treaty of Waitangi was expressed simply by then Lt-Gov Hobson in February 1840. In his halting Maori, he said to each chief as he signed: He iwi tahi tatou. We are one people.

What a crock of shit, as long as Maori get this special treatment, there will be division.. we are not one people.

Hated By Most

 
At 29/10/07 6:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"
What a crock of shit, as long as Maori get this special treatment,"

You mean like special quotas, grants, incentives etc?

 
At 29/10/07 8:59 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

please anon go away and learn what the hell your on about Anon

 
At 29/10/07 9:05 pm, Blogger Mana said...

Anonymous said...
"What a crock of shit, as long as Maori get this special treatment,"

You mean like special quotas, grants, incentives etc?

I am keen to know just what these grants, special quotas and incentives are to anon

 
At 29/10/07 9:32 pm, Anonymous Te Tiko said...

Off the top of my head

$1000 grant available every year for Maori students.

Numerous Maori-only scholarships funded by the government.

Numerous training providers offering government subsidised courses for Maoris.

If you do a degree in Maori language you can get your whole degree paid for by the government and they will cover a portion of your living costs, up to $10000 over 3 years if I remember correctly.


I can't remember what it is called but if you watch that programme on channel one you can see all those Maoris getting caught just about every episode trying to get their customary 100 scallops, 5 sacs of oysters, 50 crayfish etc for that week's tangi. They always either have not got the documentation or have got like 10 times what they were allowed to get.

Only one of my toenails is Maori and I can still get that $1000 grant every year. I will never go on the Maori electoral role because the only people who are stuck in the Treay of Waitangi handout game are the same people in my area who sit at home all day on the dole whining everyday about hard done by they are while I go to uni everyday with indians, asians and white people who study fulltime plus work 2 jobs to feed their familys.
Last time I went to the Ureweras Tame Itis mates were up there growing weed to supplement their dole money. One of them I remember saying that he moved to the Ureweras after Winz work tested him. He got a doctors note saying his mother was sick and he had to go stay up there. Just a scam to live out in the bush with the NZ taxpayer paying for the diesel generator, weed and booze.

 
At 29/10/07 9:51 pm, Blogger Thomas said...

I've talked to people who have known some of those behind bars, even read some of what they had written in the past. It's all so wrong, these people are not terrorists in any sense of the word.

 
At 29/10/07 10:18 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At 30/10/07 12:02 am, Blogger Tim Selwyn said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 30/10/07 12:24 am, Blogger Mana said...

Te Tiko said...
If you do a degree in Maori language you can get your whole degree paid for by the government and they will cover a portion of your living costs, up to $10000 over 3 years if I remember correctly.
you need to be a little more on the mark there bud, as I don't want to get into this on your guessing game, this all sounds like "student Loan" $1000 course related cost and living costs for $150 per week; if this isn't the same thing then can you please tell us what these grants are?

I can't remember what it is called but if you watch that programme on channel one you can see all those Maoris getting caught just about every episode trying to get their customary 100 scallops, 5 sacs of oysters, 50 crayfish etc for that week's tangi. They always either have not got the documentation or have got like 10 times what they were allowed to get.
But this one I like the most, te teko; which about sums it up too; (TEKO) so these Maori are after their customary fishing rights, what was it 100 scallops, 5 sacs of oysters, 50 crayfish etc; haha haha fucking hell; dude do you realise what the Treaty of Waitangi said; Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and
Estates Forests Fisheries
and
other properties which they may
collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;
So how on earth did it turn into "100 scallops, 5 sacs of oysters, 50 crayfish etc" could it be because the govt dis-regarded Letters Patent: 21st February 1879; Royal instructions to the Governor were issued by letters patent and gazetted in New Zealand. which stated that no Bills or Laws shall be passed that were in breach of the Tiriti o Waitangi. and passed these two acts: 1866 Oyster Fisheries Act: & 1990 Maori Fisheries Act: By 31st October 1992 Maori are granted 10% of the fishing quota. Not even close is it to the “full exclusive possession of the Lands and Estates, Forest, Fisheries" as said in the treaty of Waitangi, but i guess them Maoris seeking there little bit, was wrong because they didn't have documentation; I would of given MAF a copy of the Treaty of Waitangi and told them to read article 2... I personal find it a pain in the ass about quota or sizes of the shell fish; yet you can walk into Pak n Save and find most mussels under-size yet were is MAF lurking? must be part of Maori special treatment;

Only one of my toenails is Maori and I can still get that $1000 grant every year. I will never go on the Maori electoral role because the only people who are stuck in the Treay of Waitangi handout game are the same people in my area who sit at home all day on the dole whining everyday about hard done by they are while I go to uni everyday with indians, asians and white people who study fulltime plus work 2 jobs to feed their familys.
You sound quite angry for someone doing well for yourself and your family, shit why should it concern you what they do? Again i really want to know what grant this is, (not the Manaki Tauira) to me it sounds like Student loan, but again I want to be sure; Me; I'll fight for this, like you I studied to get where I am, my own business and I work hard at it; I employee Indians and Pakeha, please don't tell me I should trade my Iwi for Kiwi, my answer will be no thanks. Being Maori is important to me, if pakeha of nz wish to be called kiwi good for them, it will remain my wish to be called Rangatira, Tangata whenua, this is who we are, nothing will change; govt with its laws make dam sure of that.

Last time I went to the Ureweras Tame Itis mates were up there growing weed to supplement their dole money. One of them I remember saying that he moved to the Ureweras after Winz work tested him. He got a doctors note saying his mother was sick and he had to go stay up there. Just a scam to live out in the bush with the NZ taxpayer paying for the diesel generator, weed and booze.
With this do you judge us all the same way; do you hated your toe nail that much? I don't support Tame Iti and yep I have met him, I don't call him an activist, as he doesn't know anything, spitting on the ground or shooting that nz flag doesn't do much for me either, I have always considered him a handout, yet thats my view of him... Fighting this govt takes us into the court rooms. I even doubt if this govt has a constitution of its own, its corrupt thats for sure; yet our hope is with the court of appeal and the Privy, so you have to forgive us if we continue to fight for what was taken from our Tupuna, because thats what its about for me.

 
At 30/10/07 4:45 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Treaty references in legislation

As I’ve noted, there is now a wide range of legislation making reference to the “principles of the Treaty” without any definition of what that means – including the Environment Act 1986, the Conservation Act 1987, the Education Act 1989, the Resource Management Act 1991, the Crown Research Institutes Act 1992, the Arts Council of NZ Toi Aotearoa Act 1994, and the Hazardous Substances and New Organisms Act 1996.

The only conclusion we can reach is that successive governments have believed that this 19th century treaty has something to say about today’s SOEs and national parks, today’s schools and universities, how we go about approving or declining building permits, what science we should study, what art we should look at, and even how we should regard the new frontier of genetic science!

UNIVERSITY RULES/CALENDAR;

ACTS OF PARLIAMENT AND STATUTES LIKE THOSE QUOTED ABOVE BY DON BRASH THE EDUCATION ACT 1989;

INCLUDES PAGES 699-701;

THE DISCIPLINARY STATUTE 1998;

GOOD GOVERNMENT AND DISCIPINE;

(vi)

NO STUDENT OR STAFF MEMBER SHALL
WILFULLY INTERFERE WITH THE PURSUIT OF STUDY BY ANY STUDENT OR HIS OR HER PROPER ENJOYMENT OF THE AMENITIES OF THE UNIVERSITY;

THEREFORE THE UNIVERSITY OR STUDENTS ASSOCIATION HAS BROKEN THE LAW AND THE TREATY OF WAITANGI 1840 AND THE PRINCIPLES OF THE TREATY BY ISSUING TRESPASS NOTICES TO STUDENTS!

ANY EXCLUDED STUDENTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED FOR THE UNSATISFACTORY PROGRESS REASONS AND SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE INDEFINITELY WHILE ENROLLED AND STUDYING FULL TIME OR PART TIME!

 
At 30/10/07 2:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

"ANY EXCLUDED STUDENTS ARE ALSO INCLUDED FOR THE UNSATISFACTORY PROGRESS REASONS AND SHOULD BE ENTITLED TO AN ALLOWANCE INDEFINITELY WHILE ENROLLED AND STUDYING FULL TIME OR PART TIME!"

I have no problem with that - provided you pay for it. Or are you another one of those bludgers who simply take from society because you think its your natural right to exploit others.

 
At 30/10/07 6:41 pm, Anonymous RIMUS JOBUS said...

Mr Mana there is a $1000 grant (not loan) available to Maori students only every year. This is on top of the $1000 course-related costs (loan) and allowance/living costs.

the Treaty of Waitangi said; Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and
Estates Forests Fisheries and
other properties which they may
collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;

Their implies ownership which Maori do not have so stop trying to rape NZ seafood stocks with your bs customary fishing rights when we all know you spent the dole money on the white mans cigarettes and lion red swap-a-crates so now you have to go get 20 sacs of pipis to feed the marae otherwise they would starve like euthopians who don't have such easy access to free food.

 
At 30/10/07 7:47 pm, Blogger Mana said...

RIMUS JOBUS said...
Mr Mana there is a $1000 grant (not loan) available to Maori students only every year. This is on top of the $1000 course-related costs (loan) and allowance/living costs.
You guy seem to keep going on about this grant and not a loan, yet know one can tell me what it is called RimusJones do you know? Then spit it out, if it a grant I want to see it it its part of student loan then you both need to remove the last statement

the Treaty of Waitangi said; Her Majesty the Queen of England confirms and guarantees to the Chiefs and Tribes of New Zealand and to the respective families and individuals thereof the full exclusive and undisturbed possession of their Lands and Estates Forests Fisheries and
other properties which they may collectively or individually possess so long as it is their wish and desire to retain the same in their possession;

RIMUS JONES Their implies ownership which Maori do not have so stop trying to rape NZ seafood stocks with your bs customary fishing rights when we all know you spent the dole money on the white mans cigarettes and lion red swap-a-crates so now you have to go get 20 sacs of pipis to feed the marae otherwise they would starve like euthopians who don't have such easy access to free food.
Stay with me on this one RIMUS you might find the info a good slap in the mouth; I noticed the tone changed to over ignorant, but sweet I can deal with that; to white man cigarettes (sorry don't smoke) Lion Red (Jim beam and ice; fan myself) you talk of us raping the kai from the ocean, yet WHO puts all the under size mussels into Pak n Save and countdown or foodtown, would it not be pakeha owned business, but were MAF lurking? yet its always us that are wanting to rape the kai from the ocean. Now to your land issue; 1840 Treaty of Waitangi was signed; Maori owned 66,400,000 acres of land, fore shore seabed, Waitangi tribunal claimed Maori have right to Treaty claims under article 2; in steps the govt with confiscation via legislation; Just once I wish you home made so called red neck kiwis (I realise you are all not the same)would get there facts right; but IGNORANTS IS BLISS HUH RIMUS..

so what govt grant is this people

 
At 1/11/07 6:31 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Maori have no legal right under the treaty because the treaty isn't law and treaties are not law until they have been incorporated into statue which the treaty hasn't been. It's simply seen as a founding document and not enforable in law.

That you keep insisting Maori have this 'rights' shows you own ignorance of what the law is.

 
At 1/11/07 8:29 pm, Blogger Mana said...

Anonymous said...
The Maori have no legal right under the treaty because the treaty isn't law and treaties are not law until they have been incorporated into statue which the treaty hasn't been. It's simply seen as a founding document and not enforable in law.
What does this justify,, rrr "NOTHING" anon ... thats right nothing.. Treaty of Waitangi is one of NZ founding documents that will never change, as for it being law or in the law; (pay attention)

That you keep insisting Maori have this 'rights' shows you own ignorance of what the law is.
Lol Anon, the law for the rights I seek can be found in the 1846 NZ Constitution section 10 in cases arising between the Aboriginal inhabitants of New Zealand alone…The Courts and Magistrates of the same Province Shall enforce such Native, Laws, Customs and Usages as aforesaid. Heres a quick question: WHAT DO YOU THINK THAT MEANS? then theirs the 1852 NZ Constitution section 71; 9-10 AND WHEREAS it may be expedient that the laws, customs, and Usage’s of the aboriginal or native inhabitants of New Zealand, so far as they are not repugnant to the general principles of humanity, should for the present be maintained for the government of themselves, in all their relations to and dealings with each other, and that particular districts should be set apart within which such laws, customs, or usage’s should be so observed: oooo Anony what do you think, I think that ignoramus title is taking a general shift in your direction lol... & here another one for you Anon, would letters patent be considered law, it was one of the last direct orders to the governor of NZ; 21st February 1879, Royal instructions to the Governor were issued by letters patent and gazetted in New Zealand. which stated that no Bills or Laws shall be passed that were in breach of the Tiriti o Waitangi.... (look at that treaty reference again yet according to you its not part of law....not doing to bloody bad for not being part of law Anon, but wait.... lets see what the privy council say: Privy Council where Lord Phillimore was presiding over, he stated in his decision in the case “Hineiti Rirerire Arani versus The Public Trustee of NZ”, he stated that, (quote) “Maori customary law enjoyed legal status in European Colonial courts in NZ, in the absence of any statute indicating otherwise, that statute being enacted by the Native inhabitants themselves.” (Unquote).
Now what that decision did, was it entrenched that Maori customary law is to be legally recognised in every court in New Zealand, and the same to the decision of Lord Davey in 1900 - 1901 where he made a decision in “Nihara Tamaki versus Baker”, where “the Crown refused, in fact they were devoid actually, they refused to accept, that the issue of a Crown grant amounted to this extinguishment of the Native title. ”He stated numerous statutes in the common law which are referring to the Native title or such like, of a tenure of land under custom and usage which was neither known to lawyers nor discoverable by them by evidence.
When he made that statement, he said “that the lawyers in New Zealand were just too plum lazy to look in the statutes,” he defined that the Native title had not been extinguished

You know anon I eat, drink and sleep on this stuff everyday, I read transcript after transcript of court hearings and privy council readings and I take this govt entity to court, I question everything, infringements, MAF, Rates, Rates on Maori land, Constitution status, everything... I don't just fight for Maori confiscated land...I said it before and Ill say it again; My fight not against you, its against the govt entity, thats tries to control me. yet had no right to that at all... they have rights to you, not to me sorry

 
At 3/11/07 12:07 am, Blogger Mana said...

Anon where you go? lol

 

Post a Comment

<< Home