David Seymour's Treaty Principles Bill. What's So Very Wrong With Jim Bolger And Jack Tame?
Watch the video HERE
—————————————–
As I have said, we must get behind Winston, Jones, Seymour, emailing them regularly with encouragement and our full support to expunge co-governance and Maorification from New Zealand.
Leaders need encouragement constantly.
Email Luxon urging him to do what the people of New Zealand elected him to do, which was to rid the country of Maorification and co-governance.
Warn him that he will be a one term PM if he doesn’t.
Here are their email addresses:
Shane.Jones@parliament.govt.nz
Winston.Peters@parliament.govt.nz
David.Seymour@parliament.govt.nz
Christopher.luxon@parliament.govt.nz
Please SUPPORT the petition to end the Waitangi Tribunal HERE
Support Simeon Brown's Bill To Get Rid of Maori Wards
Please SUPPORT his Amendment HERE to get rid of Maori Wards
What’s wrong with Jack & Jim?
By my assessment the biggest perpetrators eroding Crown ownership falls squarely at the feet of former Prime Minister Rt Hon Sir John Key and his Attorney General Chris Finlayson for it was these two chaps who engineered repeal of Helen Clark’s Foreshore and Seabed Act 2004 which deemed the title to be held by the Crown.
Rt Hon Helen Clark made it clear to the then Chief Justice Sian Elias, following the latter’s speculative commentary about the sanctity of Maori Customary law, that the ultimate law-making body in New Zealand was its Sovereign Parliament.
Alas! Helen Clark’s protection was repealed and replaced by National’s John Key via the Marine and Coastal Area Act 2011. But it didn’t start there.
Rt Hon Jim Bolger and Hon Doug Graham’s mid-nineties proposition to a Special National government caucus on Thursday morning (formal caucus is Tuesday mornings), that they intended to introduce under Urgency, a Bill (i.e., law) to give rights to Maori over the foreshore of our country which would empower them to “detain i.e., arrest and inspect”, fishers’ catch of the day where they had been fishing within 12 nautical miles of the coastline.
When the Prime Minister of the moment, informed caucus and at least three of his cabinet ministers for the first time, that this was the hidden agenda, uproar ensured – particularly from the three cabinet ministers who claimed they had no knowledge of the “deal”.
They did well to shout, but as members of the “Executive”, they were bound by “Collective Responsibility”, so shout is all they did lest they lost their rank – not a good idea for the pension factor!
My elevation to Executive rank, was not to arrive until my next term, so I was not bound and gagged. Later that day I went “Live on Holmes” TV in Auckland and called out the Prime Minister – who had no choice but to appear “Live on Holmes” in Wellington.
The debacle which followed was – distasteful – but the outcome was, Mr Bolger backed off his stated intention earlier that day to ram through under Urgency, legislation to grant Maori special rights over the rest of us Kiwis.
Dear Sir
After reading an article by Gary Judd 9 May 2022 “Uphold rule of law: condemn co-governance and coercion” For the purposes herein I limit comment to two areas that are interrelated. Those are Treaty breaches by Maori and alleged partnership.
Mr Judds ARTICLE 9 May 2022 “Uphold rule of law: condemn co-governance and coercion” https://www.garyjuddqc.com/post/uphold-rule-of-law-condemn-co-governance-and-coercion
Without diving too deeply into the legal status of the Treaty of Waitangi, [Treaty]. (either in 1840 or 2024) it appears that at least from a Maori perspective they allow their representatives to promote that the legal consequences of the Treaty are significant and mainly in their favour. In your section on “Constitutional heritage” you have been silent on strictly legal consequences the Treaty may or may not imposed on 6 February 1840. However, you are crystal clear that upon perfection of the Treaty “. . . New Zealand inherited as law in 1840 Acts of the Parliaments of England, Great Britain and the United Kingdom which included statutes of constitutional and historical significance”.
In the infamous 1987 partnership case, Somers J in his judgement 29 June 1987 [C.A. 54/87 https://www.abuseincare.org.nz/assets/Evidence-library/Part-1/New-Zealand-Maori-Council-v-Attorney-General-1987-1-NZLR-641-CA.pdf at P15 said “On 21 May 1840 Captain Hobson proclaimed the ‘full sovereignty of the Queen over the whole of the North Island’ by virtue of the rights and powers ceded to the Crown by the Treaty of Waitangi, and over the South Island and Stewart Island on the grounds of discovery. These proclamations were approved in London and published in the’ London Gazette of 2nd 0ctober 1840. The sovereignty of the Crown was then beyond dispute and the subsequent legislative history of New Zealand clearly’ evidences that Sovereignty in New Zealand resides in Parliament.”
Richardson J at page 8 of his judgement records “It now seems widely accepted as a matter of colonial law and international law that those proclamations approved by the Crown and the gazetting of the acquisition of New Zealand by the Crown in the London Gazette on 2 October 1840 authoritatively established Crown sovereignty over New Zealand.”
POST 1975:
In more recent times there have been numerous commentators that have attempted to advance arguments that Maori did not cede sovereignty to the British realm. These commentators include but are not limited too the Waitangi Tribunal and Claire Charters, the head author of the 2019 He Puapua report.
THE POST 1840 SETTLERS.
My argument in this opinion is that it matters not whether Maori ceded sovereignty. What the courts have very clearly said is that Maori, English settlors and subsequent NZ Government understood that the settlors would be governed by British sovereignty complete with its legal systems, Notwithstanding that some present day Maori commentator’s now dispute ceding Sovereignty, my argument is that they knew full well and agreed that the settlors method of governance was though the British sovereign and legal methodologies. Further, it is irrelevant what Maori knew and did not know about the settlors governance systems. They expressly agreed to allow them to settle under those predetermined circumstances and rules. Any breach of those circumstances is a breach of the treaty by them.
At page 16 of Richardson J’s judgement he finds”
“As Adams, Fatal Necessity – British Intervention in New Zealand 1830-1847, in a chapter headed “The Obligations of Good Faith” has observed (p 239): “The acquisition of sovereignty was undertaken from motives both humanitarian and nationalistic, both idealist and pragmatic, both for the benefit of the Maoris and the benefit of the settlers”: and, he added, the 2 main reasons for British intervention were humanitarian concern to protect the Maori from the worst consequences of European invasion of their country and to protect British subjects wishing to settle in New Zealand. Indeed the preamble to the Treaty reflects those dual objectives.”[emphasis added]
In my opinion if either Maori, or, past, current, or future governments have done anything contrary to British law that has adversely effected the settlors or their subsequent generations then such an effect must be actionable in the same manner as Maori grievances are actionable. This is why the English version of the treaty is vitally important. In my opinion it is unarguable that the settlors relied upon the English text of the treaty when making their choices to emigrate. I example British riparian rights in 1840 as a possible grievance..
PARTNERSHIP
Most settlors would have understood that British law did not include the Crown being in partnership with anyone. Upon that basis the settlors agreed to emigrate. Current Maori assertions that Maori are in partnership with the crown is a direct attack upon the Treaty by Maori against settlors.
The writer has significant history on partnership matters. I note that there is some ambiguity on who the alleged partners were. At page 21 of his judgement Casey J records “ . . . that I perceive to be a relationship akin to partnership between the Crown and Maori people” whilst at P35 of his judgement Cooke P records “The Treaty signified a partnership between races,”. Notably, given pure miscegenation practices between Maori and settlors, arguably the purity of the Treaty has been seriously distorted whereby many are now using ethnic argument to generate racial gain.
Before any further discussion on partnership is had it would be extremely dangerous to promote any form of agreement until the parties are settled and the rules of any potential partnership are crystal clear. Interestingly, one of the appellants counsel W.D. Baragwanath presided over my case CA390/2008 [2008]NZCA 416 when he became a Court of Appeal judge. He knew exactly what the indices of partnership were and the consequences of breaches by one partner.
Whether there was/is a partnership of not the Settlors, Maori and the Crown are all parties to the Treaty. Throughout the entire judgement all 5 judges and the references they introduce to their judgement conclude that the Treaty preamble forms an integral and inclusive part to the Treaty. Any settlors through the 1840 British statute and common law are unarguably granted protection.
I have resisted argument on the absolute or legal consequences of sovereignty as known to the settlors. This is because the treaty promotes the same apolitical form of sovereignty that cannot be altered by successive governments. There were over 500 Maori signatories to the treaty with no one sovereign head.
Russell Hyslop
Absolutely on the money Ross. It should now be compulsory for every politician to read, learn, and retain the three plain, clear and simple statements that ARE the Treaty of Waitangi.
This document has been twisted, bastardized, extolled and used all for 0ne objective………MONEY, either in cash or asset gifting which can produce money through business, production, leases etc etc. and MILLIONS and MILLIONS of tax-payers money has changed hands and continues to do so. As I have previously stated, what if the “top” self-appointed heads of Maori Elitism shared even a fraction of that money with their people.???
EVERY Maori, including the new white-skinned with European names who have come out of the “bush”, should have their own free-hold house, a holiday home in Wanaka or Queenstown, a couple of new cars and a Harley Davidson each. They could have built their own hospitals, schools and dental facilities, rest homes for the elderly,,,,,the list is endless, oh, and don,t forget a prison system and the odd visit to the UN or some other overseas country where they can extol how badly they are treated as second class, My question is this. Where has this wealth evaporated to, where has it gone ???? I think maybe into a program for breeding more geese,, after all one is not enough. Breeding more geese means they will then produce far more GOLDEN EGGS. Kaipai
Good submission article on NZCPR today 4/1
I have been observing, albeit slowly, how New Zealand, aka. Aotearoa these days, is changing into a country poised to become a country of; “Haves’ & Have Nots.”
This is not how an elected democracy should function me thinks, i.e. (a select group of people are given favour & privilege over all the rest of us. One for All &
All for One, NOT
I find myself thinking about leaving New Zealand these days just to get away from the growing division. Should I sell my home, take my money and leave? It hurts me to see what is happening; this sense of ‘entitlement’ displayed by many angry Mouri. Why is it that you feel this entitlement over the rest of us?
There were people here before you arrived and you treated them very harshly e.g. enslavement, murder and worse. Colonialism has lifted you out from those dark days.
Furthermore, should a person with 1/32 ancestral Mouri have greater privilege than their fellow countrymen? NO.and not even a 100%er, if there were such a thing. Not the darkest of skin nor the grandest of tattoos will make any difference.
In the end, we all go to the grave & the only thing that matters is … our relationship with GOD and how we treat each other while we’re here, such silly people, myself included.
A house divided cannot stand, I hope peace prevails and there is no bloodshed.
100% in agreement EK