Unelected iwi interests are determining the future of the Hauraki Gulf.
Their representatives control the development of the Hauraki Gulf marine spatial plan. They will ultimately recommend the plan to relevant councils and agencies for implementation through their statutory processes.
For some hard to fathom reason, the project (christened ‘Sea Change’) has been set up as a 50/50 partnership. It is comprised of 8 representatives of regional iwi – known as mana whenua – and 8 from participating government agencies, i.e. the Hauraki Gulf Forum, Auckland Council, Waikato Regional Council, Department of Conservation, Ministry of Primary Industries and Territorial Authorities.
To add to the racially selected make-up of this steering group, one of the Waikato Regional Council delegates represents the newly created Nga Tai ki Uta Maori constituency. Consequently the steering group is made up of 9 members representing Maori interests, and just 7 representing the general population.
This arrangement is another example of how our democratic principles are being subverted. Power is being demanded and granted on an unelected, unaccountable racial basis. There is a significant shift in the balance of power away from the general population and towards self-appointed iwi interests.
For a list of the members of the steering group see: http://www.seachange.org.nz/General/Sea-Change-Project-Steering-Group-members/
Questions you might well ask your Councillors and MPs:

  •  Who exactly do the “mana whenua” representatives actually work for? How does one join this group and obtain power? By what process do they get their positions?
  • Apart from them representing just one population segment, have they been checked for any other conflicts of interest?
  • Who pays their costs?
  • How is their performance evaluated and by whom?
  • What confidence can ratepayers have that the interests of all New Zealanders in the region will be protected?

(Note: The Hauraki Gulf approximates 4000 km². Its waters surround the eastern side of the Auckland Region, the Hauraki Plains, the Coromandel Peninsula and Great Barrier Island.)

60 thoughts on “Devoid of Democracy

  1. Not only the group based on racial criteria but the recommendation of the iwi cannot be challenged. The outcomes are far from democratic as the Maori members hold an effective veto position. Can anyone imagine the consequences if the situation was reversed and non-maori interests could dismiss any input by Maori? Only in NZ, you say?

    1. You’re right on the money there mate; if you’re a Maori you don’t need democracy you just climb on the dictatorial gravy train.

  2. I don’t really get how this “racial” power play and control can happen in a “democracy”, especially when there’s so much “intermarriage”. We do all live, work and play together after all. I also wonder about the potential for corruption i.e. consents bias, hurdles and costs for businesses operating in the Gulf. Can these “representatives” be voted out?

  3. Another step in the direction of a Maori autocracy. When will it dawn on the rest of us that that sort of autocratic rule is what Maori had before colonisation, and that is how they want to run things now?
    They even run their families the same way (do as you are told or else), although there are exceptions of course. We have principles of government that are supposed to prevent this sort of dictatorial nonsense.
    Not having a written constitution is a problem, but having one will be more of a problem if the government write it, assisted by the iwi who will incorporate the “principles of the treaty”. Isn’t it odd how no one has been able to point out what those principles actually are? I think that the principle they have in mind is “pay up, shut up (or be branded racist) and do as you are told”…..

    1. Its hard to pick from all of the comments which are the most racist and uninformed, but yours is up around the top. There is no such governing system as autocracy in Maori society (prior to colonisation and for a long time after the signing of the treaty. Moreover, when you say Maori, who are you referring to? It was sovereign and independent hapu that signed the treaty – not some collective named ‘Maori’. In fact, ‘Maori’ (meaning ordinary)only adopted this name so that those settling here could distinguish them from non-Maori. Prior to this, Maori identified each other by their whanau and hapu affiliations.

      Also, we do not have principles of government that prevent autocracy. We have principles of government that support autocracy! Please do your research on this, you will learn a lot. We most certainly do not, and have never, lived in a democracy since the westminster governing system was adopted and implemented in 1852-3. If you are having trouble understanding what I mean, then tell me – when were Maori given the right to vote? What were the criteria for voting? Why – if we were such a democratic country – could Maori outnumber non-Maori 10:1 and not have any representative in parliament? Don’t get me started on Maori seats…

      And your final comment is perhaps most disturbing. The principles of the Treaty are not determined by Maori. Actually, nothing is! The principles are derived from case law through proceedings where the treaty has been cited. Now, think about it, who has the authority in case law?? The Crown! And you can find the principles if you look for them. They aren’t obscure, they are clear and there for you to find. And they certainly don’t benefit Maori as you may want to suggest. Why? Because they were not developed by Maori.

      Please, Kathryn, do your research. Find out about the declaration of independence, Lord Normanby’s 17 page letter explaining that ‘Maori’ are sovereign, the nature and scale of land sales by the New Zealand company. Finally, I urge you to consider the ample evidence to show that Maori, in spite of all these difficulties, still welcome everyone with open arms.

      1. While what you say may be true Simon, nevertheless ANY law or regulation that gives (or takes away) anything from anyone on the basis of their race is, by definition racist.
        Such laws are a sure recipe for dissent and upheaval, and it matters not who gains and who loses from such government edicts. The law MUST apply to everyone equally, and at present it does not. Things can never be as they were before colonisation (thank the gods!), and the ONLY way that will work is for all law to apply to everyone, no matter what they ethic origins might be. To maintain otherwise is, in itself, racist; and so by definition are the Maori seats in Government, both local and national. There is no ambiguity here. If you want a Government predicated on race-based privilege, be honest enough to say so instead of trying to fudge the issue with fine (and very subjective) historical references.

          1. Simon you seem a very knowledgeable person but Kathryn is right any system based on racial privilege is a recipe for disaster.
            We have it NZ already Maori seats, Maori Rugby teams, Maori TV,Maori Tax rates. Maori quota for Police, Maori Quota for government departments.The list just goes on and on. Part Maori Hone Hariwera calls NZ Europeans “white motherfuckers” but that’s OK not a word from the race relations conciliator. I find this totally unacceptable. But watch this space Simon us non-apathetic kiwis are on to your racist agenda. We are just waiting for the gutless politicians to man up.

      2. Really Simon. I find your arguments quite strange.

        When you talk about Maori outnumbering non-Maori 10:1, and not having any representative in parliament – I assume you are talking about in the early days of parliament in NZ when Maori would have had no idea how to participate in such a thing. You seem to forget that they were a stone age people before Europeans arrived here.

        And as for saying that Judge Robin Cooke’s ‘principles of the treaty’ do not benefit Maori because they were not developed by Maori – that is ridiculous in the extreme. Maori are today benefiting from hundreds of thousands of things, brought to this country or developed here, that they had no part in developing.

        I suggest that you spend less time in that Uni of yours with the likes of Margaret Mutu and go and have some chats with Elizabeth Rata. You seem to have been well and truely indoctrinated.

        1. Response to Simon
          You are missing the point .
          We are all talking about 1 law for all regardless of skin colour or ethnic background .
          A few examples of entrenched racism in New Zealand.
          Which most people are too scared to talk about because the academics and so called PC do gooders jump up and down and label us who speak up as right wing racists.

          Like getting rid of part Maori seats in parliament ……..racist
          Getting rid of part Maori quota for police……………..racist
          Part Maori all blacks…………………………..racist
          Trainee part Maori doctors only have to get a 50% pass mark in some subjects everyone else 80%…………………………………..racist
          Treaty claims for alleged wrongs of the past ……………racist
          Part Maori wanting to be appointed to councils …………racist
          Part Maori trusts 19% tax every one else at least 40% higher………..racist

          I could go on.Wake up kiwis apartheid is on the way.

          1. Actually, Greg, I do honestly feel that apartheid is already here. Anything based on race, and not available to the rest of us, is surely apartheid. I totally agree with your article. Something must be done to halt this seemingly runaway racist train. We MUST all be equal under the law, no matter what.

            Actually when you think of it, there have been special initiatives forever for people of Maori descent and rather than these people moving ahead under their own steam, these racist racial initiatives keep on increasing. So, you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to see that these policies just are not working.

            Having said that there are many decent hard working citizens with Maori ancestry who are getting ahead under their own steam. If they can do it, why can’t the rest of them do it without special treatment? I feel Sir Apirana Ngata was so right when he said ‘welfare will be the downfall of my people’. It doesn’t work and the lazy ones just lay back holding their hands out. Why should they work when the State just keeps on keeping on paying out more and more – seemingly forever?

    2. Hi Kathryn,
      Don’t blame you for writing “we don’t have a constitution”, but this lie is being spread by Treatists in the hope people, like you, will believe it.

      The truth is that when Lieutenant Gvnr Hobson of New South Wales, Australia, witnessed the last signature to the Treaty his superior, Gvnr Gipps, extended the borders to encompass “all of the islands of New Zealand.

      We’d be Australians today if it were not for Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution.

      This Royal Charter split us from NSW, gave us our first constitution, English law only, established our own Legislative Council and Executive Council, our own courts to administer English law and eventually our own flag. New Zealand was born.

      I have corresponded with the directorship of 1law4all to bring the above Royal Charter to the fore but so far I have been ignored; making we wonder, why do they call themselves 1law4all and ignore the Royal Charter which could blow the Treaty industry apart.

      I remember a few years ago all Parties were campaigning on equality, you know the result.


      1. Hi George. Perhaps I should have said “we don’t have a written Constitution, per se”, which we don’t. It’s all in “constitutional principles” throughout our civil law, and therefore changes with those laws. The whole idea of a Constitution is to protect the people from their government, not to entrench government’s power. ONLY the people should be able to change the constitutional principles by which a government is in itself governed. Otherwise you have what we have now, a virtual (if presently relatively benign) dictatorship.

        1. While the present corrupt Constitutional Review has been sidelined by the election, it is utterly essential that any future attempt includes a binding referendum and a clear majority of opinion before implementation. Unfortunately such a review is probably needed before any further indoctrination renders the NZ public unable to understand the true meaning of an egalitarian society. To maintain a genuine democracy means there can be no ‘classes’ of citizenship. All must be equal and not judged by race, ethnicity, religion or any other discriminatory criteria.

  4. I really don’t know how these Maoris get away with this and it really infuriates me!

    Is 1law4all going to form a political party to contest seats in this year’s election?

  5. Few are aware when Lieutenant Governor Hobson of New South Wales witnessed the last signature to the Treaty his superior, Governor Gipps of N.S.W., extended the boundaries of N.S.W. to encompass “all of the islands of NZ”; NZ then governed by English law practiced here and here is where the Treaty planted us.

    The Treaty was superseded and laid to rest in Archives, Wellington, by Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840; our true founding document and first constitution.

    This Royal Charter split us from N.S.W., enabled Hobson’s promotion to Governor of New Zealand, gave us our first constitution, English law, our own Governing Legislative and Executive Councils, our own Courts to administer English law and enabled our own flag.

    This Royal Charter gave birth to New Zealand and 16th of November aught to be celebrated as our founding document, as it was last year, the day on which New Zealand was founded.

    There are no racial components in English law.


    G. Graham

    1. Blimmin’ heck! This makes me more frustrated! So why don’t we adhere to this Royal Charter and consign this “treaty” to the museum where it belongs!

      1. It amazes me why people keep blaming Maoris, are you all stupid?

        Any half brain would know Maoris would be powerless without Government pushing them along. It takes law change to raise Maoris to their present political high, only Government holds this power and are now so deep into false history, dubious settlements, Maori privileges that truthfully cannot be substantiated and partnership agreements to apartheid that might be termed as seditious (why was sedition repealed) Ministers could now be so fearful of court action they might be too worried to come clean.

        Recognition of Queen Victoria’s Charter has nothing to offer guilt ridden Politicians but long term jail sentences and the more politicians who confine this document in Archives the more will support Treaty corruption to save their skins.

        All proving the need for a political Party that will expose the Royal Charter to light.

        The above proving the point, if any new political Party offers equality in law but does not openly support Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 you can bet your life their promises are as false as the rest.

        The Queen’s Royal Charter is thee measuring stick for the truth.

        G. Graham

    2. Hi Ray,

      You struck the nail on the head here, the Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 did relegate the Treaty to Archives!

      But 1law4all has a problem, the directorship will not reply to my correspondence on this matter raising the question, are they genuine?

    1. Does anyone know what happened to that Te Reo rort by Lynda Tawhiwhirangi and Iritana Tawhiwhirangi where they werte scamming all that money from the government (taxpayer) funded school back in October? There was an uproar then but it seems to have disappeared so have they gotten away with it and are still spending our hard earn’t money?

      1. You want a meeting between Act, Conservative and 1law4all. Why?

        Not one has taken the “all revealing Royal Charter on board”!

        It amazes me how many people sleep walk.
        G. Graham

        1. Well, I never actually suggested a meeting with all these parties but I do think a critical mass is needed so how can this be achieved?

        2. We need a meeting between them because we will get no traction doing what we are doing here ,agreeing we have a major problem but in reality we are just having a talk fest.
          We need action because nothing will improve if we just keep talking about it on this forum.
          Conservative,Act and 1Law4all all agree we have a problem so with common ground and a united front we may get some traction.Just agreeing with each other on this site will achieve ZERO.

          1. ACT agree we have a problem??? They gave it a huge leap forward by creating the Super Racist Auckland City Council. What we need is Rodney Hide coming out, confessing that he totally messed up and pleading with Government to fix it and stop duplicating his mistake throughout the country.

          2. I’ll have to disagree with you there Greg. Nothing good will come of aligning ourselves with already established political parties. We need to register this movement as a political party and start spreading the word. Nothing will happen over night and a lot of hard work is needed to progress towards a better NZ.

            The single policy model is also a problem, we need to have policies on many other areas of NZ life. There is so much wrong and unfair here. When I speak to other people I find their views similar to mine, people instinctively know what is wrong and right. However, what they say is usually followed by the statement ‘but what can we do about it’.

            Lets give them something to do about it, 1law4all must form itself as a political party in its own right. With policies on the major issues facing NZ today. Aligning with others such as Act etc. will corrupt the aims of the movement. At the moment this is no equality before the law. There is so much inequality before the law not only in Maori/others but in other areas of NZ life.

            This could be a great country and it’s small enough to put right if peoples views were listened to. This is not such a big ask but the current political system refuses to listen to the people on any issue.

          3. Act Party? Don’t you realise Jon Banks’ is John Key’s lap dog.

            All rave about Don Brash’s Orewa speech, but have they read it? I have and found it to be 8 pages of equality waffle with the last two pages business as usual.

            Suggest you forget about Act and think of the fact that NZ First is the only political Party to date to challenge the Gravy Train and have Hon Michael Cullen make this confession on Teletext on 08-11-07.

            “A private members bill(by NZ First) sought to remove the phrase “Principles of the Treaty of Waitangi” from the statutes has been rejected by parliament.

            Deputy Prime Minister, Michael Cullen, argued that removing the phrase would undermine the partnership between Crown and Maori and undermine Maori interests and rights under the Treaty.”

            The above is only one of a number of serious attacks on the Gravy Train by NZ First and makes this Party the ideal coalition partner, especially if they take the Royal Charter of 16-11-1840 on board which relegated the Treaty to Archives.

  6. It seems to me that radical Maori are stealthily positioning themselves to a point where they either own or control much of what goes on in this country. If you think they are over represented in unelected positions on committees such as Sea Change above, this is nothing compared to the many Maori only meetings going on every day, week in, week out where they srategise to prise more money/land/control from our weak-kneed politicians who are asleep at the wheel while this goes on. Maori are getting themselves into a position whereby they will never need to work. This is being pushed urgently by radical Maori which is why there is little or no consultation. They realise there is a groundswell of discontent brewing among the working people of all races in this country but it may be too little, too late. They have got themselves a way better organised than many realise.

  7. I guess I am not the only one that has had a gutsful of the
    special treatment that is being dished out to the Maori’s.
    And they call this Democracy–what a joke.
    The sooner that onelaw4all fields some candidates in the next election the better chances there will be in creating some sort of fairness in the current system.
    The National Government have had plenty of chances to improve the system in this respect but have made less improvement than the preceding stupid Labour Governments.
    ITs time for some real action and I hope all the population of NZ that have a liberal dose of common sense gets right in behind onelaw4all.

    1. Yes, I voted for the National candidate at the last election but am thoroughly disillusioned with them now! The Wellington National MP wrote asking for our opinions and when I replied giving my views on the National party bending over backwards for the Maoris, she just replied with the usual claptrap about injustices, equality etc etc! I’ll never vote National ever again!

  8. Very scary
    Maybe 1 law for all should team up with the conservative and act and unite as a political group instead of the fragmented groups they are
    How about a meeting between the 3 to get more grunt


  9. So many people have absolutely no idea how entrenched these ‘Maori run’ issues have become. It is going to take some dismantling if we ever get to that point before they have completely taken us over beyond our control.

    I will vote for a Party who will guarantee they will fight for racial equality under the law, will dismantle the Maori Seats and delete anything in legislation that is based on race. We are all New Zealanders!!

    1. It is nearly too late for any existing political party to take the risks to bring NZ to its senses. Bizarrely, it may go on until we become some sort of Gilbert and Sullivan country that is laughed about around the world. By that time any recovery will be painfully slow and conflict ridden. Many young Maori will be substantially disillusioned when there is any effort made to redress the imbalance. People don’t give up free lunches and power when it has been promised for decades.

      1. Yes, and when it becomes a ruined G&S outfit our currency will be worthless then our life’s savings will be worth nothing overseas so we can’t leave. That’s one of my fears.

        I think G Graham at 12.02 pm was right: ie that part-maoris couldn’t on their own take what they have been given by corrupt politicians. Corrupt white politicians started this ball rolling – and they keep it rolling – instead of originally telling the part-maoris to get lost.

      2. I hear what you are saying Helen ,but we must try.
        That is why I suggest Conservative,Act and 1law4all need to sit down and get serious about this institutionalised racism.
        If they showed some unity they may be surprised how much support and money they would receive to fight this rubbish.
        They may differ on some policy but on this one ,the Maoriisation of NZ they are singing from the same hym sheet


        1. I’ve never looked at what the Conservative party stands fro but I’ve been an ACT supporter for many years but unfortunately, just never seemed to be able to gain any traction so that’s the problem, how can we build credibility?

    2. Helen, It’s one thing a Party “saying” they will support one law for all but another showing intent by flaunting Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution.

      Who needs “lip service”, there’s enough of that out there already.

      G. Graham

  10. Because he is making all of the maori garbage even worse John Key should go down in NZ history as the most-hated prime minister the country has ever had. He is a despicable traitor to NZ – he is destroying the country.

    The time is here now for a single-issue party to strive for one law for all. If one law for all is not established, NZ is doomed I think. It will become a Third World country, then go back to being a Stone Age one. It will be destroyed by part-maoris and by the politicians who are enabling them to destroy it.

    Perhaps Don Brash was the last chance NZ had of ever making any sense. The single-issue focus of 1law4all is a another last chance!

    1. Hi Barry,

      It’s obvious you didn’t read Don Brash’s Orewa speech, 10 pages long it was 8 pages of equality with the last two pages “business as usual”.

      How loud did John Banks shout before he was shuffled to the side? Not a squeak.

      Conservative want a referendum. Yea right!

      Have any one of three taken the final step to truth, the Queen’s Royal Charter? Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, need to be careful lest I embarrass them.
      G. Graham

  11. To raise awareness with the “she’ll be right” voting public, 1Law4All will need a big marketing campaign, more political and marketing skills, some quality candidates and lots of money. Any of you offering?

      1. Brash has had his time, not because he was wrong or wasn’t a nice guy but, simply speaking, the media deliberately sensationalized his message and destroyed his chances of success. The mainstream media of NZ is extremely biased against any rational approach to Treaty issues. Training in Media Studies means that you have to toe the line on race issues and espouse the Treaty Partnership nonsense and the rest of the PC rubbish about race relations.

        1. Yes, I’d agree with that! They were exactly the same at Massey and when I argued that universities are meant to be places where people can express their views, I was labelled a racist!

          1. Our Universities have become hotbeds of PC thinking and racially biased (against European) philosophies. If one wants a job with the Government these days, one has to pay at least lip service to what they euphemistically call “cultural values”. This ethos is creeping into the private sector too, from what younger people than I are telling me.
            I am very glad that I am no longer in the workforce!

          2. I feel that it’s the tutors who control and encourage this though as we had a lecture on Maori culture in our managemewnt paper where they said we have to prepare for members of Maori applicatnts to bring members of their extended family along to the job interviews for support. I replied that this was ludicrous and if those candidates couldn’t even manage an interview on their own, how on earth are they ever going to do the job on their own? The reply was that this is required under “The treaty of Waitangi!” I replied that this was facical and asked to see where this was written which of course, she couldn’t! I said that the result of these ridiculous requirements will just discourage emplyers from interviewing Maoris so how is this going to help them? I did pass this paper though, despite this!

        1. Hi Greg,

          If you read my blog on Brash above he backed down in the last two pages.

          Who would know the email address for Dot Com, the German guy with no fear who asked the P.M., “Why are you going red Mr. Key”?

  12. This Sea Change “co-governance” model illustrates how it actually enables control by about 3% of the population.

    For any board/committee etc, first you have the racially selected Maori representatives.

    Then you have the representatives selected from ALL the population including Maori = double dipping.

    In any sizable group there will be a reasonable chance that at least one of the general board members will also be a Maori activist, and this appears to be the case here.

    Then you have a majority of Maori activists, who then have control.
    And remember, Maori in the Maori and Mana parties are the 3% extremists (i.e. Maori have ‘special’ and/or extra rights) out of the 15% total with Maori heritage.

    (The Maori + Mana party got about 3% at the last election.)

    And this made up steering group was only created due to the existence of the UNELECTED Maori Statuary Board forcing it through by providing a majority in a committee, and the Maori Statuary Board was created by National giving in to demands by the Maori party.

  13. I forgot to mention the almost certainty that there will be a ‘Deborah Coddington’ or two that will agree with the Maori activist privilege arrangement and vote with them.

    In practice, co-governance means (minority)Maori control.

    I can’t get over the number of people who believe that special privilege for a white minority in South Africa is wrong
    special privilege by a brown minority in New Zealand is good!

    The brainwashing by the “education” system has worked all too well.

    1. Coddington completely lost the plot a bit over 15 years ago. An overnight change from rational to loony. She is now typical of the growing numbers who should have been missionaries in 19thC society. These folk are all too willing to take on a false sense of guilt for imagined wrongs and buy into racial privilege as some form of weird atonement. Wellington is full of these revisionists and their numbers are growing. A place to be avoided by thoughtful people!

  14. I would have thought a marine biologist, a representative for recreational fishermen and a representative for commercial fishermen would have been more relevant? I would like to know what qualifications the mana whenua have to comment. Guaranteed they will be getting good consultation fees for this and contributing very little valuable information.

  15. In consideration a number of Government attempts (including Dame Claudia Orange) have failed to find fault with http://www.treatyofwaitangi.net.nz in which Martin Doutré has proven there are no exclusive rights in the Treaty.

    Queen Victoria did not have the power or authority to grant Maoris any rights unavailable to her own British subjects according to English law & the Magna Carta and the fact that when Lieutenant Governor Hobson of New South Wales, Australia, witnessed the last signature to the Treaty his superior, Governor Gipps of N.S.W. extended the borders of N.S.W. to encompass all of the islands of New Zealand and here is where the Treaty planted us, a dependency of N.S.W. in the same manner as Van Diemen’s Land (now Tasmania)ruled under English law. So if the Treaty didn’t found N.Z., what did?

    Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter of 16-11-1840, our true founding document and first constitution, split N.Z. from N.S.W.; founded N.Z. as a separate British colony; allowed Hobson to be promoted to be our Governor; gave us our first constitution; English law; courts to uphold this law; established both Legislative & Executive Councils to Govern us and eventually our own flag. New Zealand was born on 16-11-1840.

    The above Royal Charter ratified the Treaty in that it delivered everything the Treaty promised and in it there is no exclusive Maori Privilege for the above reasons.

    All exclusive Maori privileges have been introduced by acts of Parliament, without which Maoris would be able to stand tall same as other New Zealander’s who do not require Government assistance.

    If you want to throw blame, blame Governments not Maoris.

    Never heard of the quietly held Royal Charter? Go to http://www.onenzfoundation.co.nz I expect it to be exposed by 1law4all if they serious about one law for all.

    1. You are so right G. Graham. It is quite beyond belief that Queen Victoria’s Royal Charter is so unknown to the wider population. It needs to be brought to the fore and acknowledged as our true founding document – the one that separated New Zealand from NSW and made us a British Colony in our own right.

      Why do I think it needs publicity? Because the Treaty is being treated by all and sundry as our founding document when it is not. Through the Treaty and its recent inventions so much of our country is being divided along racial lines with much of it being given away.

      The Treaty made us all equal under the law and that’s how it should be. Nothing else. We need an end to everything based on race.

      1. That the Treaty gave Maoris equality is a fallacy.

        Equality could establish apartheid.

        The word used in the Treaty is “same’ as the people of England”.

        One cannot use the word “same” to establish the apartheid 85% of New Zealanders are currently oppressed by.

Leave a Reply to Greg Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.Required fields are marked *

%d bloggers like this: