New Zealand Parliament subservient to the Māori Voice to Parliament.
By TONY MOBILIFONITIS
THE buzz-word and cause celebre among the leaders of New Zealand’s indigenous elite these days is “co-governance”, regardless of the reality that the NZ Maori have had special seats in Parliament for 150 years. As of 2020, there were seven special Maori seats in the NZ Parliament, which one might think of as a world-leading example of indigenous co-covernance.
But the UN-backed indigenous grievance industry in New Zealand has long ignored that reality, giving the impression Maori are still an oppressed minority seeking redress and reparations from past wrongs. Breaches of the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi are still being investigated and compensated by the Waitangi Tribunal, much in the same way that Aboriginal land right claims have been granted over millions of hectares of Australia following the Mabo case.
But more than just correcting Treaty breaches, the New Zealand indigenous groups are re-interpreting the Treaty, claiming the Maori version signed by tribal chiefs in 1840s is actually all about a “partnership” between the Maori and the Crown. But according to District Court Judge and law lecturer Anthony Willy “Maori and the Crown are not partners in any sense of the word. It’s constitutionally impossible for the Crown to enter into partnership with any of its subjects.”
The settlements made in New Zealand have lifted the value of assets now controlled by Maori groups to an estimated $100 billion and the ongoing claims are so extensive, they are a major part of the country’s political discourse. Several members of the new Maori corporate elite working for these organisations explained on a government-funded channel recently that all this was “ho-hum” and nothing to be concerned about.
As Cairns News previously reported a settlement in just one case in Western Australia resulted in the government pledging six of south west WA Aboriginal corporations more than $1 billion over 10 years. Similarly, the assets of just one NZ indigenous group, the Ngāti Whātua Ōrākei Trust and its subsidiaries, have grown from NZ$350 million to NZ$1.5 billion in just 10 years.
Behind this is the decades-long, Marxist-inspired grievance tune, sung by the indigenous activists worldwide with UN enforcement lurking in the background. In Australia it also ignores the reality of the Aboriginal people in Parliament. Now they want a the “Voice” just like the Maori activists demanded “co-governance”. They are one and the same thing.
So what is meant by “co-governance”? In short, it’s a further step along the road from the apparently meaningless MPs in Parliament. It means having “shared control” over the nation’s natural resources – sea, water, lakes, rivers, forests and land. For example the former Urewera National Park in the NZ North Island is already run on the co-governance system between a tribal group and the Department of Conservation.
A key Maori activist behind this development was former NZ Communist Party (Maoist) member Tama Iti, who continued to agitate even against his own tribal people running the new co-governance system. As noted by political researcher Trevor Loudon, in March 1996 Tama Iti attended the 6th General Assembly of the People’s Plan for the 21st Century (PP21) in Katmandu, Nepal.
It is interesting to note that while Iti the radical Maoist communist did his work, Jacinda Ardern, before she became prime minister, was at the other “more respectable” end of the socialist spectrum as leader of Socialist International’s youth movement and working with WEF globalist Tony Blair in the UK. Both movements, however, are globalist in objective.
New Zealand’s longest river, the Waikato River, is also now controlled jointly with the Waikato River Authority by a body named Te Arataura, formed as part of the Waitangi Tribunal settlement claim. The chairman of the organisation, Tukoroirangi Morgan, says co-governance is about “equal numbers working together with treaty partners” who are water industry representatives and councillors from regional municipalities.
That sounds all very reasonable until you get another perspective on it from concerned New Zealanders who are not merely spouting politically-correct narratives. For instance, Democracy Action notes on its website: “…under the Labour government, the spread of co-governance has become endemic. Not only is the co-governance model increasingly being implemented by the government to manage natural resources, but it has now extended to public services such as the new water utility companies, and the new national health system, which now has a dual governance structure – one for Māori citizens and the other for all other New Zealanders.”
So we’re seeing in reality a developing “dual governance” system, based on race. The similarity to South Africa’s old apartheid system is obvious. But rather being suppressed because of their race, a new global class of mostly mixed-race people with links to pre-colonial indigenous people is rising up with UN backing to challenge the authority of national governments and to take control of national resources in “partnerships”.
Now grassroots people being given a say in natural resources use could be a good thing, but limiting those grassroots people to one group – those identifying as indigenous – simply opens the door to control and manipulation by the UN indigenous bureaucracy who lay down the international rules and frameworks under UN trreaty obligations.
That situation aligns perfectly with the ongoing drive for one-world government and the overthrow of sovereign nation-states. These indigenous groups are obliged to act in accordance with the UN globalist system, which is in reality a front for the global oligarchy and their technocratic elite. One only needs to read the UN’s own Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to see how this works. This is exposed in more detail in Nicolle Flint’s article reposted in Cairns News.
Daniel Wild, a spokesman for Australia’s conservative Institute of Public Affairs notes that the Waitangi Tribunal started off as a purely advisory body, exactly the same as our Voice to Parliament is supposed to do. “But as a result of a series of interpretations by [New Zealand’s] High Court, it has become embedded into every single major policy decision in New Zealand and now actually has veto power over a number of major pieces of legislation which, in essence, has actually made the New Zealand Parliament subservient to the Māori Voice to Parliament.”
The ABC, strident Voice supporters, predictably took issue with this view put out by the IPA and set their “fact checkers” to work to refute it. But as often is the case with “fact checks”, it’s more about pushing a contrary opinion, and in this case the rebuttal actually confirmed what the IPA was saying.
The ABC-RMIT fact check quoted “experts” Richard Boast, a law professor at Wellington’s Victoria University, who called the statement “absurd and completely unfounded”. Another law professor, Claire Charters, from Auckland University and co-director of the Aotearoa New Zealand Centre for Indigenous Peoples and the Law, said it was “incorrect” and “doesn’t make sense”.
But when the fact-checkers quoted the Waitangi Tribunal’s website, it stated it is a standing commission that “makes recommendations on claims brought by Māori relating to legislation, policies, actions or omissions of the Crown that are alleged to breach the promises made in the Treaty of Waitangi” – almost exactly what the IPA spokesman said.
Democracy Action says the negative effects of the 50/50 co-governance model in New Zealand puts a disproportionate amount of power in the hands of one sector of the community, which disregards the principle of equality of citizenship – one person, one vote, each of equal value.
It also gtves veto power to those unelected by and therefore unaccountable to the community, thereby undermining democratic accountability as well as being racially divisive, fostering a “them and us mentality”, which can have a detrimental impact on social cohesion and race relations.
“New Zealand is at a crossroads. Our choice for the future is either as a democratic state based on equal rights for all, or an ethno-nationalist state with separate, race-based governance,” Democracy Action states. Ditto Australia, which is why we must say NO to “The Voice” entrenching this system in our Constitution.
Of course, not all people with indigenous backgrounds – Maori or Aboriginal – buy into this scheme. Senator Jacinta Price is just one leading example promoting the No vote. Many already know that throwing more millions at some new indigenous bureaucracy is unlikely to achieve much. The model that exists in the SW of WA
The bigger picture now is that the UN, World Health Organisation, the numerous think tanks and non-government organisations are all compliant fronts for the oligarchical elites around the World Economic Forum. This is exposed on the excellent website stopworldcontrol.com.
The website points out the importance of the information war in this global takeover. It’s the very reason for the numerous fact-checking websites run by media corporations in conjunction with universities and private foundations.
The script has been written for the “indigenous” Elites and they are puppets being used to destroy their own nations from within. Explained by William Cooper in Behold a Pale Horse and here in audio form for those who don’t like to read: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PL7p5h0zJgI
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pat from Vic… Dunno if you were just ranting for tension relief, but I think you put your finger on a credible solution. It would not be difficult to talk some departing German industrialists to form a project to manufacture remote-controlled drones that can then be used to eliminate the long list of NWO psychopaths without appreciable collateral damage. Anybody standing close would be a certified arsehole anyway, so merely serendipitously expanded justice.
Does anybody know the phone numbers of the CEOs of Krupp, Meserschmitt-Blonkow-Bloom, BASF, or Siemens? I’ve misplaced my codex.
tonyryan43 said – “If not reined in, it will destroy both nations because it will terminate all vague semblance of democracy and prevent genuine democracy from evolving.”
Why start now?
BTW, the message I’m getting from all of these conversations is – get the f*ck OUT OF THE UN NOW!
… or maybe we could enlist Barrack Hussein Obama’s assistance and just DRONE every last one of these WEF arseholes (I know, that’s a SHITLOAD of drones and Hellfire missiles, but hey, we gotta start SOMEWHERE).
LikeLiked by 1 person
“New Zealand’s longest river, the Waikato River, is also now controlled jointly with the Waikato River Authority by a body named Te Arataura, formed as part of the Waitangi Tribunal settlement claim.”
It will be very interesting to find out if the Waikato River Authority or the Te Arataura is a ‘stakeholder partner’ with the Mekong River Commission of the Chinese Communist Party.
United [Communist]Nations dicta for water resources of sovereign nations is for ‘multi-jurisdictional water management’ with the Indigenous stakeholders.
The Murray Darling Basin Authority is under the MRC here in Australia.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I grew up at Ngati Toa Pa, my two best mates going on to start the Black Power movement in NZ. Many years later, we engaged in a joint protest at land thefts at Box Hill near Auckland. Meanwhile, I was the only Pakeha in a Maori shearing gang and later, was selected as one of the wood carvers of a new meetinghouse near Levin. Fairly obviously then, I had reasonably close access to Maori thinking of the time and was fairly sympathetic to the objectives of activists.
But a decade later, Kiwis gullibly caved into claims not substantiated by history.
The reality was, the Waitangi Treaty aimed at two things: Ostensibly, it prevented the white theft of Maori land, and it made all Maori land sales unlawful unless every member of the tribe agreed to the sale, in writing.
What happened then, which confounded gullible Kiwis, just as the Voice is conning gullible Aussies, was that Maori thugs threatened to beat up or kill any Maori who would refuse to sign.
Thus, Maori land continued to be stolen. Some of the beneficiaries were Prime Ministers. Naturally, all of this caused bitter division but it came at a time of cultural resurgence and revival. In the meantime, most Maori were now mixed race and the new culture made a lot of spurious claims, including that “the land is our mother”, an assertion stolen from East Arnhem Land and ludicrously false when applied to Maori, who were not Indigenous and who ruthlessly butchered many of the previous inhabitants of NZ.
Kiwis have been raised to believe they are special. The phrase “Kiwi Ingenuity” is peppered through innumerable conversations, the speakers oblivious to corresponding claims made by every other nation group on the planet. They also firmly believe they are the best-educated people on the planet, which was never true in the past and is even less true today. But this kind of delusionism discourages introspection. Had Kiwis examined themselves more closely, they would have realised that a tyrannical form of paternalism was crushing Maori confidence and aspirations. “Good old Hori, the best bloody bulldozer operators in the world” is a phrase I heard a hundred times. Implicit in this was the belief that Maori were incapable of functions requiring intellect. Yet the smartest Kiwi I ever met was a Maori property investor. He was one of the three most intelligent people I have ever known.
Ordinary people have difficulty articulating their anger and resentment and this eventually broke to the NZ social surface in a rolling demand for Maori superior equality. Australia is in the throes of the same revolution. If not reined in, it will destroy both nations because it will terminate all vague semblance of democracy and prevent genuine democracy from evolving.
Ironically, it will stifle genuine advances towards equal opportunity in health, education, and prosperity.
LikeLiked by 1 person
What about the Waitaha people who were aggressively displaced by the Māori? Do they get an equal voice too?
Prime Minister at the time John Key sent Pita Sharples to the UN at New York. Sharples told the UN he was indigenous.
The problem is Maori are not indigenous. The Moriori were first then the Waitaha.
The Patupaiarehe fit in there somewhere and others, Chinese
The Maori were colonisers the European were not which is supported by the Treaty of Waitangi.