Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern’s apparent inability to say what Articles one and two of the Treaty of Waitangi said serves as a timely reminder about the simple contents of the Treaty.

A 20-year push for separate Maori representation in local government has encountered stiff resistance, prompting strategies to impose tribal appointees with voting rights without requiring the agreement of citizens.

The first such push occurred at Environment Bay of Plenty, where three Maori seats were established in 2001. This was after extensive consultation and passage of the Bay of Plenty Regional Council (Maori Constituency Empowering) Act 2001. Maori roll voters may only vote for candidates standing in those seats.

Auckland almost had council seats reserved for Maori elected by Maori roll voters. Facing stiff opposition from former Local Government Minister Rodney Hide, the Maori Party pushed for and got a nine-member Maori statutory board as part of the Auckland Council amalgamation in 2009. (1)

There are seven “mana whenua” seats for Auckland Maori whose iwi are in Auckland. There are two for the “mataawaka” section to represent those whose iwi are based elsewhere.

Board members sit with voting rights, granted by over-zealous councillors, on 14 of the Auckland Council’s 18 council committees as well as on other steering groups and panels. Board membership “is by way of a selection and appointment process” according to the board’s website, with no further details provided.

Debate surrounding the Auckland Maori Statutory Board apparently prompted Human Rights Commissioner Joris De Bres to write to 78 councils nationwide, in 2011, asking them to consider the question of Maori seats.

In response, three councils – the Nelson City Council, the Wairoa District Council and the Waikato District Council – agreed to start the process of establishing Maori seats. (2)

The process entitled affected electors to demand a binding referendum under section 19ZB of the Local Electoral Act 2001. Every resident poll opposed race-based seats in local government.

• Wairoa District Council, May 2012, 51.9 percent against. (3)
• Waikato District Council, April 2012, 79.2 percent against. (4)
• Nelson City Council, May 2012, 79.4 percent against. (5)

The Waikato Regional Council added, in August 2012, two Maori constituencies to six general wards voters at the 2013 local body elections. The decision was made by council and there was no request for a poll.

The National-led government tried a different approach in 2012, by imposing a treaty settlement co-governance agreement on the Hawke’s Bay Regional Council.

The regional planning committee, set up under the Hawke’s Bay Regional Planning Committee Act, comprises 10 councillors and 10 iwi appointees with two chairs, one appointed by the council and one by iwi. The appointees are full voting committee members.

The absurdity of that arrangement is that there are only nine councillors on the Hawke's Bay Regional Council.

Meanwhile, opposition to a push for separate Maori seats continued.

• Hauraki District Council, May 2013, 80.4 percent against. (6)
• The Far North District Council, March 2015, 68 percent against.
• New Plymouth District Council, April 2015, 83 percent against. (7)

New Plymouth mayor Andrew Judd lodged a complaint with the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues against the New Zealand government for permitting such a poll. He also urged Maori Party co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell to present a petition to Parliament to set up Maori wards on every district council in New Zealand without requiring a public vote. (8)

A push for a special iwi deal on the Rotorua Lakes Council began when the council lost an appeal in the Environment Court in May 2013, and was strongly criticized for “a significant dysfunction between council and iwi in the area.”

That council rejected Maori wards in November 2014, avoiding a poll, and instead, with local tribe Te Arawa, created the Te Arawa Partnership plan, which was approved in May 2015 despite heavy opposition. Accordingly, two representatives nominated by a new elected Te Arawa board will sit on the council’s two main committees with voting rights. The vote was carried 7-2.

Meanwhile, in August 2015, the top local government organisation, Local Government New Zealand, did a deal with the Freshwater Iwi Leaders Group to create a "Treaty partnership" partnership obligation for councils.(9)

The Masterton District Council in May 2016 approved the appointment of unelected iwi representatives, with voting rights, to its standing committees. Representatives from Wairarapa's two iwi, Kahungunu ki Wairarapa and Rangitane o Wairarapa, were appointed, each with speaking and voting rights, to its policy and finance, and audit and risk, committees. They also have speaking rights at full council meetings. (10)

Other councils followed, circumventing the ban on appointees voting on councils by delegating council business to the committees that the appointees vote on.

During local government elections in 2016, the Wairoa District Council revisited the question of Maori wards and polled residents, who voted 1727 to 1468 to introduce such wards for at least the two next elections. (11)

In 2017, five councils proposed Maori wards, and five petitions triggered five referenda with the following results:

• The Kaikoura District Council, May 2018, 80.03 percent against.
• The Western Bay of Plenty District Council, May 2018, 78.2 percent against. (12)
• The Manawatu District Council, May 2018, 77.04 percent against. (13)
• The Palmerston North City Council, May 2018, 68.87 percent against.(14)
• The Whakatane District Council, May 2018, , 56.39 percent against. (15)

In 2020, nine local bodies proposed Maori wards. They were New Plymouth (again), Tauranga, Whangarei, Kaipara, the Far North Regional Council, Gisborne, Taupo, South Taranaki, and Ruapehu. Tauranga was the first to have sufficient signatures validated, with Northland soon to follow suit.

Three days later, Local Government Minister Nanaia Mahuta abruptly announced that the law would be changed to outlaw binding referenda on Maori wards proposals. That move rendered the nine petitions null and void.

Ironically, 19 years earlier Mahuta spoke strongly in support of the Electoral Act 2002, which in 2021 she declared to be racist. (16)

Once polls were banned, 35 of New Zealand’s 78 councils either thought that racial voting on council was “bold and wise” or caved into activist pressure.

Maori wards were promoted as “allowing Maori a seat at the top table”, which gave the impression that Maori were somehow barred from standing for council. This is a false impression because there are and have been numerous Maori councillors for almost as long as there have been councils. 

Facts that are never discussed are that:

• Maori ward candidates don’t have to be Maori.
• Nearly as many Maori voters are on the general roll and Maori roll candidates won’t actually be accountable to them even though Maori roll candidates are purported to represent "all voters" in the area.
• The number of Maori roll seats is worked out on the basis on an inflated “Maori electoral population” which is at least twice the number of Maori roll voters.

The next step in the Maori ward campaign is 50 percent of council seats should be assigned to Maori roll voters to recognise so-called “Treaty partnership”. The push has already started.

A stocktake of council-iwi participation agreements posted on the Local Government New Zealand website shows an array of agreements on all but six of the nation’s 78 local bodies. The Waipa District Council in Waikato has six such agreements. Six councils in the South Island have no such agreements. (17)

Political rights in democracies rooted in Britain are based on citizenship and not ethnicity. These rights are for everyone regardless of race. The introduction of iwi appointees into local government undermines accountable democracy by stealth.

Click here to see our Separatist's Gallery, listing Councillors who have voted in favour of separatism and race based rights.

Sources

1. Local Government (Auckland Law Reform) Act 2009
2. Nelson and Waikato agree to establish Māori seats on Council, Whitiwhiti Korero, Human Rights Commission
3. Wairoa council backtracks on Maori wards poll, Radio NZ News, March 12, 2012.
4. Poll clearly renounces Maori seats, Waikato Times, April 5, 2012.
5. Nelson MP rejects making Maori seats on councils a right, Radio NZ News, May 21, 2012.
6. Maori Wards Out For HDC. May 3, 2013.
7. Resounding no to a Maori ward for New Plymouth district, Taranaki Daily News, May 15, 2015.
8. Maori Party calls for law change, NZ Herald, April 10, 2016.
9. Iwi Leaders and Local Government New Zealand sign Memorandum of Understanding, August 6, 2015.
10. Appointed iwi members get voting rights, Stuff, May 4, 2016. http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/news/79613952/Appointed-iwi-representatives-get-voting-rights-on-Masterton-council-committees
11. Wairoa District Council, http://www.wairoadc.govt.nz/wairoa/your_council/elections_2016/index.htm
12. Four districts reject Maori wards, https://www.teaomaori.news/four-districts-reject-maori-wards
13. Ibid
14. Ibid
15. Ibid
16. Nanaia Mahuta and the Maori wards, https://democracyproject.nz/2021/02/15/graham-adams-nanaia-mahuta-and-the-maori-wards/?fbclid=IwAR0l0xTRMzrGXIzX5WJZF8jiC91BvcCpOI09qcqlYf0IEV4No-eUZykc0Jg
17. Draft stocktake of iwi participation agreements

Hobson’s Pledge says that wherever it can be reasonably established that the Crown unlawfully confiscated property from any individual or group, compensation should be paid, provided however that any such compensation should be “full and final”. 

However, of the 79 settlements detailed below, which totalled $4.3-billion to December 31, 2019, fewer than half involve land confiscation which only occurred in Taranaki, Waikato, the Bay of Plenty, and some areas in Gisborne and northern Hawke’s Bay.

Treaty breaches alleged by the remaining claimant groups are mainly to do with the sale of land, with claimants wanting more money. Confiscation claimants also complained about land sales in their areas.

Although confiscations were highly contentious at the time, with substantial opposition in Parliament, they were nevertheless legally carried out under the New Zealand Settlements Act 1863.

Those of us living in the relative peace and security of the 21^st century often overlook the fact that 19^th century settlers were fighting a war they could not afford to lose and the threat of land confiscation had a real impact on which side tribes chose to support.

Another overlooked fact is that the total financial amount involved in each settlement, referred to as the “quantum”, is calculated by following a simple formula which is mainly to do with the land area the tribe claimed to own in 1840 and the number of tribe members today. (1)

Under that formula, the tribe that claimed the biggest land area in 1840 and the most registered members today would expect to get the biggest pay-out. Another assumption is that every claimant group should expect a pay-out.

The divisive process of Treaty settlements began more than 30 years ago, when a Labour Government made the highly unusual decision to commission a seven-member tribunal to settle all Maori grievances back to February 6, 1840, the date the Treaty of Waitangi was signed.

Maori Affairs Minister Koro Wetere said this was to address “the mounting tension in the community that springs from the sense of injustice that is harboured about the grievances that are outstanding”. (2)

The first small settlement, at Waitomo, involving a $1 million loan, was achieved in 1990, followed by a commercial fisheries settlement worth $170 million in 1992. The first big land confiscation settlement, with Waikato-Tainui, also worth $170 million, was agreed in 1995.

There was a row over how much this was going to cost. The Bolger National Government proposed a cap of $1 billion, calling it a “fiscal envelope”. Tribes objected and the cap was dropped in 1996.

Nevertheless, the two big tribes that had settled early negotiated into their settlements a clause that entitled them to a proportion of all settlements over $1 billion in 1992 dollars.

Waikato-Tainui would get 17 percent of all future treaty settlements and Ngai Tahu 16.1 percent. Top-ups started in June of 2012, when the $1 billion mark (in 1994 dollars) was reached.

The amounts of these ongoing top-ups are not reported by the Government, although they can be found in the annual financial reports of both tribes. The total amount of these top-ups, as detailed in the table below, is $543.8 million, which is substantially more than both tribes received in their 1990s settlements.

The process is explained in detail in the “red book” titled Healing the past, building a future, which is published by the Office of Treaty Settlements. (3)

Of course, the promise of cash brought a flood of grievances. A total of 2034 claims were registered by September 1, 2008, the deadline for historical claims. This compared with just nine grievances a delegation of chiefs took to Queen Victoria in 1882.

Investigation of grievances has a long history with investigations by land sale commissioners in the 1840s, confiscation compensation commissions in the 1860s, the Native Land Commission in 1920, and others.

A further commission chaired by Supreme Court Judge William Sim in 1926 led to a series of settlements – including the Ngai Tahu Claim Settlement Act 1944, the Taranaki Maori Claims Settlement Act 1944, the Waikato-Maniapoto Maori Claims Settlement Act 1946, and more.

A number of claims have been settled a number of times. For instance, Ngai Tahu’s $170 million settlement in 1998 was the fifth settlement originally generated by a single complaint to do with the tribe’s sale of 20 million acres in 1848, known as the Kemp purchase. The complaint was about reserves not being marked out.

Both the Treaty settlement policy and process ignore basic assumptions we have about our democratic system.

Democracy is based on the idea that everyone should have equal rights and participate in making important decisions.

At no stage has the New Zealand public been given any say in the increasingly expensive policy of paying cash compensation for events that occurred up to 178 years ago.

The Treaty settlement process circumvents our democratic processes. Once a settlement is signed, the agreement becomes legally binding and legislation to implement the settlement is merely a rubber-stamping exercise.

Groups created through the settlement process, which are known as post settlement governance entities, benefit from the system without being required to contribute.

Amendments to the Charities Act meant that from April 1, 2003, any organisation that administers a marae situated on a Maori reservation may qualify for an income tax exemption as a charity. These tax-exempt tribal entities don’t contribute to the government coffers that provided their seed capital.

The 30-year Treaty settlement process has created a network of wealthy claimant groups with substantial political power.

These groups have regular meetings with the Prime Minister, have been granted co-governance rights on a number of councils, are demanding the right to control water, and expect to help determine resource consents under the proposed iwi clauses in the Resource Management Act.

Settlement deals include rights of first refusal to surplus Crown properties (for up to 176 years), statutory acknowledgements of interest in streams, rivers, lakes, mountains, and scenic areas, geographic place name changes, and co-governance arrangements with local bodies. These arrangements entrench race-based co-governance for years to come.

The financial redress of the 79 settlements detailed below were compiled from details on the Office of Treaty Settlements website and include claimant group, date of settlement, and dollar value to December 31, 2019.

That website publishes a quarterly report that lists all settlements to date without publishing the financial redress of each settlement. That conceals the total amount paid in financial redress.

Each settlement includes financial redress (cash and/or property), rights of first refusal on the purchase of properties within the claim area, cultural redress, and co-governance arrangements. 

* The relativity clauses in the settlements of both Waikato-Tainui and Ngai Tahu transform, for those two tribes, an additional settlement of historical grievances to a gift that keeps on giving. The clauses mean that both tribes can make a request for payment every five years ensure that the value of their settlement remains relative to the total value of all Treaty settlements – which is 17 percent for Waikato-Tainui and 16.1 percent for Ngai Tahu. Bear in mind that conflicting information exists about these payments.

* Taranaki tribe Ngati Tama announced in 2012 that it lost its entire $14.5-million settlement received in 2003 blaming poor investments

*Central North Island Forests Iwi Collective also received $223-million in forest rentals held in trust since 1989. That is not included in the financial redress total because it was regarded as tribal money from 1989.

* By mid-2013, bad investments and bailouts were blamed for wiping out almost half the value off Taupo tribe Tuwharetoa’s $66-million share of the 2008 “Treelord’s” settlement.

*Waikato River. The Office of Treaty Settlements argues that this is not historical redress and so should not be included in the settlement total. This is despite the fact that the settlement is named the “Waikato-Tainui Raupatu Claims (Waikato River) Settlement where “raupatu” means “confiscation”. The $211.8-million total includes all payments for 27 years. A total of $130.8-million was paid up front.

*Ngati Manawa also received $12.2-million worth of Central North Island forestland included in the Central North Island deal.

Sources

1. Treaty of Waitangi Amendment Bill, December 18, 1984. Hansard

2.Healing the past, building a future. https://www.govt.nz/assets/Documents/Red-Book-Healing-the-past-building-a-future.pdf

1. Letter, Office of Treaty Settlements to He Toa Takitini, September 5, 2013. http://www.hetoatakitini.iwi.nz/uploads///Quantum_factors_for_He_Toa_Takitini_Letter-_5_September_2013.pdf

Indoctrination is the process of instilling ideas and attitudes by persistent instruction. The New Zealand government systematically fosters politically correct ideas and attitudes on the Treaty of Waitangi, our history, and the position of Maori people in society.
Once upon a time, New Zealand culture was heavily dominated by British culture and traditions.  Older New Zealanders would remember going to the movies and being required to stand for a rendition of the British national anthem ‘God Save the Queen’, singing Anglican hymns and reading the Bible at school prize-givings, and listening to a speech by some dignitary on the opening of anything official.
All that has changed.  Now, the use of Maori-culture welcoming ceremonies and choreographed war dances at official functions, school prize-givings, graduations, at the opening of government buildings, and at funerals, has created a Maori-cultural frame for day-to-day existence.
Official occasions in New Zealand in the 1950s appeared exclusively British. Today, despite the fact that we are now a multi-ethnic multi-cultural society, they appear Maori.
New Zealand government departments take politically correct thought very seriously.  In this policy area, those expressing ideas counter to the official narrative are condemned or shamed with accusations of racism.
Nurses must be trained in “cultural safety”. This home-grown concept emerged here in the late 1980s as a framework for the delivery of “more appropriate” health services for Maori people.
Culturally safe practices, according to the Nursing Council of New Zealand, include actions “which recognize and respect the cultural identities of others, and safely meet their needs, expectations and rights”. Such behaviour is contrasted with culturally unsafe practices which are “those that diminish, demean or disempower the cultural identity and well-being of an individual”. (1)
An early casualty of cultural safety in the 1990s was student Anna Penn, who said she had been “bounced out” of her nursing course for being branded culturally unsafe by the polytechnic’s Maori elder (kaumatua) after she questioned the denial of her right as a woman to speak on a marae.
Penn completed her training in Australia but has since returned to work in New Zealand.
There is a version of cultural safety for student teachers. At the application interview, prospective students must state their relationship with the Treaty of Waitangi and affirm loyalty to treaty principles.
During induction, Maori songs are learned and sung, Maori ceremonial greetings (mihis) are learned, and a trip to a Maori meeting house (marae) is customary.
Treaty principles form the moral code of the New Zealand curriculum. Woe betide any student who points out that the word “partnership” does not appear in the treaty.
The NZ Graduating Teacher standards say that “graduating teachers are required to have knowledge of tikanga and te reo Maori to work effectively within the bicultural context of Aotearoa New Zealand – no recognition of the fact that New Zealand is no longer a bicultural country, but rather one where many cultures mingle. (2)
Every teacher has his or her own story about cultural indoctrination in our schools and teacher training institutes.

In universities too, getting approval to undertake a new research project often requires the researcher to show how the research relates to the Treaty, and would benefit Maori.

Most people won’t say a word against treaty orthodoxy for fear of being called racist. Such name calling is merely a bid to shut down debate and public scrutiny.

Sources
1. Nursing Council of New Zealand 2002, p.9
2. Preparing the parrots