The fraudulent treaty merry-go-round. The politicians’ disgraceful copouts.

Ignorant and aggressive comments have come through to our 100 Days movement from correspondents who think they are well-informed on treaty and related issues – but in fact have simply been thoroughly brainwashed. 

From genuinely knowledgeable researchers, including the indefatigable Bruce Moon, have come relevant analyses of much of the quite blatant lies that have been told about our coexistence in this country. 

Sir William Gallagher, too, is right. (See below.) And shame on so many who know very well what has been happening, but have kept their heads down and lacked the moral courage to speak out. All credit to individuals who have, and who get too often vilified by those with their snouts in the over-flowing trough of racist government hand-outs…

 http://www.stuff.co.nz/business/99247542/sir-william-gallagher-claims-treaty-of-waitangi-coverup

Unfortunately, the mainstream media, largely lazy and under-informed, do little except regurgitate most of the fanciful, distortionary and quite untrue pronouncements from radical activists who profit hugely from the treaty industry. The fact that they are helped by very well-funded lawyers with their eye more to the size of their fees than the truth of these issues is highly relevant. So is the intellectual laziness of our politicians, particularly the thoroughly wet “liberal” former lawyers more concerned with the euphoric welcome they get on the highly politicised maraes – than with genuinely serving the interests of this country.

Unfortunately it is not been to the benefit of genuinely struggling Maori, deliberately sidelined from the lucrative treaty settlements. However, some at least, having had inculcated into them a sense of misplaced and ongoing grievance by the treaty industry vanguard, have become useful recruits to the growing push towards racial separatism in this country. We have reached the stage where a South African immigrant recently wrote to me that having encountered separatism and its evils in his home country, he has been taken aback and dismayed to find this happening here.

I recall my father telling of his teaching days on the East Coast of the North Island at the time, where he spearheaded a  movement to send abroad cans of pork and puha, a much loved delicacy, to the Maori troops at the time. The cordial relations between Maori and non-Maori ensured the success of this fine initiative.  It is now is a sad fact that the deliberate fomenting of interracial tensions in this country has been done very largely for financial gain, very much encouraged by well-placed and largely well-paid radical activists, often with a very minor degree of Maori genetic inheritance, who quickly learned to trade off this for financial advantage – and media centre-staging. Ego problems have been only too obvious…

A treasured CD I have, a copy of which I sent at the time of its launch to a Maori friend, contains wonderful recordings of  the Maori Battalion (28) singing songs during World War II. As the New Zealand Herald commented in 2006, “These unique recordings were taken ‘live’ on location in the sands of Egypt, during gunfire in North Africa, and between green hills in Southern Italy by the Middle East Recording Unit of New Zealand’s National Broadcasting Service. Often with little or no rehearsal and sometimes under appalling conditions, the recordings captured the raw exuberance and vigour of the performances.”

This stunning record of what was known as The Singing Battalion is the pride of so many New Zealanders, both of part-Maori and Euro-New Zealanders descended from the colonists – and respecting the men and women of all cultures who did so much to reach out across what could have been racial divides of their times. So successful were that intermarriage was taken for granted to the extent that there are no longer any full-blooded Maori in this country.

However, from another correspondent comes the following:

WELL THIS ONE CERTAINLY FLEW IN UNDER THE RADAR

“I see that the coalition agreement negotiated by Winston First with Labour contains a commitment to establish a Museum at Waitangi honouring the men of WW2’s  28 (Maori) Battalion.

”That’s nice … but what about similar for 18 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 19 Battalion and Armoured Regiment; 21 Battalion, 22 Battalion; 23 Battalion; 24 Battalion; 25 Battalion, 26 Battalion;  Div Arty et al.    Those soldiers too served with honour and distinction.   What’s so special about 28 (Maori) Battalion?

”But hold on … the long established and internationally recognised National Army Museum at Waiouru (Te Mata Toa) honours all those who fought regardless of race.   Why this then? … especially from a Party that campaigned on doing away with the Maori seats because they were race based and divisive (and folded on their commitment at the first opportunity).

”Humbug and double humbug.   NZF couldn’t lie straight in bed.    A good spend of taxpayer money – NOT.”

And from yet another commentator. “And regardless of the above, such a museum properly belongs in the excellent Army museum at Waiouru – where of course the Maori Battalion and all its brothers are proudly celebrated already.”

The ongoing pick-pocketing of New Zealanders’ hard earned incomes to continue prioritising costly payouts –  at the importuning of radical activists – is a political disgrace.  With the Maori economy now worth $50 billion – yes billion – any initiative set up to benefit part-Maori only should be paid by those who Maori activists who  can well afford to carry the costs themselves. To continue raiding the pockets of New Zealanders at large is simply inexcusable. This hasn’t stopped National, Labour, and now disgracefully, New Zealand First, from going further down the same path.

Noticeable on our 100 Days page have been the ignorant comments of those who have swallowed a highly sanitised version of our co-history. The contribution below from the highly respected historian, Nelson-based Bruce Moon, highlights the difference between the downright lies that are being peddled – and the truth of events in which the media shows little interest. 

Our hope is that at least some of those wedded to the reinventing of our joint history will take a reality check when reading the below – and the correcting of blatant untruths…Don’t miss the added notes! 

 As below – the downright fabrications.

“The distortion of the history of New Zealand by racists for political and financial advantage continues at a relentless pace.  This has never been more so than in the events preceding a “so-called “Land Wars Day” on 28th October 2017.  

“On 21st February 1864, in a brilliant and humane action at dawn, designed to minimise loss of life on both sides, troops under General Sir Duncan Cameron occupied Rangiaowhia, breadbasket of the Waikato rebels on which their dominant pa at Paterangi depended.  With this setback, it was not long before the rebellion was quelled. 

“Furious at being so outwitted, the rebels soon concocted the odious lie that a church full of women and children had been burned to the ground and other atrocities committed.  Nurtured as “oral history” by the Ngati Apakura tribe, this travesty of the truth remains active to this day, being related at length by one Vincent O’Malley in the “NZ Listener” for 25th February 2017.  By contrast, with access to accounts of actual observers, one a Maori lad at the time, there is my own description of the real events in the March 2017 issue of New Zealand Voice”. 

“Others, notably Dame Susan Devoy[i] and historian Jock Phillips[ii] have likewise repeated the lie of the church-burning.

“A party of students from Otorohanga College having visited the site and been fed the false tales of the locals, a petition for a “Land Wars Day” was organised by teacher Mariana Papa and presented to Parliament by students Leah Bell and Waimarama Anderson.  Parliament failed to investigate the validity of this petition which was accepted without question and so 28th October 2017 became “Land Wars Day”.

“On this occasion appeared a report, authored by Martin Johnston, senior reporter of the NZ Herald,[iii] who had evidently interviewed student Bell, now at university, teacher Papa and historian O’Malley.  While it makes no direct accusation of any church-burning it is riddled with gross falsehoods about many aspects of New Zealand’s history including the Rangiaowhia affray. 

“It is despicable that school students should have been made the vehicle for the spreading of such false tales but it is doubly despicable because the truth was known in Otorohanga College nearly two years ago.  Principal Timoti Harris had received from me an accurate account of events at Rangiaowhia[iv], enclosed with my letter to him of 3rd December 2015.  I wrote again on 11th December 2015 and having no reply, again on 3rd January and 27th March 2016.  His belated reply subsequently was received after he had retired as school principal.

“I wrote also to the Te Awamutu RSA who responded with total silence and the Library whose reply was short but informative. Tony Membery, Principal of Te Awamutu College, briefly acknowledged my second letter to him, concluding: “I believe this will put an end to our correspondence on this matter.”  Other enquiries elicited that at Tony Membery’s school, discussion of Rangiaowhia was avoided, though a tale was current there that what was an old rebel’s white blanket had metamorphosed into a white flag of surrender!

“And so the tales continue to fester as so clearly shown by journalist Johnston’s report. Thus: 

No. 1: ”College students’ shock at the burning to death of residents of a Waikato village is at the heart of the annual day to remember the New Zealand Wars.”

IA: The burning to death of seven rebels was their own fault.  They fired first.

1B: There were no “New Zealand Wars”.  There were tribal rebellions.

No. 2: “the invasion of Rangiaowhia”

2: Rangiaowhia was British sovereign territory.  Any action to recover it from rebels was entirely legitimate and it is a travesty to call it an “invasion”.

No. 3: “the largely undefended village of Rangiaowhia”.

3: As events proved, there was a substantial number of armed rebels in the village and caches of arms were discovered in whares after the occupation.

No. 4: “[It] was attacked by British forces on February 21, 1864”.

4: Shots were only returned to rebel fire.  Rebels attacked first.

No. 5: “Buildings were burned with people inside them.”

5A: Only one building was burned with people inside.  This was the whare, fashioned as a gunpit, from which old fool Hoani Papita/John the Baptist, shot and killed Sergeant McHale at point blank range when called on to surrender.  In the subsequent exchange, the hut made of dry vegetation probably caught alight from the discharge of rebels’ or troops’ firearms.  Nobody could be sure.

No. 6: ”The Great War for New Zealand, Waikato 1800-2000”

6A: This reported title of O’Malley’s book is grossly misleading.  There were inter-tribal wars before Europeans arrived.  These intensified after 1807 when the tribes acquired guns, with Maori victims killed and eaten on a colossal scale.  This was New Zealand’s “Great War”.

6B: “1800-2000” is a gross exaggeration.  Tribal rebellions started with the Kawiti/Heke rebellion in Northland, 1843-5; mostly a sequence of skirmishes until their attack on Kororareka/Russell which was suppressed largely by Maori forces loyal to the Crown.  Other rebellions spanned the period 1859-1880.  What does O’Malley date of 2000 imply? (Note: The Taranaki Museum made a similar allusion in its falsehood-filled exhibition in 2011-3.)

No. 7: “Rangiaowhia was a refuge for women, children and the elderly.”

7: The amount of firing by rebels when Cameron’s force was discovered refutes the lie that in any sense it was a “refuge”. In fact,  before any action commenced, Captain Wilson of the cavalry gave women and children an opportunity to evacuate which they took.  None were killed or wounded except two daughters of missionary murderer Kereopa, who remained in the burning whare.  The village was actively engaged in growing food supplies for the rebels and as such a legitimate objective for government forces.

No. 8: O’Malley: “I argue in my book that the evidence that people were deliberately torched to death is clear and unambiguous.”

8: There is not a skerrick of genuine evidence for this false claim which should demolish for ever O’Malley’s reputation as a credible historian.

No. 9: Bell: “the British forces broke the rules of engagement. … the grief was still very real”

9: Given the lies fed to poor Leah, this is so but in truth the troops acted with much restraint, particularly towards women and children, in an action which, but for the recklessness of one old fool rebel chief, would have been almost bloodless.  The grief might be real but responsibility for it lies squarely with those outwitted and furious rebels 150 years ago.  That is their legacy to their people.

No.10: “The wars were fought in Marlborough, … .”

10: No “wars” but rebellions; only one incident in Marlborough, the Wairau massacre of 1843 when a posse of Nelson settlers greatly underestimated the fighting strength of Ngati Toa with whom they were in dispute, with many butchered in consequence.

No. 11: “It has been estimated that more than 3000 people died, but O’Malley believes the toll, although hard to calculate accurately, was probably higher.”

11: Cowan’s careful figures for deaths are: troops, loyal Maoris and civilians:745; rebels:2154; total 2899.[v]  Some commentators consider that he over-estimated rebel deaths.  There are other compilations but none aggregating a total of more than 3000.  Enough said?

No. 12: O’Malley: “World War I, considered the country’s ‘greatest bloodbath’.”

12: Why would he ignore the elephant in the room: the intertribal “Musket Wars of 1807-37 when by a careful estimate, 35,400 Maoris were killed by other Maoris with almost unimaginable brutality in 602 battles – about one third of the total population?[vi]

No.13: O’Malley again; “generations of Maori were condemned to landlessness and poverty.”

13:  In the years before 1840, registered in the Sydney land office were 179 sales of land in the South Island alone by willing Maori sellers[vii], many of whom had travelled personally to Sydney to secure their sales, with reserves set aside for tribal occupants according to rank from 73 acres for chiefs, rather less for free men but zero for slaves, the latter indeed in the days of “tikanga” or Maori practice “condemned to landlessness and poverty”. 

Moreover, in accordance with Hobson’s proclamation immediately on his arrival, all such sales were reduced to a maximum of 2560 acres and many voided entirely. 

Of those who retained land, in 1848 some Kaiapoi Ngai Tahu were running just two sheep and their lambs on 1000 acres yet one year later a chief wrote to complain that his reserve was not big enough.  In 1896 the tribe was cultivating a mere 857.5 of their 45,000-odd acres with one stock unit per seven acres.  In 1872, missionary Stack had reported that “Though very fond of milk and butter, there is not one [Maori] household that provides itself with these things, everyone shirks the trouble.”[viii]

 Moreover, for released landless slaves, work was available in road-building, other public works and as farm labourers.  Except in times of depression which affected all, settler and Maori alike, none who were willing to work needed to be in poverty.  It was not O’Malley’s “landlessness” of some Maoris “condemned to … poverty” but their own work-shy behaviour. 

Given the foregoing litany attributable to O’Malley, should his speculations be taken seriously?   

More appropriate are the words of late military chaplain Frank Glen: “Cameron, with commendable humanitarianism, wanted to avoid a set piece military confrontation because the likely casualties … would be severe on both sides. …  Under the cover of darkness… with the minimal loss of life, he captured Rangiaohai [sic].”[ix]

Bruce Moon – Nelson 

13th November 2017

[1]    S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[1]    J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[1]    M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[1]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[1]    J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[1]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[1]    J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[1]    A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[1]          F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

[i]       S. Devoy, “Bay of Plenty Times”, Guest Editorial, 4th February 2017

[ii]      J.O.C. Phillips, “Mediaworks,” 2nd April 2016

[iii]     M. Johnson, Senior Journalist, “NZ Herald”, 28th October 2017

[iv]    B. Moon, for an augmented account, see “NZ Voice”, March 2017, pp.40ff.

[v]     J. Cowan, “The New Zealand Wars”, 1922-3

[vi]    J. Robinson, “When two cultures meet, the New Zealand experience, ISBN 1-872970-31-1, 2012, p.64

[vii]   J. Jackson, detailed list of transactions provided, 26th June 2017

[viii]  A. Everton, “Nga Tahu’s Tangled Web”, Free Radical, Nos.26-8, August-December 1997

[ix]    F. Glen, “Australians at War in New Zealand”, ISBN 987-1-87742-739-8. 2011, p.146

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

 

Wasn’t it a pledge, Winston? And why scientists are fed up.

Before the election, Winston, you were reported as saying that if New Zealand First was part of the next government, you would let the public decide whether to abolish the Maori seats (and cut the number of MPs in Parliament to 100.)  According to Radio NZ and other authoritative sources, you said Maori seats send a terrible message (they do) and vowed to hold a mid-term binding referendum on the two matters.  “The fact is that Maori don’t need to be told that they are not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped, or that somehow they should be pigeonholed…When did you ever hear Buck Shelford say “Don’t tackle me too hard, I’m a Maori…. or all those women playing in our netball team or any other team … When have you ever heard them say, “Don’t hit me too hard, I’m a Maori? Maori don’t need the Maori seats. They don’t need any more tokenism.” 

Quite true. And what did you do about this, Winston? All those probably thousands of New Zealanders who voted for you because they are fed up with the thoroughly racist policies more and more incrementally introduced under the recent National governments, in particular, feel thoroughly let down. Is it true that you did not even bother to raise this matter with Labour or National? We’d like to know, because as one correspondent sees it, the people that supported New Zealand First’s policies feel utterly left down. And that’s putting it very politely.  He was far more direct… 

Removing the utterly unnecessary, race-based Maori seats (given that there are now 29 part-Maori MPs in total, spread across our political parties) has been rightly viewed as a first very important first step to take against the race-based preferences now invading every aspect of government policy-making. These are more and more being inappropriately forced on children in schools, on students throughout our universities – and in all other institutions. There are now very well-paid government apparatchiks whose jobs centre on constantly forcing on us – and extending – these racist policies – including a quite fake “Maori” language – which bears probably about 10% relationship to the genuine Maori language. For example, how do you say, “The Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment” in Maori? We need to start contesting this farcical situation. 

But meantime, we want to know what happened. It is true that you looked thoroughly exhausted at the time of the election. Some are wondering if you are well. But you have had enough energy to now bring up the issue of “dirty politics,” filing charges against the Opposition leader Bill English and three of his lieutenants in relation to the apparently deliberate leaking of information about the mistakes in your superannuation payments which were turned into an election scandal. Mistakes are just that. However, few would doubt that what should have been a privacy issue within a government department was used in an attempt to discredit you and reduce the percentage of New Zealand First’s votes.

It very probably succeeded, as earlier polling showed much higher support. But whether New Zealand First will now survive at the next election – given the abandoning of your own bottom line undertaking to put the issue of the Maori seats to the public – is another matter.  The fact that your promise has apparently not been followed up will probably be the last straw for many who felt that you at least stood against the corruption of the political scene and its throwaway, pre-election undertakings. Public cynicism, if not disgust at the way politicians let themselves and the country down has probably never been greater. Time for NZers to claim back this country, indeed. We should have learned by now that nothing will ever change, otherwise!  

The media groupies whom the public similarly have little time for have, however, raised an interesting question. Given that you had been intending to file charges against members of the National Party hierarchy, did you intend at any stage to throw the support of New Zealand First behind National – or was all the drawn-out bargaining simply to get the best deal from the Labour Coalition? This may have been a clever tactic – but when was the issue of what we all understood to be your non-negotiable promise – the abolition of the Maori seats – actually raised?  If not, why not? 

What so many concerned New Zealanders have now realised is that the National government hasn’t given a hoot about the growing push towards actual separatism, very much encouraged by the long tenure of former Treaty Negotiations Minister Chris Finlayson, viewed as highly sympathetic to smoothing the way for iwi and hapu making the usual, never-ending financial claims against all other New Zealanders. Moreover, letters to this Minister, and indeed the former Prime Minister  (both are long-time close friends) either get ignored or hit enough of a nerve,  in the case of Finlayson, to receive a tart reply. This is not good enough, given that the utterly fraudulent issue of the supposedly “partnership” between Maori and the Crown is increasingly pushed at us all. 

The importance of the undertaking you apparently reneged on is because abolishing the anachronistic Maori seats would have removed a focal point for that radical activism which seeks constant media attention – and financial gain. There are no longer any full-blooded Maori – many of those making most of the fuss are predominately European  – or Euro-Asian –  and how much of their constant centre-staging is due to an inordinate sense of self-importance  –or simply greed… for the gravy train to provide more –  certainly raises the issue of some sort of moral/spiritual crisis  among individuals who make a part of their ethnic inheritance the most important thing in their lives – and pass on the same dead-end thinking to their children. 

All this posturing is completely removed from the lives of most New Zealanders of part-Maori descent. Doctors, dentists, nurses, teachers, lawyers pilots, builders, farmers, fishermen, plumbers, contractors, chefs, truck-drivers…individuals with part-Maori ancestry – right across the professions and trades –  are living fulfilling and worthwhile lives, without  the slightest interest in obsessively focusing on  a part-Maori inheritance.  Many based or travelling overseas are glad to be away from it all. Far more worthwhile issues centre on their families, their jobs, and the commitment of the majority of most NZers to serve this country – while faithful to the democratic principles of respect for all individuals – regardless of colour, gender, race or creed. 

However, the bureaucratic push to centre-stage the issues on which radically activist part-Maori are basing their agenda is spreading its tentacles throughout every possible area of our life in this country. It’s coming from a very determined minority pushing hard to influence policy-making within government, local councils and wherever it can cause damage to our social cohesion.  

If we follow the allocation of money we find particularly egregious and damaging examples –  apart from the clamour for the universities and schools to now show “cultural sensitivity” – that is to prove that they regard suposed part Maori concerns as needing to be prioritised above all others! 

For example , we all know that government attitudes to science funding and innovation have been more than parsimonious – they have long been below the level New Zealanders should be able to expect to help advance our country’s interests, and our contribution to today’s world of discovery. Science funding for this reason has become hotly contested – and scientists have been turned into quasi-businessmen, forced to skew research interests to submit funding applications that follow strictly PC and racist lines.  Where the universities once valued and acknowledged the importance of pure research,  and paid their scientists accordingly, now the latter largely have to generate their own funding through business interests – as well as satisfying radicalised iwi. Their demands have brought about the situation whereby their race-based interests come first.  

 However, imposing racist criteria on funding applications is a disgrace. Few would disagree with the notion that scientific research should apply to part-Maori no more – nor any less – than to any other population group in New Zealand. 

This explicit or implicit requirement is found right across areas of government grants.  Vision Matauranga is a very good example, or rather, a very bad example of the recent National government’s politicisation of these and capitulation to these areas. The Endeavour Foundation of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (MBIE), distributing a total of $58 million, has a mission statement – “To support research science or technology or related activities with the potential to positively transfer New Zealand’s economic performance and sustainability and integrity of our environment to help strengthen our society (meaning?) and give effect to Vision Matauranga polices.  

The latter is spelt out in a jargon-ridden, 52 page, pompous doorstopper which not only prioritises supposed Maori interests but what are supposedly “authentic Maori voices”- whatever these are. On the face of it, “authentic” apparently means the views of those who wrote this tedious document.  What is simply inexcusable is now requiring ALL applications for research-funding from the MBIE to consider Vision Matauranga nonsense. Previously, apparently one was able to states that one’s research didn’t have such relevance. Now, chillingly, a scientist must” provide evidence if he/she thinks that Vision now Matauranga isn’t relevant!   E.g.” If you think Vision Mātauranga is not relevant to your research, you should test this assumption with independent advisors with relevant strategic Vision Mātauranga experience. You will need to provide evidence to explain why you consider Vision Mātauranga is not applicable.” 

As one scientist notes, the twisted logic of this requirement is so outrageous that it almost sounds as if it could be challenged legally. Given the threat to his or her job or position, what scientist  is going to have the courage to do so?  And this is just what whoever drew up this outrageous demand relies upon. We are now living in a country where so many, trying to survive in a highly competitive workplace feel it is too risky to speak up. We now have reached a valid comparison with the former USSR – where, as the Russian poet Yevtushenko told us, to simply speak the truth had become an act of courage. 

There are numerous examples now of this shockingly divisive move to push separatist and racist  policies on this country. Minister Chris Finlayson, for example, should answer to the public for getting it very wrong in relation to the foreshore and seabed legislation. Opening yet another can of worms, the National government has allowed “customary  title” and “customary rights” to be contested by iwi, either in a new high court process –  or through direct negotiations with the Crown. Yet we have already seen how much damage has been done where iwi, in other areas, have been able to avoid due court process to deal with apparently partisan  Crown negotiators. Well-based evidence from reputable researchers has been simply ignored by this past National government – in  favour of virtually rubber-stamping  various dubious claims which should have been put to far more rigorous investigations. 

To establish customary title, this apparently naive government assured the public that very few claims would be relevant – that iwi would need to meet a number of tests, but that few would be able to meet the criteria for seeking customary title as they would have to demonstrate uninterrupted occupancy of the area claimed.

Both John Key and Finlayson claimed that very few iwi would be able to meet this criteria – so very few claims would be relevant. Were they just naïve – or were we misled? What has happened, of course, is what most of the country thought would happen. These pseudo-tribes have now laid massive claims for all of the foreshore and seabed – right around the coast of New Zealand. Even worse, it has been estimated that mounting even a single objection to each claim “could cost the public some $60,000 in fees – to say nothing of any costs involved in having objections prepared.” And inexcusably (given that the Maori economy is now worth $50 billion, reportedly “each Maori claimant is being offered thousands of dollars to prepare and file a claim…rightly regarded as only grossly inappropriate and utterly unfair.” 

It is not the first time that iwi claims against all other New Zealanders have been compulsorily funded by the public.  This ongoing process has been well and truly supported by this National government – one reason why so many New Zealanders have been glad to see it forced into Opposition – even in the face of considerable misgivings about various Labour-Coalition policies. 

It is in the light of these flagrant examples of what can well be regarded as cultural bullying that so many regard Winston Peters as having let us all down with his failure to keep his word.

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

We need you to help get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz-  Thank you!

 

 

Open Letter to Winston – Jacinda is way out of line

Dear Winston –Please don’t shift your ground on a promise you made – and yes – it wasn’t an If…or a Maybe. It was an unequivocal undertaking. So many have trusted you. That’s important. So, as you know, is your integrity. So is public perception.  To now reportedly hint that it would be fair enough to back off your pledge to abolish the divisive Maori seats in Parliament,  because the Maori Party failed to win any, this recent election, is imply not good enough. You will be well aware that as long as the provision for the Maori seats exist, in law, they can be contested again, in a coming election.

This is an open letter to tell you how dismayed, even betrayed, so many thousands of New Zealanders will now feel if you shift your stance on your pledge to call for a referendum on at last removing these anachronistic seats in parliament. You know they are racist.  You gave your pledge as a bottom line. And as far as so many of us are  concerned, you were  actually promising what was long recommended, so that the country can at last say – We are one – or at least strive for equality for all, under the law.

Remember the democratic principle so very conveniently sidelined in recent years – as the white-anting of our New Zealand society has undermined our foundations?  This was the founding concept of modern democracy – pledging fundamental and equal rights to all people in law, regardless of colour, race, gender, or creed.  Any whittling away at this fundamental principle of a genuine democracy diminishes us all.

Recent vote-buying governments, persuaded by now very wealthy and powerful iwi, have backed away from keeping their word – as National did, to its shame. This breaking of a social contract, a pledge given to voters by a party leader, was not only regarded as an act of betrayal. It also lessened even further the respect in which politicians would like to think they are held. Equally damagingly, it takes away from so many the hope that New Zealanders try to hold fast to – of a country in which they once more count, a stable, undivided, peaceful society, respecting the values of those who fought to make this a better country.

 But we’re going backwards – not forwards. And retention of the outdated Maori seats, giving special advantages to those with even the very smallest part-Maori, genetic inheritance (Why?) is contributing to a growing push now towards promoting anything touching on Maori as inherently superior. Again – Why? The whitewashing of the realities of pre-European settlement country, of never-ending internecine tribal wars, of the barbarities of a ruling priestly and warrior class inflicting the cruelties of slavery, barbaric practises and the horrors of cannibalism, are no reason for regarding it as desirable that throughout the country, local government and statutory boards should be forced to kowtow to the supposedly superior insights provided by any individuals with even a sixteenth or  a thirty-second genetic inheritance from  the past.

You will be aware that the Auckland Council is seeking a legislative change to make an elected Maori councillor role compulsory. Incredible!  Even though Auckland councillors themselves have voted 10 to five against introducing a Maori ward. As one commentator has noted, the council’s attitude now equates to (with deeply Orwellian logic…)We can’t trust the majority of the public to vote for what we want – even though we’ve relied on them voting for us – so we therefore will subvert the democratic process…”

All around the country, the opposition to forcing local bodies and government liaison committees to grant special voting rights to unelected individuals on the basis of a part-Maori inheritance has been overwhelmingly rejected, as you know. Yet not for a moment has this past National government taken any notice of the wishes of the majority.

New Zealanders are not fools, and we now have a total contradiction of democratic values and freedoms by an overbearing government, pressured by the now immensely wealthy iwi (the Maori economy now is estimated at about $50 billion dollars. Most of this has been successfully withheld by the rich tribal corporations, with their tax-free status – (Why?)  – from an underclass of their own people in desperate need.

Removing the Maori seats in Parliament is a hugely important move – the very first step towards dismantling the new apartheid we have created – by which some are now more equal than others. And because of this and the vested interest these extraordinarily wealthy iwi have in promoting their own position and influence, and obtaining even more economic advantage for themselves, you will be under considerable pressure to walk away from that promise you gave the public.

You will also be under pressure because the present Labour Leader, Jacinda Ardern, is trying to manipulate you into giving in to her ill-thought determination to ignore the wishes of the country and have her own way  – with regard to preserving the seats.

Her attitude is inexcusable, given that able Members of Parliament of part- Maori descent are now to be found across the spectrum of political parties in Parliament. Labour itself has part-Maori members, National others. There are reportedly now 29 part-Maori MPs in total – strong proof that there is no discrimination against individuals of Maori descent winning  a place  in the House. 

Your own credentials as leader of New Zealand First and of part-Maori descent, long recognising the damage being inflicted on the country by the retention of Maori-only seats, are considerably superior to those of Miss Ardern. She is compromising herself intellectually by refusing to acknowledge that, given a part Maori genetic inheritance is no barrier to becoming a member of Parliament, there is no possible excuse for maintaining the Maori seats. This is doubly so, given that, to date the interests of this racist party have been to wrest even more provisions from the majority of New Zealanders.

Jacinda needs to drop her born-to-rule assumption, and acknowledge that it is not up to her to decide whether or not the Maori seats should be abolished. We’ve had to put up this sort of high-handed attitude from our MPs for too long. The decision is one for the people of New Zealand – not a handful of her Labour Party insiders. It’s time for her to take that on board, not arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that the decision does not belong to a politically-motivated group completely out of touch with most New Zealanders’ objections to this racist provision.

I sincerely hope you yourself have been misreported. Because if you renege on your commitment to put the abolishing of the Maori seats to the public at large in a binding referendum, then so many New Zealanders who have put their trust in you on this issue will loathe you. They are fed up with politicians promising one thing and doing another. Moreover, your stated intention to do this will certainly have meant a rise in the number of voters looking to your party.

The feeling of anger at the maintaining of special privileges, special scholarships, special treatment given in nearly all our institutions to those with even a claimed smidgen of Maori genetic inheritance, is now widespread  – with good reason.

What you were reported as saying in the National Business Review at the time will have given heart to so many. I quote:  “The fact is, Maori don’t need to be told they are not good enough to be equal, or that somehow they should be handicapped, that somehow they should be pigeon-holed,” Mr Peters said.

New Zealanders have taken this to mean that this referendum will be put to the whole country. To confine it to Maori alone – as you then seemed to subsequently be considering, would hardly be logical. It would be like asking the fox to vote for the abolition of hens.

Furthermore, any move to confine the referendum to those claiming to be Maori could be challenged on legal grounds.

There is no longer any definition of Maori. The former logical definition was done away with in the mid-70s by those with their eyes to the main chance – i.e. their ability to  include others  in their number who were, and are, predominantly European (or of other descent) as “Maori”  – in order to show a greater numerical strength  – aware of the political pressure they could then wield.

But it is obviously legally possible to challenge the definition of “Maori” – when those with less than half a Maori genetic inheritance claim to be basically Maori although they obviously aren’t – by any scientific assessment.

Canadian Judge Thomas R Berger travelled around Alaska in the late 1980s to interview the people, Indians, and Inuit, who lived in the villages. When the ANCSA (Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act) was reviewed, the cut-off point for declaring oneself of aboriginal (native) descent was a generous one. One could still be considered aboriginal (Inuit or Indian) if one had a quarter (25%) genetic inheritance. Below this, one was regarded as being predominantly not aboriginal, and therefore unable to claim this.  So why are we allowing this farcical situation in New Zealand?

Many of the most vociferous claimants to disadvantage – (or, contrariwise, of superior insight) because of a purported Maori genetic inheritance – are in fact not even one-quarter Maori. Yet we have allowed them to queue up for special benefits, courtesy of the taxpayer – which is basically a rort. Moreover, the Anglican Church has been silly enough – as have others -to say that one is Maori – and is entitled to be regarded as Maori, simply- if one “feels Maori”.

This is a nonsense. If I were deranged I could possibly regard myself as an Arab – or an Australian aborigine…or even an animal of some sort. But any “feeling” I might have would be at odds with the reality that I’m none of these. .

If you change your mind, and kowtow to the present Labour leader’s claim that she will not allow the discussion in relation to your undertaking to put the future of the Maori seats to the public at large to decide (and the country had no doubt that you meant a referendum binding on all) to be part of any discussion concerning a possible coalition, then she is not only being very foolish – but you would be honour bound to reject her terms. Nor should any referendum be confined confined to Maori only. Such a proposal would face formidable legal challenges, given that there is no longer any actual definition of Maori – all of whom are now part-Maori only.

Furthermore – it is also not accurate to say that such a referendum would be relevant only to part-Maori.  All other New Zealanders have been required to contribute financially  to supporting the Maori seats – and so, too,  the Maori Party…a prime example of the cost to the country at large of this ongoing movement to give one sector of the community special rights – at the expense of the majority.

I’m sure you personally are well aware that prioritising identity politics has been destructive and divisive to New Zealand. The only ones to benefit from it are those well and truly milking the system – at the expense of us all.

I’m afraid, Winston, that if you do not want your integrity to be doubted by those who have long supported you – because of your much-respected commitment to a unified country, it will not do for you for you to renege upon, or equivocate about, your original promise to mount a binding referendum – to be put to all the country.

Many New Zealanders have consistently supported your stated aims and defended you against your detractors. They will not want to continue to do so, if you break your word. And you would deservedly lose the respect in which many hold you for your long stand against the inherent corruption of race-based politics. We must trust you on this.

Kind regards

Amy

 

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network! https://www.facebook.com/100daystodemocracy?ref=br_tf

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

Ah, the poor dear found it “hurtful”. But what does “rogue” mean?

The feeling of apparent entitlement Metiria Turei seemingly had when cheating the system to obtain extra advantages as a solo parent is not new. But it seems to have reached epidemic proportions. What individuals claim they are “entitled to” rarely if ever now comes with the recognition that their claim must cost others. Society willingly consents to this  when the common good is involved, as, for example, with access for all to quality heath care – an access now demonstrably lessened with this National Party government’s unrealistic and damaging squeeze on hospital funding and services.  But when that feeling of entitlement involves cheating, for self-advantage, most people take a dim view.

And so with all those illegal activities – or, worse, crimes individuals commit across all levels of society. Take theft or robbery – among the most contemptible of all crimes – whether  the all too prevalent “nicking”…or the more ambitious forms of theft committed by trusted civil servants and  financial high fliers …and now by  drug dependants and too many of our young. Is this a surprise, when too many  children  no longer have much needed standards of right and wrong taught them as essential for society’s stability, even survival?

Isn’t it time to question why subjects that required supplying rigorous thinking aids to all children were gradually removed from schools – putting so many disadvantaged children in particular at even greater risk? And how very convenient that the constant sniggering, or sniping, at those Christian values which so long underpinned the West, occurred at the same time. Coincidence or agenda? The Ministry of Education’s neo-Marxist infiltrators, long calling the shots, hold the answers here. 

No matter how contemptible the crime, the moral responsibility for owning up to a mean or violent deed too often now elicits the self-excusing “I made a mistake” – a clichéd understatement,  and a lack of acknowledgment of a moral culpability. 

In an extraordinary and ill-judged example of group-think, the Green Party has shot itself in the foot by treating one of its probably most financially privileged MPs, Metiria Turei, as some sort of heroine. Contrariwise, it has treated two of its most respected MPs, who are apparently not willing to abandon conscience and put a good face on her cheating the system, as “rogue” MPs.

This is Alice in Wonderland territory, where words mean only what they are chosen to mean – neither more nor less. This may be highly convenient for the self-deceiving Greens and any media cohorts – but parts company with reality – and public perception. A dictionary definition of “rogue” is “dishonest or unprincipled…”or “…a large animal living apart from the herd, having …destructive tendencies.”  For media to condemn as “rogue” the two honest individuals who acted according to conscience “seems extraordinarily ironic. Shouldn’t they be retargeting their thinking?

The country knows the story. The co-leader of the Green Party, until her now change of mind,  was  reported as saying she had  no intention of stepping down, even if it costs her party (much-needed) votes. Presumably her sense of self-entitlement, twinned with her sense of self-esteem, was more important to her than how her colleagues will now now fare in the coming election. Because, twist the facts as one may, many New Zealanders undoubtedly feel a lack of respect for someone who cheated the system to gain more financial advantage – particularly so if she also had family help.  Worse, she has apparently been encouraging others to do the same. At the Green Party’s annual conference, Ms Turei unveiled a totally unrealistic, socially damaging major new policy to overhaul the welfare system. Its aim? Reportedly, to remove all sanctions to beneficiaries if they don’t meet obligations when receiving a benefit.

Well, well, well…This extraordinary encouragement to seemingly cheat the system (regardless of the fact that our welfare benefits have undergone a number of studies showing their damaging consequences) seems to be saying – Do as I did.

What many regard as encouraging dishonest behaviour has become enormously divisive – with good reason – regardless of the fact that the Green Party appeared to be living in La la Land- with a kind of happy-ever-after perception that everything was just fine. However, it isn’t. Those who remained poor but honest, with little or no family help, have a right to feel that Turei threw honesty to the wind – and to challenge her lack of any past attempt to pay back what she contrived for herself through fiddling the system. After all, her subsequent work as a lawyer commanding a very healthy salary of an estimated $150,000, presumably left her plenty of leeway to start paying back what she could, as soon as possible – had she sincerely regretted her actions. It seems that in fact she has misjudged the situation – apparently attempting to elicit sympathy at the conference for her own previous situation – to justify removing all sanctions against others who may be encouraged to follow her example.  

Metiria Turei now runs the risk of being viewed by many New Zealanders as incomprehensibly egoistic. And it is too late for the Greens to fall into damage control mode, because they made quite the wrong decision to apparently regard the two individuals who made a principled stand as beyond the pale.

A topsy-turvy land indeed, and Labour is not likely to benefit for long as its new inexperienced leader refrains from making any comment on its virtual partner-party. Jacinta Ardern may now be the media’s new young darling, but her unprofessional look,  with that now all-too fashionable unkempt hair style, is off-putting to those who would prefer any future leader to look capable and mature – not simply good at soundbites or speeches.

This country doesn’t need any more media personalities. It needs those who have had the knowledge and sense of history which enables an individual to read the writing on the wall – to articulate what is happening to us as a people, and to target how we can reclaim our country.

Politicians are no more saints than the rest of us. But we expect them to have principles. And their proven intent to fight for this country has become more necessary than ever.  But it’s not happening.

Nor is Metiria Turei the only politician to feel especially entitled. To their shame, our politicians collectively have long contrived special, unacceptable perks and privileges from us…superannuation access greater than what is available to the public, required to keep paying for this – the inexcusable largesse of taxpayer-provided, ongoing airfares for these often very wealthy individuals and their partners, post-parliament. But why? The rationale provided for such self-serving “entitlements” is more than weak.

The world-wide mood is one of being fed up with the political classes. And the nearest we have in this country to a perk-buster is gaining growing support. In spite of NZFirst’s apparently inability to mount effective spokespersons from its List, and its poor internal party organisation, the country is more and more turning to Winston Peters. This highly experiences politician has long warned about the very real threats, both internal and external, facing New Zealand.  

Peter is now seen as the nearest we have to a genuine and knowledgeable statesman among a line-up of yes-sir,  rigidly party-politicians , apparently pledged to not stiffen their spines when dealing with past reruns of damaging, autocratic  leadership, such as the wide-eyed and wily Helen Clark, and the glib John Key.  

NZFirst has promised for the future a genuine binding referendum on issues where it does not have a mandate from the public for not previously stated policy directions.

 Not enough yet  but we are on the way to where we New Zealanders  – not mere politicians  – will be making, as we ourselves should – the important decisions that affect us all. We are on the way to the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand. 

© Amy Brooke

**http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17341/amy-brooke-downplaying-the-very-real-threats-to-nz/?mc_cid=e632cab3ff&mc_eid=2eadea2444

**And for the important stories which are so relevant in election year,  check out

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

 

Tired of our media’s witch-hunts, and their political favouritism?

Election year – and we’re ill-served by partisan media – like Fairfax. Given their love affair with the National Party, when do they ever comment, for example, on the fact that good old Bill English, following on from good old John Key, and so often the mouthpiece for his boss when it came to making unpopular statements, admitted that “the government may beef up the Overseas Investment Office to make it quicker for foreigners to get permission to buy New Zealand assets.” ** As for their hate affair with Donald Trump, when do we ever get analysis as good as this? https://thefederalist.com/2017/06/07/james-comeys-latest-statement-is-an-indictment-of-comey-not-trump/

and https://spectator.org/prosecute-comey/

Not from the talking heads of our second-rate media,  who for weeks now have been obsessed with peddling whatever anti-Trump venom they can gleefully get hold of. And their cartoonists defy convention by their sheer nastiness…rather than insightfulness.

When our journalist deify themselves as Seekers after Truth and Justice, it’s always rather amusing. As far back as November 2016, senior media individuals, editors, deputy editors, etc. of our dailies, particularly of Fairfax, signed a full-page advertisement in national newspapers. They were vigorously arguing that the Commerce Commission’s decision to refuse a merger of Fairfax media and NZME (New Zealand Media and Entertainment…although they didn’t bother to explain this) was wrong. Congratulating themselves on having 30 editors signing their names to this open letter, they castigated the Commerce Commission for not sticking to “the economic analysis” but straying “into intangibles such as the quality of journalism, and unquantified risks to editorial independence.” Hmm.

In appealing to the general public they would have been wiser not to boast too much about the quality of journalism in this country, pretty awful at best in daily newspapers (and this is even when ignoring gratuitous mistakes in grammar and syntax).  No suggestion of balance is evident in relation to issues such as the near hysteria over supposed man-made global warming (even though well-established science journals are now back-peddling on this extraordinary, politicised phenomenon, and some well-regarded scientists are saying we are on the brink of another mini-ice-age. http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/611111/Former-government-expert-disproves-climate-change-and-says-world-will-soon-cool-down

However, editorial bias – and gullibility – has become so flagrantly obvious, with these dissenting voices suppressed in our mainstream media.  Moreover, lack of any objectivity in most editorials (unsigned, of course, although this luxury is not given to correspondents) is matched by the widespread knowledge that many letters to the editor are now suppressed simply because they annoy the letters editor, who doesn’t agree…so doesn’t want them to see the light of day. So much for fair debate.

It’s not just the extraordinary venom of the anti-Trump phenomenon fanned by the virulent rhetoric of the Left, and financially supported by Clinton supporters. Shockingly the latter are attempting to overthrow a legitimate change of Government in the USA – the verdict of the American people at election time – by unconstitutional means – by the misinterpretation and fabrication of facts – and even by the not so covert encouragement of violence.

For weeks now my own local Fairfax daily has published quite appallingly slanted  editorials buying into every anti-Trump denouément  – without making any attempt to provide their  dismantling – readily available by first-class investigative journalists abroad – but not, of course, any in this country. The Washington Post  has long been infamous for its unacceptable bias and its peddling of leaked and quite wrong information, no doubt on the premise that if enough lies are told they’ll eventually achieve what the Post so badly wants – the indictment of a president, regardless of the fact that that thoroughly dreadful pair, the Clintons (read Nobody Left to Lie To, by Christopher Hitchens, himself a Democrat who simply couldn’t defend the  widespread corruption that surrounded Bill Clinton’s presidency – let along Hillary’s lies).

Top overseas commentators now argue with good reason that if truth and justice prevailed, Hillary Clinton would now be behind bars. She was an inferior candidate who deservedly lost an election – but the darling of The Beautiful People, the Hollywood actors – whoops – Stars! –  media sycophants  and pop music celebrities never slow to advance their superior opinions. Every socially and morally destabilising issue pushed by the bullies of the Left has found a listening in Hillary (as with Obama) – whether supporting the horror of “partial birth” abortions (removing the brain from a baby emerging into the world”… or whether the new fashion for identifying oneself as transgender on the basis of arguing that identity choice beats natural biology. In the name of “tolerance”, the bully boys and girls on the Left demand that those in conscience opposing these and other new and destructive social practices must be punished, silenced, or hauled before the courts for “discrimination”.

In its obsession with Trump, no doubt  making mistakes along the way, but apparently determined in principle to respect his reform programme of returning respect for the forgotten people of America, blue collar workers and families, our media let us down. Those targeted by the” liberal Left” even include Christians,  now demonised by the media (though it has been Christian values which  have underpinned and stabilized our democracy).  Their extreme partisanship shown towards our former PM – the glib and slippery John Key, for example – contrasts with the bile heaped upon New Zealand First leader Winston Peters, which has been quite blatant. Yet Peters speaks more than any other politician for backbone New Zealanders.

Returning to the signed letter to the Commerce Commission, we can only shake our heads when we read, “ensuring that a diversity of views, perspectives, experiences and issues are covered is an editor’s most fundamental task.”

There’s more:  “…we have never been swayed by political or commercial influence.’’ And, to the Commission, “You say that it is important that members of society – government, corporate and private citizens – are not able to influence one provider with the opportunities for differing views to be expressed.  We agree, and as gatekeepers as of many of the most august newsrooms and publications in the country would never let that happen.”

Oh no. Dearie me… August? And it reads as if they actually believe it.

 Let’s remember that they said this, that they actually put it this into writing. And it let’s insist that from now onwards they translate their flowery rhetoric into actual practice. Starting with examining the phenomenon of hate being deliberately fanned against Trump in the US, and in this country and sheeting it home to where it belongs,  would be a belated start. Just some effort, at least,  to provide objectivity on crucial issues would make a nice change.

**http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/17341/amy-brooke-downplaying-the-very-real-threats-to-nz/?mc_cid=e632cab3ff&mc_eid=2eadea2444

**And for the important stories which are so relevant in election year,  check out

http://www.investigatemagazine.co.nz/Investigate/

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through www.amybrooke.co.nz, Kindle, or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

Recycling Bill English? Or we, the people…?

Are our supposedly superior, wise politicians costing us too much?

Should we keep regarding them as born to be in charge of us all? Or, lest we forget… is it time we grew up, as a people?

New Zealanders have understandably lost confidence in our politicians – not only to actually listen to New Zealanders – which they demonstrably don’t – but to even be competent.  Too many government policies no longer favour the public good. So we are joining other Western countries no longer impressed by being governed by political classes paying far too little attention to putting the interests of their own citizens first, and with far too much unwarranted confidence in their own decision-making.  Something so often happens to very ordinary people once they become politicians – and the public here – as in England and elsewhere  –  heartened by  Brexit’s stunning win,  is now questioning how our political system works, and how we can rein in our born-to-rule politicians. And yes – we do have a practicable solution within reach – The 100 Days  – see www.100days.co.nz . Or are we happy to still be led by the nose…?

In a recent massive throw-out from my study, I came across an old reply to me from Bill English.  I can’t say I’m surprised at its evasiveness, though, to be fair, it was written in 2002 – 15 years ago  – and found again only now. And certainly, people do grow up intellectually. However it’s well said that anyone can become a Prime Minister – as John Key, a supremely ambitious money trader proved – arguably causing a great deal of damage to the country – damage that that would horrify our parents and grandparents who fought in more than two World Wars, so many servicemen and women giving their lives to preserve New Zealand – and a freedom and way of life now fast being lost to us.

So what of our present Prime Minister, whose reply to me came when I wrote, finding (as with others) it almost incredible what he said when comparing one of the  Lord of the Rings films to Tolkien’s masterpiece. What he stated was that his “preference” was for the film. But, hmm,  well no – he hadn’t actually read the books. 

So how could there be any preference there? It won’t be lost on the reader that one can’t compare one thing to another …unless one is familiar with both.

But then, when did the reality that facts don’t line up ever bother a politician?  When also queried about his use of the word “elitist” in apparently a pejorative sense, a comment which might well raise doubts about whether he thought Tolkien’s books too high-powered intellectually to be accessible to the ordinary reader (or to him?)  – and reminded that bright children down at intermediate school level were reading them) –  he pulled a metaphorical rabbit from a hat.  With the kind of double-speak in which politicians excel, he replied, “The film is now definitive of the book – people will see Jackson’s Ents, (sic) Helms Deep is now Jackson’s Deep”.

Well no – it isn’t and his “definitive” means basically nothing. Moreover, as an English graduate,  our now Prime Minister should have been well aware that the printed word can convey nuances and subtleties which the visual version of a story cannot match. The omission of Tom Bombadil, for example, who represented important things central to the story (as Tolkien himself noted) but was left out of the film, was a disappointment to many readers of the trilogy.  In fact, any criticisms of Jackson’s film centres on his lack of much-needed editing, as well as his somewhat ham-fisted approach in areas that required more understatement. Even Weta Workshop’s brilliance was not enough to excuse the tedious, repetitious close-ups of the ugliness of the Orcs – and the loveliness of the land of the Elves was not successfully conveyed. Jackson does a better job with horror, than its opposite.

We’re accustomed to say that people are entitled to their opinion. But what sort of opinion rests upon no foundation?  Our present PM’s preference for a film -compared to a book which he had never read – is of course no preference at all. Ah, but politicians can bluster – as in his reply, when he added that,  “- well there are lots of books more challenging than Lord of the Rings.” But then, again, if he hadn’t actually read The Rings trilogy…to what “more challenging” books would he be capable of comparing it?

Coming again upon this correspondence, it struck me how far what the Irish call “the gift of the gab” can carry a politician. Add it to an ability to exude charisma – and a country is in danger. It has happened right throughout history and we never seem to learn from it, and to question why we are so foolish as to keep paying lip service to the notion that “leadership” is more important than the knowledge that any real democracy depends upon the genuine participation of so-called ordinary men and women, conducting their own lives, prioritising their families – but with a close eye on what their politicians are up to.

Yet we are aware that  the cult of leadership which grows around determined individuals has led to the greatest bloodbaths of all  –  and the  siren call of  highly destructive individuals  – the Hitlers, Stalins, Pol Pots, today’s  Kim Jong–un and so on whose indifference to what happens to their own people, sacrificed to their  leader’s ambitions,  should be a lesson to us. Wars in which scores of millions die pointlessly and needlessly are a twisted tribute to the danger of that concept of the importance of leadership which we are always being asked to defer to. And as a well-respected British journalist, under the pseudonym of Alpha of the Plough pointed out, “There is a large part of the public …which will believe anything because it hasn’t the faculty of judging anything but the size of the crowd, and will always follow the ass with the longest ears and the loudest bray.”

If it strikes some readers that this is a very apt description not only of some of our recent leaders –  but also now of the mainstream media, playing follow-the leader not only in their admiration for our recently departed  and disastrously charismatic Prime Minister –  very few of us would disagree. The now predominantly left-wing media have their favourite politicians, and coat-tail one another’s thinking with regard to the mis-called” liberal” and “progressive” issues of the day. Our mainstream commentators’ over-confident pronouncements have become inimical to quality thinking. Editors now routinely suppress letters from correspondents with whom they disagree. Nor is it a healthy sign that comments in response to unsigned editorialists and opinion-writers in some major New Zealand newspapers on-line have now been discontinued. In this respect, the NBR (National Business Review) deserves readers’ support for its healthy promotion of vigorous debate and feedback.

However, that silent majority which the politicians still fear, anxious lest they begin to realise their real power, can take heart. An excellent new monthly, Your Voice, edited by Mykeljon Winkel, available online or as  a print subscription, is doing a brilliant job of tackling some of the quite blatant untruths now being peddled in relation to the Treaty of Waitangi…as well as examining other relevant issues of today. It can be found at www.newzealand voice.co.nz. And although an interview with Judith Collins contains a politician’s very typical equivocations and evasiveness in response to direct questions put to her, there are interesting and relevant pieces throughout.  An article by John Ansell, in particular, in the February issue – not Race, Not Gender, Just New Zealander… The Reason for the Existence of the Treaty presents admirably concisely the reason that the Maori chiefs at the time had every good reason to welcome the treaty – and well understood that they were yielding sovereignty to the British Queen.

Other excellent articles in relation to our nation’s history throw more light on the truth of Maori European interaction than today’s media bother to attempt. The March edition includes Bruce Moon’s We Have Just One True History (“And so we come to the Rangiowhia affray, about which probably more flagrant lies have been touted than any event in our history”. Moon’s rigorous research reminds me of Alan Everton’s former excellent dismantling of  Ngai Tahu’s prevarications and the utter distortions, let alone falsehoods which it so successfully employed to squeeze a  third “full and final” settlement for this corporatised pseudo-iwi – one which, on the actual evidence, Parliament should never have awarded.

 But today, as we all know, too bad about actual evidence: it doesn’t count. Today’s deliberate muddying of the waters around treaty issues has basically been for the purpose of allowing conniving iwi on the make, (by no means representing the majority of part-Maori)  to gain more and more economic and totally undemocratic political advantage. And of course of there is always the much loved-microphone – or the newspaper headline , those sops to vanity and hubris obediently supplied by our compliant media, always keen to stir the pot…but not so keen to allow that very necessary debate which helps to arrive at the truth of issues. Yet we are well aware that, in a democracy, exclusive rights proposed in law, intended to be bestowed on any racial group, are simply untenable…and basically unconstitutional. This hasn’t stopped National from ignoring the wishes of the majority of us. Such a party has become a danger to the country and for this reason, David Rankin’s petition, in Change Org, deserves all our support.  https://www.change.org/p/prime-minister-abolish-auckland-council-s-maori-statutory-board?recruiter=694585883&utm_source=share_for_starters&utm_medium=copyLink

In a country like New Zealand we have had democratic safeguards to protect us (to some extent only) from the supremely ambitious individuals always there in our political cliques, some with honourable motives – others convinced that we must be inveigled into subscribing to the ideology to which they are wedded – as with the socialist Helen Clarks’ One World Government – and John Key’s attempt to remove the Union Jack from our flag.

The latter of course was line with the wishes of wealthy Communist Chinese working behind-the-scenes to facilitate this, And what of Key’s neglect of so much that badly needs addressing in this country, denying even the unprecedented housing crisis which now has so many New Zealanders impoverished, living in cars, in garages, on the streets? Bill English also showed himself totally ineffectual here…The damage caused by virtually unrestricted immigration, used to create the illusion of economic buoyancy…the sell-out of this country, our productive farms and businesses to Communist Chinese interests  – and the flogging off of our high country sheep stations  to the super-wealthy Americans and others seeking a bolthole – all of whom can buy out New Zealanders’ rights to our own land, our remaining productive industries, our housing stock? These are the legacy of our recent leaders, and the yes-men and-women who surround them in parliament. Sycophancy rules.

In all these destructive policies, at least publicly, our present Prime Minister, Bill English, has been complicit. How much can we rely upon his ability – a consummate yes-man, as John Key’s lieutenant, to face up honestly to what has happened to this country?  Most of us wouldn’t bet on it.  So why ever would we vote for him to be our new Prime Minister? And when the media kept boasting about Key, with his 30% or thereabouts rating as Prime Minister being so very popular, they were guilty of the fact that, looking objectively at the figures, we know that two thirds of the country did not want him there.  60 to 70% did not rate him. But in the eyes of a largely infatuated commentariat, subject to his switched-on charm and smarm; given special interviews; beaming eye contact; flattered by his attention: recipients of bottles of wine, Key could do little wrong – just as Trump can do no right. The lesson from Brexit has apparently been totally lost on our own media circles.

Can we now be called the Stupid Country? What of the then Finance Minister Bill English’s failure in our supposedly representative democracy, to actually represent the wishes of the country when polling made plain New Zealanders opposition to the potentially damaging TPP deal? Where is the actual evidence that he ever stood up to the seemingly folksy but basically autocratic John Key? Compared to other countries – even Australia, for example the ruling National party’s failure to acknowledge this – let alone to acknowledge the housing market disgrace was because if John Key didn’t want to, neither did any of the Nats. No Sir…

Why then of the theory of the wisdom of the crowds – rather than the conclusions of a select few? The ruling National government has apparently been unable to acknowledge the pitfalls in the TPP which have been very plain to the reasonable onlooker. The determination of government to ignore public opinion has perhaps been a tipping point to us all. Perhaps we are beginning to grow up as a people- in the same way as the English have , at last, reclaimed their country from its  EU stranglehold.  And we in this small country have been equally guilty of allowing to be forced on us every failed doctrine that has already caused so much damage in the UK.

Nowhere has the damage caused by obdurate politicians, convinced of their superior thinking and leadership skills, been more evident than recently, across all Europe . What we can fairly call the sheer stupidity of politicians like Angela Merkel –   far too late rethinking her arrogant, authoritarian rulings which have plunged Germany into such disarray  – needs to be recognised for what it was. Europe is now overrun by far more refugees than can be successfully assimilated   –  and among these Isis terrorists have been successfully smuggled in.  Merkel’s virtual bullying of other countries, wherever a Muslim population has now established a considerable and divisive presence, has lead there also to growing social destabilisation, violence and crime, the ill-treatment and raping of women, and mounting welfare bills. Even England is in trouble. https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/10190/islam-england-france

Diversity, multiculturalism – all the much-touted clichés have now been shown to be quite wrong directions for any country to move in.  The much maligned Enoch Powell’s warning in the 60s that mass immigration would preclude assimilation, and that such a large volume of foreign nationals inevitably concentrated in major cities would lead to ghettoisation, and Balkanisation, was genuinely prophetic, as Michael Davies points out in a recent Australian Spectator. It was the know-best politicians who pilloried him – aided by an always cooperative mass media. Again, it was so-called ordinary people who also warned against Britain yielding its independence and judicial separateness in important areas of national decision-making – such as allowing the judiciary to become subservient to the rulings of Brussels. So very few politicians,  with notable exceptions such as Powell and Margaret Thatcher, (who, loving their own country and its traditions “understood why immigrants would be reluctant to completely abandon theirs) foresaw what lay ahead.

And we in this country are now having to put up with the same sort of ill-thought nonsense emphasising “diversity” – i.e. the lack of assimilation, allowing in those large numbers of immigrants which too often lead to the clash of cultures, the attack on the stabilising values of the home country, the clamour for an undemocratic separateness, and the displacement, today, of our own people in the job market and housing. This, apart even from that fact we are losing our most productive farmland to the rapacious Communist Chinese’s self-serving interests – and the best of our high country sheep stations to those others plum-picking land now priced well beyond the reach of New Zealanders ourselves.

Every now and again we get trotted out Thomas Carlyle’s objection to democracy: as classicist Peter Jones recounts in the Spectator article Enemies of the People. “I do not believe in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance”. In other words, infinitely wise politician should tell the ignorant mob what to think, not vice versa.

What when we can say, with very good reason, that we do not believe in the collective wisdom of ignorant or self-serving politicians, led by the nose too often by vested interest groups  – and/or letting us down by their simple inability to devote time to the thorough research needed to establish the truth of issues?

Athenians invented direct democracy in 508BC, lasting until 323 BC, which handed to the “demos”, citizens in the assembly, the power to decide on policy. Objections were raised from the beginning by those who thought their thinking was superior… Plato thought a state could be well governed only by Platonic philosophers. Aristotle thought that monarchy would be the best of all – Catch-22 – if only someone of the required standard could be found. On went the objections, until as Jones points out, it was Plutarch, “a prolific Greek writer of the second century A.D. with a great admiration for Roman stability “– (a stability which the reader will recall didn’t last for very long after all ) … “who really put the boot in, describing the public as “animals… unreasoning, unruly volatile and degenerate”. Interestingly this description will strike the reader as fairly closely summing up our own politicians’ behaviour in the debating chamber. However, as “Plutarch dominated discussions in the West about the best form of government from the 16th till the 19th century, his idea that rule by the demos could be nothing but mob rule became the knee-jerk position, and still is.  Animals, obviously.”

Make no mistake – our politicians love to think this.  (Remember Helen Clark’s “feral” and “inbreds”?  And Hilary Clinton’s “A basket of deplorables.”)

But they’ve been proved wrong by the most free, successful,  and democratic country in the world – Switzerland. And there is absolutely no reason why we New Zealanders can’t turn our own minds to insist that we follow a system which really works – in contrast to the mess our political parties have made to our own country – where the pace is accelerating to destroy of so much of what we have left.

Peter Jones concludes, “In the howls about mob rule,  however, Switzerland, virtually a direct democracy for some 600 years, somehow never features.” Switzerland did even better than this – not content with being virtually a direct democracy, the Swiss people themselves decided they had had enough of being over-ruled by damaging leaders. Their brilliant solution was to fight for the 100 Days provision. They won this right about 160 years ago. It ensures any legislation passed by Parliament, no matter by what political party or by whatever coalition is currently in power in the country… every piece of legislation must wait for 100 Days before it can come into force. The Swiss people can themselves then decide whether or not they agree,  or whether they want to challenge it.

If the latter, before the end of the 100 Days period, if as few as 50,000 people (in a country double our population, call for a vote  – in New Zealand it would be proportionately about 26,000 ) then that’s enough. A vote is held – it’s called the Facultative Referendum, and whatever the people say is binding on the government.

So successful has this been that Swiss politicians are merely part-time. Meeting one day  only a week, they can hold down other jobs… as lawyers, teachers, doctors, housewives, tradesmen… and their Parliament needs to meet only four times a year. No Helen Clark or Bill English or John Key can dig in, clinging to virtually supreme power and dominating the ruling party. The Swiss make sure of this by allowing the President to stay in office for one year only. Their seven-only member cabinet, simply take turns to be President. It works very well.

 Why can’t we now fight for the same? Well, we can, and should. It is the best possible system to secure a real democracy. And to all the Big Names anxious to tell us it wouldn’t work, we can say – This is nonsense – it does. In fact it is working better than any other political system today.

As the last thing that politicians want is to lose their power, and we can count on a now thoroughly dumbed-down, but highly opiniated media to rubbish any concept that doesn’t send power to their left-wing cohorts, it is up to us, the real New Zealanders, remembering the hard work and sacrifices our own people have made for four generations, to do our own bit.

How? Email your MP. Mail the Prime Minister, the leader and members of the Opposition, the leaders of all the political parties, and ask them whether or not they are willing to hand back the decision-making to the people of New Zealand. Call your MPs….They will be very polite to you in election year…

This is a real test of whether or not our politicians believe in a democracy. But we know they don’t want a democracy – they want to rule us – and are now busy making all those hasty promises routinely made in election-year,  promising the reforms so conveniently held until then.

There are so many ways you can help. Tell others…You can send on to as many as you can the fact of our 100 days campaign…both on Facebook, and on- site – See 100 Days – Claiming back New Zealand www.100days.co.nz  You can write letters to the paper. You can complain to the Press Council if the editor keeps rejecting them…You can talk about it on Talkback.  You can join us – support us, even a little financially, if you can.

 It means at least a little effort – not much time in busy people’s lives. But as we all have a moral responsibility, which reaches beyond us and our families towards the community, and towards our country, safeguarding what our parents and grandparents, uncles and aunts fought  and gave their lives for, it can be argued that we have no right at all to do nothing. We need to insist on the reshaping of our political and landscape. Will you help?

Help us fight for the 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement!

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available through Kindle, www.copypress.co.nz or HATM Publishers.

It helps a lot to SHARE or LIKE us through the social media network!
Do help us to get our message further out by donating. See www.100days.co.nz!

 

 

 

 

 

Would you prefer a Nigel Farage or a John Key?

Would you sooner have a Nigel Farage, or a John Key?

I was delighted by the fact that when, as Convener of our 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand movement, we first launched this democratic campaign – (the off-shoot of the Summer Sounds Symposium  (www.summersounds.co.nz) – one of the first names that appeared as a website subscriber was that of Nigel Farage. A shared a contact, a close UKIP supporter, had previously provided a weekly commentary on international affairs for the then Canterbury on Air, when I was providing a weekly round-up on national affairs.  The Australian  initiative, Give Us Back Our Country,  co-founded by the greatly respected Professor David Flint, with Jai Martinkovits, cites our 100 Days movement and my book, 100 Days Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong,  and how we can control our politicians, as its inspiration.  

A correlation has been drawn between the surge in Brexit support and Obama coming over to the UK with instructions on how to vote, including barely-veiled threats. The English don’t like being told what to do – possibly especially by Barack Obama. The reaction was considerable and immediate. Another little-known fact is that a senior campaign adviser to Cameron’s Conservative Party was Jim Messina, who was also Obama’s  campaign adviser, and heads the biggest pro-Hillary super PAC.  Crony capitalism no longer has a good press. Who believes the trickle-down theorizing any more? It has by no means resembled anything like a genuinely free market.

Many of us will have watched the Brexit outcome with special interest. One of the most heartening things about its victory, which so many of us here also hoped for, is that it has been a triumph of hope – and imagination.

In contrast, one of the most deplorable things has been the basic spite voiced against Nigel Farage by prominent figures here and overseas in the media in-groups. We are used to words like “populism” being used, deliberately designed to disparage ordinary people, those in whom the brilliant Christian writer GK Chesterton placed so much trust – when it comes to a showdown between their values and those of the moneyed establishment.

Uncharacteristically, given The Spectator’s support for the Leave campaign, its editor, Fraser Nelson wrote an unpleasant blog. He also got wrong the meaning of the word tangential.  We undoubtedly owe the Brexit campaign victory first of all to Nigel Farage, but Nelson attempts to diminish his legacy. E.g. “Nigel Farage has been a tangential figure in the Brexit campaign, but he’s the only one prepared to do a victory lap with the votes still being counted, so we see him on the TV. What he says is disgusting. ‘A victory for real people, a victory for decent people’ he says – and what about those who voted for Remain? One of the many advantages of a Brexit vote would be to put UKIP, and Farage, out of business.”

This is not only unfair but basically nasty. To attack Farage for pointing out that the majority of the people England and Wales stood up against the fear-mongering of the establishment, calling them real people, decent people, was a thing of the moment, praising them for their courage – which is hard enough to draw upon for so many in these politically correct times.

It also been a characteristic of the Left, in particular, to keep invoking a right-wing bogeyman against all those wanting Brexit  – which is just nonsense. On the whole, the venom has come from (of course, by no means all) Bremain spokesmen. We were treated to a very good example of this when Boris Johnson was booed when he emerged to speak, once the results were known. The point is that this mob waited outside his house to do just this. Hardly appropriate, let alone generous.

At home, from New Zealand Herald columnist Toby Manhire came, “And yet all three of them – Johnson, Cameron and Gove – have proved comfortably less outrageous, scaremongering and odious than Nigel Farage, the leader of the UK Independence Party, who produced a billboard with the words “Breaking Point”, showing, in what some saw as an echo of Nazi propaganda, a queue of refugees winding into Slovenia, and has pressed every available xenophobic button, playing to Britons’ basest fears.”

Ah, the word xenophobia,  designed like other clichés of the bien pensant among our commentators –  such as racism and homophobia –  to be thrown at those who are considered too incapable of doing their own thinking… The catch is that the so-called ordinary people did think through all this. And they thought that they had enough of their own freedom, independence, and the directions of the own country being wrested away from them.

While too many quasi-intellectuals among the journalists were vaporising  at the thought of “the odious” Nigel Farage, the majority of English and Welsh were celebrating …Cometh the hour, cometh the man – the individual who stands up to be counted, inspiring others – never the leaders – but other individuals – to rise and stand beside him – or her.

What is apparently too obvious for Toby Manhire to understand is that the view of refugees winding into Slovenia was a snapshot of reality. Reality often makes things uncomfortable for those not keen on facing it. The virtual invasion – by no means entirely of genuine refugees, but also of those (understandably) anxious to improve their lot in economic terms – (among whom are now estimated to be thousands of radical Islamists, many deliberately planted, and groomed for terrorist activities) is a huge threat to the stability of Europe. The sheer numbers who have poured in, and are still on the move, present an unprecedented threat to countries far from able to sustain such a demand on their economies, their housing, and their social services.

The EU has shown itself utterly incapable of providing a realistic solution to these mass migrations, which are essentially a grave threat to countries they are targeting.  When Manhire, without any attribution, calls Farage’s important warning “what some saw as an echo of Nazi propaganda,” – we should ask – Who saw? Where are your sources? Is this simply a piece of Manhire propaganda – or a quote from those, as ever, fearful of facing the truth?

In the UK itself, as the pundits; the pollsters; we-know-best-economists; the trust-us-we-are-the Establishment:  the I-know-best-Barack Obama: all were confounded by so-called ordinary men and women turning their backs. Instead, they listened to the man who inspired them with the courage to face up even to the fact that economic uncertainty would undoubtedly lie ahead – and might even disadvantage some of them.

And still, they stood up to be counted. In fact one of the most interesting aspects of the Brexit vote is that there would undoubtedly have been Remain voters who would like very much to have joined them, but who, in the face of all the scaremongering and the threats, were too worried about their jobs and financial futures – but who would otherwise have voted to go.

On the other hand, human nature being what it is, there is always jealousy – and this came not only from among the very supporters of Nigel Farage who would now like to take over to lead UKIP, saying their leader has  achieved what he wanted and it’s time for him to go. (Shades of the Conservative Party’s turning on Margaret Thatcher  – there are always Judases.) Just as un-edifying, among the breakaway Brexit supporters from the Conservative Party there was anger when Nigel Farage, instead of one of their own, was chosen to lead an important Brexit BBC debate – even though it is thanks above all to this one man that England has shaken off the shackles of an arrogant, virtually fascist EU.

Moreover, too much praise has been heaped on David Cameron, as if he heroically granted the people of Britain a referendum, to correct the situation in which the country has found itself – or, rather, in which their politicians had landed them.

On the contrary, Cameron did everything he could to avoid a referendum. As The Spectator illustrates, “Unable to make a positive case for staying in the EU, he instead tells us that Britain is trapped within it and that the penalties for leaving are too severe. His scare stories, peppered with made-up statistics, have served only to underline the emptiness of the case for remaining. It also represents a style of politics that many find repugnant. The warnings from the IMF and OECD and other acronyms have served only to reinforce the caricature of a globalised élite telling the governed what to think.  See http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/06/out-and-into-the-world-why-the-spectator-is-for-leave/ Moreover, according to The Sun, the reason why David Cameron is now primed to resign is that he is asking why he should “do all the hard **** for someone else, just handed over to them on a plate?”

The Spectator columnist Peter Orborne’s  May 28 article, “The new dodgy dossiers”, illustrated how “The Chancellor and PM are using every dirty trick in the Blairite book to win a Remain vote. “ His conclusion? That what Cameron and Osborne were doing was not only morally wrong; it was politically disastrous.”

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/05/why-osbornes-dodgy-dossiers-are-even-worse-than-blairs/

It would be good to be able to respect politicians more, both for their language – and for putting the interests of their country first. This was not happening under Cameron’s leadership, where his Chancellor, George Osborne, employed the sledgehammer of fear-mongering tactics so much the Bremain campaign resorted to concocting figures – such as “his now notorious claim that households would be 4300 British pounds worse off.” And still the people had courage to vote NO. Chesterton would have been proud of them.

Moreover, “Michael Gove revealed how, as a cabinet member, he regularly finds himself having to process edicts, rules and regulations that have been framed at European level. Laws that no one in Britain had asked for, and which no one elected to the House of Commons has the power to change. What we refer to as British government is increasingly no such thing. It involves the passing of laws written by people whom no one in Britain elected, no one can name and no one can remove.”

“Steve Hilton, David Cameron’s chief strategist for many years, gave an example of this institutional decay. A few months into his job in No. 10, he was dismayed to find his colleagues making slow progress, because they were all bogged down by paperwork that he didn’t recognise. He asked for an audit, and was shocked by the results: only a third of what the government was doing was related to its agenda. Just over half was processing orders from Brussels. To him, this was more than just a headache: it was an insidious and accelerating bureaucratic takeover.”

David Cameron basically did not want a referendum. But then, what leader ever does – except, as with John Key, because he thought he was popular enough to get his own way – removing our country’s flag?

There is one great lesson to be taken from this rebellion by the majority of the English and Welsh. (Scotland, which has received far more in the way of financial advantage from its association with England than it has returned, and which appears is due for a reality lesson, can be discounted here.) The lesson is the folly of allowing a country to be dominated by a leader and his or her cabal – which is what a too-obedient cabinet basically is. As is ours, in New Zealand.

The corollary – the importance of the individual standing up to be counted – as Nigel Farage as done – has its echoes right down throughout history.

It carries an important lesson for New Zealanders dismayed at John Key’s virtual takeover of the country, exercising apparently near-complete authority over his cabinet,  none of who whom are showing the moral courage to stand up to him.  However, the deterioration in hope on the part of so many New Zealanders who have seen the collapse of social standards and the lack of accountability for this from recent governments, means the anti-establishment tide is turning in this country, too.

The lamentable lack of any real action to make sure that New Zealanders are basically able to access affordable housing;  jobs which provide a decent living wage  – without mothers being forced to dump their babies in crèches to go out to work;  the influx of immigrants putting pressure on all social services – with no comprehensive action  at all by the government to prioritise the interest of New Zealanders over those moving to acquire our land, our farms, our most productive businesses and our housing stock? John Key has basically ignored the needs of so many. His tenure as Prime Minister has been highly damaging.

The Swiss know, as did the Roman Republic, the danger of letting one man retain power for more than a year. It is time to move towards annually rotating what should be basically the chairmanship of a political party in Parliament  – rather than retaining our present system of a dictatorial leadership digging in for the long haul.

These are now precedents for New Zealanders themselves to stand up to be counted. The Australians are already doing so, with their Give Us back our Country movement.

Every individual who supports us, helps to make this possible. And if there’s one thing that Brexit has taught us, it’s the importance of individuals.

It’s been said that  “One man with courage makes a majority.” Nigel Farage did.

© Amy Brooke

Our 100 Days movement needs individuals to contribute what they can – no donation is too small  – to help send our message right around the country.

We can count on no funding to assist coming from political or moneyed power groups with their own vested interests. But we can be proud of this!

Do visit us to see how you can help. Please let family, friends, colleagues know about our www.100days.co.nz.

SHARE or LIKE on Facebook

© Amy Brooke, Convener. See my book “100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand …what has gone wrong, and how we can control our politicians.” Available on Kindle, or through www.copypress.co.nz and HATM Publishers.