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!

 

 

A disengaged government? Arrogant, biased media?

That our supposed democracy is not in a healthy state is common knowledge. A country whose young families have no hope of saving enough for a future house, and where so many can’t even afford basic accommodation expenses,  is in a very bad way. Undeniably, it is recent incompetent governments, both former Labour and today’s National Parties, which have brought about this inexcusable state of affairs. In many crucial areas we have become a nation in decline.

 A new study commissioned by Victoria University of Wellington’s Institute for Governance and Policy Studies (IGPS) has found that New Zealanders have little trust in government, and that trust has decreased over the last three years.” Not surprisingly, to those increasingly fed up with a biased, exclusionary media, lazy in analysis, but condescending to readers and viewers, both TV and the print media tied with the government in attracting a low 8% of respect by those polled – compared to 56% for doctors, the highest-polling profession.

No wonder, with a basically new phenomenon emerging. This is the sheer arrogance and creeping nastiness which has become entrenched in much of the media. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the inexcusably snide comments from both editorial writers – (hiding behind their cloak of anonymity) – and trendy, but ignorant and condescending columnists sniping at the individual whose courage, initiative and foresight has contributed so much to the people of Britain claiming back their country.

It’s fair to maintain that Nigel Farage is a great man. He has even been called a great British hero. At those exceptional moments in history, when the tide of events has turned because of the courage, intelligence and vision of one individual,  a traditional King James Bible verse (an excerpt of John 4:23.) has been used to recognise and pay tribute to the one who has stood up to be counted  – “Cometh the hour, cometh the man”.

The disparaging comments of liberal-left media, contrasting with the justified tributes paid to Farage, are a good indication of how out of touch are our supercilious commentariat – as well as the government – with so-called ordinary New Zealanders – what we can well call real New Zealanders. His extraordinary achievement when heading UKIP led to the referendum the ruling class in Britain would far rather have avoided. But in it, the majority of the people showed they repudiated the never-ending diktats of the EU  leading to the loss of sovereignty and independent decision-making in their own country. Farage has said, quite accurately, that his aim was for his countrymen to get their own country back – to no longer have the edicts of Brussels interfering right across the socio-political, economic spectrum. And now he wants his own life back.

But oh, the baying that then ensured, with an NBR columnist basically calling Farage a quitter because he has now stood aside – because he has not been so hooked on power that he wanted to stay on as leader of a political movement which triumphed over the political establishment.  Why the unnecessary, unpleasant disparaging of a man with integrity?  The democratic Romans would have revered him. They were rightly so suspicious of the individual who clings onto power (and the damage he or she then causes – we only have to look at a Helen Clark and a John Key to see this in action) that, in the days of the republic, they would not allow their consuls (two at a time, each with the ability to veto the actions of the other) to rule for more than year.

Both then had to step down and were sent to the provinces, partly to remove them from the temptations of power in Rome. This NBR columnist (which, to give the journal its due, mounts an excellent forum for discussion and debate) had probably never heard of Cincinnatus – the great general historically respected for just this. Given supreme power for six months, to win a desperately needed battle, Cincinnatus then laid aside his command and went back to his farm – to reclaim his own life.  No historical parallels there?  But right on cue came Gwynne Dyer, too, sniping away in a column that sounded as if he was a Bremain poor loser:  “For comic relief Nigel Farage, leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party also quit, saying that he wanted his life back. “Comic relief? This sniping from the sidelines is now a feature of today’s condescending media.|

Given the lack of objective analysis now being offered by too many New Zealand commentators on the issues of the day, where  throwaway, lightweight, even malicious comments are now  common, I’m increasingly reminded of poor Charlotte Dawson’s only too accurate statement that “New Zealand is small and nasty and vindictive.” This certainly doesn’t apply to New Zealanders as a whole, whose generosity of spirit is well known. However, the constant snideness from media commentators certainly contributes to the reason the media are listed very low on New Zealanders’ lists of occupations they admire.

NZ Initiative’s Oliver Hartwich has accurately identified the fact that it was the political union first and foremost the British people voted against.  He pointed out that “Neither is Britain the most Euroskeptic country in the EU, by a long shot. ‘The problem,’ says Mr Hartwich, “is that Brussels doesn’t seem to have understood what just happened.

” ‘It isn’t clear Brussels has taken the right lesson from this. Their immediate response was to ask for deeper integration into Europe and proceed with the project. But that was exactly the kind of attitude that was rejected by Britain,” Mr Hartwich pointed out. He added that ‘The EU is going to need massive reform, and most of its countries actually want the trade and market access, not strictly the political union. So the question as to what might happen to the bloc in the future is far from clear.”

Moreover, some of Britain’s richest people were prepared to possibly lose a great deal of their personal fortunes in voting for Brexit – (including construction equipment magnate Anthony Bamford, inventor James Dyson, and Peter Hargreaves, cofounder of Hargreaves-Lansdown, the UK’s largest retail broker) – in contrast to Richard Branson, Li Ka-shing and George Soros urging the county to vote Bremain.

However, what distinguished so much of the almost vindictive reaction of our media to the Brexit victory is typified by a Nelson Mail editorial, with its writer conveniently un-named. In an example of today’s trashy commentaries, with its over-the top language, and marked lack of objectivity, its writer had ranted: “The case for Brexit is being stoked by racism and sinister ‘little Britainism’ ” Really, sinister? That the people of Britain turned against a governing establishment that was not listening to their very real concerns about what was happening to the country is hardly sinister.

There is no doubt that the British concern at the lack of proper border controls and ill-thought, immigration permissiveness causing damage to the infrastructure of the country, is perfectly reasonable and well-justified. The  Brexit vote was far from being basically a question of racism or xenophobia, as other media writers promptly bayed. Oh, those useful words wielded like bludgeons by the Right-Thinking… xenophobia – racism – homophobia – all too often deliberately designed to inhibit genuine debate, and wielded with an unsustainable certainty that those scattering them through their writing are providing superior analysis  – even when they are demonstrably wrong.

 This same Nelson Mail editorial writer’s claim before the event, “that Britain has become hysterical about the issue of possible exit from the European Union” was also a silly exaggeration.  It has been on the whole a younger generation, ignorant of the issues underpinning the damaging power–grab of the European Union, which has complained the loudest. The only potentially “sinister” issue arises from the failure of some of these Remain supporters who appear to have no idea about how democracy works, and have demanded their own way, calling for another referendum in the hope of having it. This farcical stance has become unhealthy in the way they have turned against a far more informed older generation which looks back on two world wars where German ambition led to a continent in turmoil, the needless deaths of scores of millions of innocent people, and Britain and the Commonwealth, for a major part of this war, making a stand alone against the troublemaker of Europe.

And predictably, a rather muddled Der Spiegel editorial lamented the triumph of democracy, instanced by the Brexit vote, in the predictably autocratic German fashion of the country whose hierarchy has too often assumed a born -to-rule authority. Its editorialist lamented that “Brexit sheds light on the problems created when direct democracy is abused,” Really?  He argues that “In our complex 21st century world, we have no choice but to delegate authority for decision-making to our elected representatives.”

Fortunately, he couldn’t be more wrong, and this horse has well and truly bolted, dragging with it the theorising that governments know best, and that politicians have special insights which justify their ignoring the concerns and the voices of the majority. He no doubt found it very convenient to overlook the fact that Switzerland is the most successful and direct of all democracies – because the Swiss fought for that 100 Day check on any legislation its parliamentarians passed – which our own movement is backing here. 

It is ironic, then that once again Germany as a powerhouse is in league with the France she invaded in our parents’ lifetimes, and now dominating the EU, while at the same time Angela Merkel’s unbalanced and ill-judged thinking is causing extraordinary damage to German society. There must now  be many of the older generation wondering why so many British and Commonwealth soldiers died defending France, given what is today seen, ironically, as its  unholy alliance with the country for whose freedom so many British and Commonwealth soldiers die.

But back to the word sinister, so beloved by the same Nelson mail editorialist, in full swing, pontificating “Brexit, however is as much about politics and economics, and the politics of it are sinister. European xenophobia and anti-refugee hysteria is again in full swing and nowhere more than in Britain.” And “Brexit won’t make Britain great again, or free it from the dead hand of Brussels.”

Another editorial, no doubt from the same writer, given its familiar-sounding tones, where the writer had to face to the fact that Brexit won, began:  “The shockwaves from Brexit will shake the world for a long time. Few of the effects will be good. Some of the symbolism is rank, even repulsive… It’s ‘Independence Day’ for Britain declares the English demagogue Nigel Farage. His vision of Britain is of a reactionary white enclave of frightened xenophobes. Farage crows at the prospect: most of the world weeps.”

On he rants.  And this un-identified editorialist has obviously interviewed most of the world, judging by the strength of his conviction?

Such basic drivel has no place in a reputable newspaper. But the Nelson Mail is not alone in its increasingly biased rejection of viewpoints with which its under-educated staff grapple (judging by the poor standard of grammar and syntax, let alone, apparently, any genuine understanding of the issues involved, and the history underpinning them). But it’s interesting that he/she rails about Brexit being (partly) underpinned by racism and working class “conservatism”.

There we have a definite agenda – that of today’s neo-liberal permissiveness attacking the thoughtful conservatism which once protected family values,  and stabilised our society. “Conservatism” has become a target in the eyes of the ignorant, especially those too young to have any real understanding of what is at stake. In their eyes, those who do, an older generation (who have learnt through experience the lessons of the history that younger New Zealanders saw deliberately removed from the schools’ curricula) should be barred from voting. It’s interesting that the views of the “working class” are now distasteful to the we-know-best… the self-appointed elite.

A quick overview of other dailies had more lightweight columnists, as in Tracy Watkins’s Political Week, stating on no evidence whatsoever that the Brexit vote is bad news for us down here. Inevitably, she lumps “far Right leader Nigel Farage” as, in reality one of the anti-politicians “no different to any of their rivals…in it for the power, which is all any politician is in it for.”’

So that’s it, is it? We’ve been told – let’s hope we know our place. The fact that Farage has indeed thankfully resigned from Brexit, laying down that power in order to get his own life back seems to have escaped her also.  In his own words: “During the referendum campaign I said I want my country back. What I’m saying today is I want my life back, and it begins now,” he said.

 While our official commentators fell over themselves with tedious, uninformed accusations of racism and xenophobia, pseudo-experts in full cry, the commonsense of the British, closer by far to the Islamification of Germany, Sweden, and other EU countries, contrasts with Angela Merkel’s folly. Her too long uncontrolled immigration policy has allowed many hundreds of thousands of Muslim people into European countries with no infrastructure to support them  – people whose preponderance of angry young men with no jobs, no income and an ingrained antagonism to the West has caused a dramatic rise in the crime rates and the under-reported raping of young Western girls http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7557/germany-rape-migrants-crisis  Isis terrorists boast  they are well represented in these numbers. To chastise the British, calling them xenophobic for their reluctance to have this scenario repeated, is ridiculous.

This sort of sheer arrogance is combined with the anachronism that newspapers still allow their editorial writers to hide behind their nameless pronouncements, which they absurdly claim is “the voice of the newspaper”. In fact, an editorial  is only the voice of one individual reporter or feature writer bestowing his or her own, all too often biased and under-informed opinion on the public –  one opinion only – one very possibly quite at odds with the opinions held by other writing staff.

It is this sort of unbalanced writing which is causing newspapers to lose subscriptions and readership. Moreover, it is a deliberately contrived imbalance of power where the writer of the editorial claims the right to remain anonymous, while today’s correspondents are required to give full details of their names, addresses, etc.  It’s not so long ago that letter writers themselves could use pseudonyms, often for very good reasons.  And there is no doubt that requiring the public to sign letters has inhibited debate – often because correspondents writing in good faith find it distasteful and objectionable to then be personally attacked by those unable to engage in courteous debate…especially when they have a ”liberal’ axe to grind, and specialise in the racist, homophobic, etc. name-calling.

Moreover, that some sections of the media, including Radio New Zealand, are no longer allowing comments on their websites, in spite of the fact they have admitted that some of these are valuable, is also a bad democratic outcome. The National Business Review, on the other hand, is valuable in providing the opportunity for public feedback, much-needed comment and debate, with or without a pseudonym.

Contrast this with the media power-play of those daily newspapers, which, (reasonably enough, for space requirements) set a 200 word limit on letters to the editor, but then insist on retaining their ”right” to interfere with what a correspondent has actually said  – even though it will appear over the latter’s name. Well-educated writers have strong reason to object to subliterate, semi-educated staff rewriting sections of a letter, then subsequently publishing it over the correspondent’s own name – thereby bringing him/her into possible disrepute in the eyes of an educated public.

The editorial “right” to alter and amend, or abridge a letter is uncalled for -unless it is abusive, actionable, or defamatory.  Provided a correspondent keeps to the requirement of 200 words (with none of the above) it’s time that the daily newspapers dropped such unreasonable demands. The imbalance of power is obvious.  The public’s best response is to no longer subscribe – and to make it known why. Unfortunately, in the print media, this entails no longer having access to the letters to the editor – often far more informed and better written than the editorials, and the writing of the regular columnists..

What has happened with Brexit has been described as a sea change in British politics, a move away from representative democracy to something more direct. It was the working class regions, northern England, the East Midlands, the Black Country and the Welsh valleys identical with the Chartist movement’s stronghold’s years ago which once more rebelled against what was seen as establishment corruption.  But which of our opinionated columnists have even heard of the Chartist movement?

 As the Spectator’s irrepressible Taki has pointed out, in illustrating how “the technocratic dictatorship of Brussels has already enslaved my country (Greece) – “Freedom is freedom and there are no other words to replace it.” That the ordinary man and woman voted for Brexit, supporting Nigel Farage, the man who stood to be counted again the tide of the times, he likens to the example of the legendary Leonidas. But which of our uneducated graduates with degrees in economics, in business, in media studies, in law and so on have even heard of the hero who held the pass at Thermopylae –  the story of famous 300 against the Persian Xerxes and his army of over a million – until a traitor showed the Persians a back way in.

Taki rightly dismisses ”the Greek chorus of women” (and not just women) “announcing doom and gloom” and invoking “populism” as a Bad Thing – when really they are talking about democracy.   Some of them may also be distorting the truth. Going on the record of the media’s inventiveness and fabrications,  we have no real evidence that Andrea Leadsom, a former candidate for the Conservative party leadership, actually did say that Theresa May should not become prime minister because she has no children. This report was strongly rejected, with Leadsom herself saying that she was repeatedly asked about her children, and made it clear that she did not want this to be a feature of the campaign…that she was in fact disgusted at the way this has been presented. No surprises here.

What has been a dismaying feature of women commentators for some time now is the use of crude language, deterioration in standards more marked than that of the men. Typical is Fran O’Sullivan’s invoking of “a pissing contest” between the Prime Minister and Reserve Bank Governor. Why the crudeness?  – when, with good reason, women were long respected because they set the standards of civilised behaviour and restraint in the use of language. The still-there, Rosemary McLeod, with a possible record of longevity among columnists,  has long employed an  off-putting, also basically crude use of language and sexist imagery, discussing women politicians’ legs, “something to flaunt”… a bitch-slapping…May was slagged for not using her uterus like a proper woman…boasting that her mating tackle had delivered offspring”.  This basically vulgar writing is distasteful to women who still do set store on standards.  Moreover, it is now these women commentators, more than  the men, who scatter around words like pissing, arse, boobs, tits, fu**ing – with no apparent thought of the example they are failing to set for the young – and the lack of respect felt for them by other women and the men  – except perhaps those of the same ilk.

If we have a big problem in this country in the form of a government now disengaged from the realities of life for so many New Zealanders, one moreover, now employing genuinely racist policies of Maori separatism and preference –  (another whole topic)  – we have an equally large problem in the print media, now habitually under-performing in areas of objectivity and analysis.

Accurate? Objective? Independent? Emeritus Professor David Flint, a member of the Order Of Australia, who has written widely on such matters as the media, international economic law and the constitution, including in his prophetic Twilight of the Elites, examines in his excellent book, Malice in Media Land, how campaigning journalists have become unelected and unaccountable participants in the political process, requisitioning the airwaves of public broadcasters as well as the columns of once great newspapers. He illustrates how we now have “an élite media, with certain honourable exceptions, not so much reporting the news as campaigning vigorously…at the same time as the standing of journalists among the general public could not be lower…While in individual instances this is of course unfair, it is quite true that the news media is regarded as a tainted institution…so much so that if it were any other institution, the media would be calling for it to be dismantled, or at least radically reformed with the mass resignation of the incumbents.”

David Flint’s own co-authored book, Give Us Back Our Country reflects the same wish of Australians at large that found fulfilment in Brexit’s victory. In it, he pays tribute to our own prior movement, as set out in the web link www.100days.co.nz and in my book The 100 Days – claiming back New Zealand… What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.

All over the world, people have learnt the lesson of hope which Brexit has given. It is time for New Zealanders too, to claim back our own country – from both our agenda-drive government -and from the unacceptable bias of much of the mass media.

© Amy Brooke

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.

A donation, no matter how small, very much helps us to send out this message of political reform more widely! Thank you J

 

 

What when it’s now governments versus their people? The TPPA?

And what when we’re sold out by “leadership” propaganda? Lessons from what happened at Christmas?

While Christmas was joyfully celebrated in so many homes throughout this country, our mainstream media have been curiously – some would argue, culpably – restrained about the implications of the savage attack on other people, worldwide, attempting to celebrate the birth of the Christ child. Our journalists shame us, in comparison with the reporting from sites such as that of the Gatestone Institute, telling us what our own commentators are failing to do: http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7250/christmas-islam

If one of our media’s prime responsibilities is to help produce a well-informed public, to accurately report important news from here and abroad, this is demonstrably not happening. The dumbing down of television alone has reached arguably scandalous levels, given that we have a government-owned, national broadcaster with an obvious responsibility to the public. And although the attacks are mounting on the celebration of Christmas in New Zealand as an important Christian festival in a supposedly free and democratic country – where Christian values have long underpinned its former stability – this very stability and cohesion is now under threat by determined, fringe minority groups and antipathetic individuals. The number of Christians in this country may be declining, given the ferocity of the attacks on the Church, both from without and within. But they still comprise around half of the population.

However, where is there any worthwhile scrutiny from our media commentators on what is actually happening to New Zealand? And should we be concerned that the divide between the politicians of this country and New Zealanders themselves is persistently growing?

Indeed we should. For one of the crucial lessons from the catastrophic events of 2015 is that the damage done by politicians to people of their own country is never-ending. And this is even in democracies. In countries under despotic rule, the catastrophic damage, the social destruction, is even greater.

Arguably, it is high time to remember that those who crave power are, by and large, least qualified to wield it – a lesson history should have taught us. But then it is no accident that our schools have for some time no longer taught young New Zealanders history – one of the highly damaging attacks on the schools curricula which has so successfully, these recent decades, helped to dumb down our once far better education system.

And now? Angela Merkel’s folly, her basically pig-headed determination to have her own way with regard to immigration decision-making has caused enormous damage not only to the German people, but to those of other European countries. A very bleak future, which many regard as now basically uncontrollable, and which is essentially an attack on the same Christian foundations of the West by radicalised Muslim fundamentalism, has led to some well-informed commentators predicting the end of Europe as we have known it – a direct attack on the nations which, imperfect as they have been, have very much helped prevent its fragmentation, and even its destruction.

What is going to happen to those European countries such as Germany, and Sweden, now facing not only a dramatic increase in violent crime, but also in massively escalating welfare costs, as a result of arguably naïve, recent immigration decision-making? At the same time, the important revenue from tourism alone looks to dramatically drop, given the threat of mounting terrorist attacks as a result of the planting of Muslim extremists among genuine refugees.

The possibility of the European Union breaking up, with governments kneecapped by the sheer numbers of immigrants, and with terrorist organisations boasting of widespread infiltration, is a direct result of Western leaders, including those of the UK, too long ignoring the damaging results of a highly flawed multicultural ideology. This same feel-good, think-bad policy-making has been also operating in our small, vulnerable country.

Its propaganda includes the powerful iwis’s and government’s push to prioritize supposedly Maori interests above those of the country at large (with no definition of who is now actually Maori.) In spite of protests from well-informed New Zealanders – (including those also of Maori descent) what is operating here is similar to what is happening in other countries. The aim? Not only the obvious financial gain to well-placed iwi, but also to undermine the cohesion of countries which once rightly valued assimilated – not separatist, communities. We in this country have been undergoing a more insidious, softer, but very real version of government creep, that is, the power of the State stretching its tentacles further and further over aspects of our national and personal lives.

So what about the much-vaunted role of “leadership? North Korea is in the hands of a murdering, very probably crazed tyrant impoverishing his people to the point of starvation. Pol Pot’s slaughter of his own people…? Saudi Arabia’s brutal torturing and execution of its own dissidents, and its oppression of women; Iran’s Muslim-cleric-dominated hatred of the West, with its hate-filled determination to annihilate Israel? All leader-dominated – as is China’s increasing imprisonment and torture of its own citizens, those bravely trying to work towards democratic rights for all – and its increasing attack on Christian churches.

What about the blatant corruption of African tribal leaders whose self-enriching rule over Africa and inter-tribal hostility has impoverished most of this potentially rich continent? The internecine and barbaric tribalism of the Middle East? The political oppression of Palestinians themselves by Hamas, its military wing designated as a terrorist organisation by the European Union, Canada, Israel, Japan, the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom, its charter aim the destruction of Israel? ? And what has happened to France alone is an object lesson of the dangers of sentimental liberal thinking http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/7256/france-islamization underpinning the danger of leaving decisions about the important directions of a country to its leaders, and its politicians.

A survey of today’s world presents an overview of the oppression of people of every race and colour by their own leaders. And in this country, we now have a prime example of government versus the people with the imminent signing of the TPPA, managed by a determined leader and his tight inner circle. Yet those politicians who have seemingly no compunction about the virtual sell-out of New Zealand to those rich enough to buy up our land, our farms, our housing stock, our enterprises – inevitably gradually dispossessing New Zealanders in our own country – are ignoring the fact that ethical decisions are no less important than economic ones.

Even those who seek political power with the best of intentions, to try to make a genuine contribution to the welfare of their country, almost inevitably end up being rigidly controlled by their party hierarchy – as we see in this country by John Key’s basically total control of the National Party caucus – (its ordinary MPs don’t count) – preceded by Helen Clark’s determined domination of Labour, in order to pursue her own damaging “liberal” socialist agenda. What John Key and Helen Clark share is an appetite for power. No wonder these two highly ambitious politicians get on so well – although in theory they should hold quite different views on what is good for the country.

In essence, the whole concept of leadership is where people have been basically conned into being persuaded that decisions concerning the future of this country –and others – should be left to leaders. But what when these are not only personally ambitious, but often ignorant, often narrowly, if not highly under-educated and historically under-informed individuals with, above all, an appetite for power? Their prominence in this country alone has caused considerable damage in many areas of our national life – not only to individuals, but also to our institutions – which we can examine in a future Post.

The government does not want New Zealanders to wake up to this, and those who have long warned of what has been happening here and abroad are often quite deliberately targeted and ridiculed – as we see with Treaty of Waitangi Negotiations Minister, Chris Finlayson. A mere list MP, who never stood for election, and who therefore passed no electoral scrutiny, this now powerful individual has actually appointed himself a QC (!) and bad-mouths as “clowns” and “nutters” well-qualified researchers concerned at the treaty claims gravy train now by-passing the courts, at Finlayson’s suggestion…although substantial evidence challenging these cases is simply ignored. His marked lack of respect for those asking well-needed questions, and his apparent inability to properly consult with other than self-serving, if not down-right opportunistic iwi crowding onto the treaty gravy train, is a prime example of a politician whom the intelligent Swiss would arguably not tolerate – given their government’s respect for the wishes of the people at large. Is it this minister’s very tart tongue which has allowed him to virtually have his own way – unchallenged by his party colleagues or the media – in spite of the widespread unease at what is happening here?

It doesn’t do, apparently, to any longer insist on transparency and accountability from our government, which incredibly enough, reserves the right to sign international treaties which impinge on the freedom of New Zealanders – without actually consulting them! The TTPA, reportedly reducing New Zealanders’ sovereignty by removing our ability to restrict sales of land and housing to foreign interests, is an egregious and shocking example. Our Key-dominated government’s initial undertaking to consult New Zealanders before signing such an important international agreement has been simply ignored by this government…scandalous enough in itself.

Once more, we should be learning from the fact that the most successfully democratic country in the world, Switzerland, would simply not put up with this over-dominating behaviour by its own politicians. The Swiss so little subscribe to the concept of leadership that their president is required to step down at the end of his or her year’s tenure of office – having previously very probably already held the role of Finance Minister. The actual office of president is rotated among a cabinet of only seven. No John Key, Helen Clark, or other dominating politician is allowed to become entrenched in office. The yearly rotation insures this. And at the same time, with their part-time politicians also engaged in careers in the professions, in trades, or as housewives, they get together in parliament only one day a week – while Parliament itself meets only four times a year. After all, they regard the people as being in charge of the country – and refer to them, collectively, as being sovereign.

The Swiss ensured this, by compelling their politicians to vote into law the 100 Days provision which prevents their government from passing any legislation at all – without providing a 100 day scrutiny period – after it has been proposed – for the people themselves to reject what they do not see as being an advantage to their own country. It’s time we New Zealanders insisted on this same provision. And we should be in no doubt that this would be most strenuously opposed by our major political parties…particularly by their leadership.

So what can we do? Relevant thinking can come from the most unexpected sources. And among these is Malcolm X‘s “Power has never taken a back step – except in the face of more power. If we remind ourselves of this, and equally appreciate that nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time is right, it becomes obvious that it is individual themselves, banding together in a common cause – which creates a tipping point that can unseat governments.

It is not leadership, but individual action – multiplied by that of many others – which offers the strongest hope for the people of countries in the grip of the control of politicians whose ability to use positions of leadership wisely has been shown as lamentably lacking, not only in these recent decades.

It’s not as if the writing on the wall hasn’t been highly visible in so-called democratic countries these recent decades. A well-informed Dutchman whose letter I have on file from some years back described what was happening in the Netherlands since the 1980s. Leadership? “Our politicians have promoted multiculturalism, while its citizens were against it, or at least not given the opportunity to vote against it in a referendum or otherwise. The price we paid was, and is, enormous. First came the Turks, followed by the Moroccans, and after that in the 90s, displaced Yugoslavs. Many didn’t read but were encouraged to stay and assisted in many ways to retain their cultural habits, at the expense of Dutch taxpayers.

“This integration proved to be successful, as Osama bin Laden in 2001 praised the Muslims in the south of Holland in the city of Eindhoven for their participation as martyrs in the holy jihad in northern Pakistan. A number of young Arabic men were raised in Holland and were trained in Afghanistan, fought against Pakistani troops and died in combat in October/ November 2001…Our open democratic society was and is heavily abused by foreigners that have no interest in integration, or participating or contributing to the new country…. In 2004, ten new member states entered the EU, and Bulgarians, Romanians and Poles flooded the Netherlands, taking up and organising crime… We left the Netherlands for these reasons in 2004, to a new life here in New Zealand, but we see exactly the same abuse by politicians of the word “tolerance.’

“Islam means, translated, submission…submission to a very unhealthy yoke, politically and spiritually and psychologically. It leaves no room whatsoever for your own thoughts, ideas or opinion and doesn’t understand democracy. It is totalitarian….

“We as a family have settled well but wish to enjoy a healthy democracy, in the future, for our children as well. I am not the kind of man to stand on the sideline and complain, but want to do something about it.”

We need more New Zealanders to want to do something about what has happened, and is happening, to this country. In particular, the insidious call for a misplaced “tolerance” of the attack on well-grounded values and sensible conservatism. The propagandised, deliberate charges of “racism”- designed to bully others, and to intimidate opposition – need to be challenged. They are used to silence much-needed protests that should be mounted against the undermining of our own society by bullying minority groups who themselves extend no tolerance!

As has been well pointed out, although individuals must have freedom of conscience with regard to what they may believe, or not believe, it is obviously sheer folly to claim all religions are the same, and of equal value to a civilisation – and we cannot afford to be ignorant about what is at stake. Islam has no intent to peacefully coexist with Christianity. Submission to Allah and Sharia law is its intent. For this reason, irrespective of the fact that there are obviously good Muslims, we would be very foolish to prioritise Muslim immigrants, over much-persecuted Christians, when considering our refuge policy.

The West, including this country, has been sold a pup – and not only with the prioritising of “leadership” ahead of stressing the importance of individual action. We have also been being basically attacked by this word, “ tolerance” into silencing much-needed protests that should have been mounted against the undermining of our own society – not only by the domination of the political class, but also by these same aggressive minority groups extending no tolerance whatever to those defending valuable traditional values.

Perhaps above all New Zealanders need to wake up to the fact, as has been pointed out, “that every age has its own crisis and challenge which must be met, otherwise society collapses.”

We have a choice, as individuals – as to whether from laziness, or indifference, we wrongly regard what is happening to our own country – and to individuals fighting worldwide against oppression – as somebody else’s problem. But we are ultimately answerable both to ourselves, and to others, for our choice.

To help? Join our 100 Days movement – www.100days.co.nz – to limit in this country the control of politicians acting against the interests of New Zealanders.

Please pass this Post on to others – and remember that every donation, no matter how small, helps to pay for the advertising we need to let others know. Thank you!

 

© Amy Brooke, convenor, author of The 100 Days – What has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians. See BOOKs – www.amybrooke.co.nz

Utterly awful, Amy…not what my father fought for…

“It is utterly awful, Amy. It is not what my father fought for in 1939-45.”

What is this “bright line” nonsense? This extraordinarily un-kiwi phraseology is foreign to New Zealanders, much more like the kind of language the Chinese employ in descriptive writing. We could more accurately describe this disastrous Prime Minister’s decision (much too little, and far too late) to apply a very minimal check on the buying up of New Zealand’s housing stock – Auckland’s in particular – with a concept familiar to New Zealanders – that the horse has bolted.

The reaction above – “It is not what my father fought for in 1939 to 1945” – which reached me from one of New Zealand’s most outstanding apolitical lawyers, a much-respected QC of integrity and international stature, reflects the incredulity of so many New Zealanders from all walks of life. We all now know that the country is being sold out from under our feet – and that, on the evidence, obvious for some time now, John Key and his National government apparently couldn’t care less. Hence the too little, too late, temporary-only dampener put on foreign investors who are neither New Zealand citizens nor New Zealand residents, but are entering this country in unprecedented numbers, and are buying us out.

And yes – this is not what New Zealanders – our fathers, our uncles, both men and women of a preceding generation, whom we honour with “Lest We Forget”… gave up six years of their lives for – if not their whole lives – in the Second World War alone – to preserve this country and other democracies. It was above all for our own land that they fought – the land we walk on and work on – for our own people. They did it for their own generation – their fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters… for their children, and for their children’s children.  And it is we, their children and their children’s children who now – (either through the utter negligence or deliberate agenda of this culpable government) – are being out shut from what they left us. We are and more prevented from owning what should be our farms, our housing stock – our businesses – and our strategic assets. In other words, we are well and truly facing the sell-out of New Zealand.

We should make no mistake: this is an unprecedented and extraordinary happening. And we are losing this country. Given our depressed economy, given the way Bill English is borrowing to beat all previous records, we know very well that most New Zealanders can be, and are now being outbid for our country by foreigners with far deeper pockets. 

The OIO admits there is no limit on how much land can be sold under our feet… No ceiling of 25%, 50%, 80%…? – or as much as the increasing exodus from other countries worldwide will contrive to snatch up – the mega-wealthy seeing New Zealand as a safe haven from the social unrest and instability throughout Europe, and most other parts of the world.

Remember how John Key has consistently denied there’s even a problem with the housing market in Auckland? But then this Prime Minister apparently has a problem with the truth of issues – as noted by journalists on more than one occasion. Having denied there is a housing problem – which has already done enormous damage to the Auckland housing market and disadvantaged so many New Zealanders, unable to compete with the intrusion of the super-rich into this country (particularly those from communist China seeking a bolthole from a country now facing its own economic downturn), Key now claims he himself suggested the tax to Inland Revenue around five years ago. He states it was opposed to the idea and only recently changed its mind about it.

However, apparently the IRD’s suggestion was for a 10 year period, to rein in foreign investment. Key’s settling on a 2 year one instead suggests his preference is not to represent New Zealanders on this issue – but, rather, for it to impact as little as possible on foreign investors. And who’s telling the truth – particularly given that one wonders why the PM would have suggested a solution to a problem he has denied exists – and also given that the Greens claim that the IRD and Treasury have both supported a capital gains tax in the past?

However, it seems John Key likes to be thought of as Number One. There’s an interesting parallel here, with Prince Harry, on his recent visit, being presented with a gift of greenstone (pounamu.) It was given to him by the Governor-General. But the garrulous Key immediately confided to the media the information that he himself was looking into giving the Prince a greenstone treasure – it was just that Sir Jerry Mateparae got in first.

On went our charismatic PM, indulging once more in a bit of centre-staging:   “I know Prince Harry really wants some pounamu. He admired it when we were at Gallipoli [for the Anzac Centenary commemoration]…I was standing next to him at Chunuk Bair and we were watching a kapa haka group perform, and Prince Harry made a special mention of the greenstone necklaces the group were wearing…He said they looked really beautiful, and he asked where he might be able to buy one. I told him it was pounamu and you don’t buy it: you must be gifted it.”

The latter, of course, is completely untrue. Greenstone jewellery and artefacts can be bought all over the country…But is it any more untrue than our Prime Minister’s claim, prior to the last election, that the government’s budget was in surplus – when, in fact, this Thursday will now be the seventh – or is it the eighth year in a row that we are facing a budget deficit because of this government’s mishandling of the economy? The fact that Key and his National Party are thought as being successful financial managers must be one of the most successful deceptions being practised on New Zealanders in recent years – with far too little scrutiny by the media.

But to abbreviate Key’s strangely elaborate claim of “I thought of it first…(with his “ I” suddenly becoming “we”…”So, we looked into gifting him a beautiful piece as a memento of his trip here, but the Governor-General said he would be giving him something. I know Prince Harry will treasure it…” etc. We get the picture. Our Prime Minister is The One Who Thinks of Things First – as with the” bright line” jargon? But most importantly, this totally inadequate proposal is going to do very little to address the rapacious swoop on the Auckland housing market by foreign investors – greatly aided by those New Zealand real estate agencies which went to Communist China to recruit them, bragging about the fact that they could keep on buying and keep renting to NZ tenants, who can’t afford to buy the houses themselves…and informing them how easy it was to not pay tax here. We have been basically sold as a pushover – which few would dispute.

But why has this been the case for so long? And why, after 2 years can the same foreign buyers still now sell, and avoid this new tax? Key’s oddly named “bright line” is going to do very little to solve what is happening. It simply prevents anyone buying a house to on-sell it with a view to making a non-taxable capital gain, being able to do so within two years. After that it’s open slather, as usual.

This proposal does nothing whatever to prevent those foreign investors – the majority markedly from communist China – buying up multiple houses and renting them to New Zealanders. The Reserve Bank seems to have overlooked the fact that in making it harder for New Zealanders to invest in buying property, by increasing the amount of deposit needed before a mortgage can be granted, it has made it even easier for foreign buyers, capital-rich, to crowd out our own people from the market. And is this supposed to be an improvement?

The only possibly productive part of this too-little-too-late proposal from the PM, and apparently only because of the government being leaned on to do its part, is the requirement that buyers will now (why only now! An eye on-the-ball, competent government, acting on behalf of New Zealanders, would have seen to this long ago) be required to register with the IRD, and open bank accounts in this country.

Once again New Zealand first leader Winston Peters is the only politician representing those New Zealanders who do not belong to the moneyed class controlling most of the investments in this country (apart from Labour’s Stuart Nash, making highly relevant comments in the NBR – but we’ll come to this – about National’s scandalous transfer of $7.45 million dollars of New Zealanders’ money to a foreign-owned farm in Saudi Arabia).

Peters points out that this new policy – not even due to come into force until October 1 – is “but a pittance” and completely ignores the issue of offshore purchases of New Zealand land. and massive immigration.  He accurately labels the tax as a “weak attempt to deal with a major problem”. He is not wrong, when “The tax still allows offshore land banking and offshore purchasing of homes to rent, and does not affect the “past rash” of offshore buying of homes and farms prior to October 1.”

Peters has also predicted the Companies Office will “receive a torrent of applications from new property companies all in the name of virtually anonymous offshore property investors”.

Moreover, as Key pointed out in a candid moment some months ago, the wealthy know how to structure their affairs to arrange paying minimal, if any, tax. He appears to be helping here, by structuring his new proposal to make it game, set and match as usual for those anxious to afford to help New Zealanders become” tenants in their own country” – a position he once famously invoked – and since has done nothing about. As he now says, his proposed curb “is quite different from an investor buying with a long-term view of renting their property to tenants.” Apparently it’s business as usual, in this respect.

And while the government, in an apparent attempt to deflect the media and the country’s attention from the gobbling up of our farmland, businesses, assets and housing, keeps focusing its statements on the need to free up more land and build more housing – (housing which cannot possibly keep pace with the record number of immigrants) this appears to be a useful ploy to distract attention from the fact that it has done nothing to curb the record immigration numbers of more than 56,000 people per year, which is adding to the pressure of the Auckland housing market.

Moreover, it would be interesting to see how many supposed New Zealand companies are actually owned by New Zealanders. Nelson-based New Zealand King Salmon, for example, is not owned by New Zealanders, but by Malaysians.

The New Zealand First leader may also not be wrong, when he said in a recent interview, “There’s a day of reckoning coming for us, sad to say. A lot of people in Auckland are about to lose their equity in their homes as they did in 2007 and 2008 when the market collapsed…Now, a wise government would step in and try and stabilise things, cut back on demand, stop offshore buying. The second thing is cut back on this massive immigration – which is not about production, remember this: it’s about consumption.”

His last statement is completely accurate. It is not surprising that even the downturn in the dairy industry will not stop foreign buyers grabbing our land. In fact there are all the signs that we are going to be increasingly dispossessed in our own country. Given the dairy downturn, farmers with their backs to the wall are being forced to borrow at exorbitant, quite shocking rates of interest. Those who don’t make it will be more likely to have their farms bought by foreigners, particularly Communist Chinese investors. Is this going to contribute to social stability in this country – and to New Zealanders feeling that the country is still ours?

Overseas analysts are writing well on these new phenomena – firstly on this fact that the super-rich are looking for places in our country and others as a bolthole – and because of the increase in social instability worldwide. And secondly, because today’s exodus from Communist China is unparalleled in its or our history – and New Zealanders are looked upon as a ripe plum ready for the picking.

But there’s no decent investigation being taken up in this country. And yet it affects us all. Already, a former American and long-time New Zealand resident, a hard-working owner of a small business argues that it is now too late for us. Is he right?

 These questions need answering…but, unfortunately, too many of today’s better journalists are kept too busy meeting deadlines to undertake this. But it needs to be done – with urgency – particularly given that our cock-a-hoop Prime Minister has become an arguable liability to this country- with the National Party falling in line behind him…also managing not to see what’s right in front of us all. As National Minister Nick Smith so famously said, when his leader tells him to jump, he asks how high…

The issue that Labour’s Stuart Nash has raised in the NBR is almost incredible, the revelation that “National is spending over $7 million supplying mostly undisclosed goods and services to a privately-owned farm in Saudi Arabia whose owners will retain ownership of the taxpayer-funded assets.

“About $6 million has been allocated to contract Hawke’s Bay company Brownrigg Agriculture to develop a consortium of New Zealand companies to deliver unspecified goods and services for a New Zealand agri-business demonstration farm being constructed near Dammam, Saudi Arabia.

The government has also spent an additional $1.45 million on airfreighting 900 pregnant ewes from New Zealand to Saudi Arabia for a pilot research breeding programme – even though the profits from the future progeny of those ewes will be pocketed by the Saudi landowner.

“In addition, New Zealand Trade & Enterprise (NZTE) is refusing to confirm that no more New Zealand taxpayer money will be invested into the demonstration farm, which is owned and managed by Saudi Arabia’s largest livestock trading company, the Al Khalaf Group. Co-owner Hamood Al Khalaf, in partnership with George Assaf, reportedly owns three other farms in the wealthy Hawkes Bay area… Swedish investors now apparently own 8 NZ farms. Chinese, German, Russian and American buy-ups of our land – in some cases several by the same buyer – do not equate to what our fathers, uncles and grandfathers fought for, gave up their lives for, in the hope that they were making this country safer for future generations of New Zealanders.

Make no mistake; the pace of the sell-out of this country is accelerating. And only a fundamentally democratic movement supported by New Zealanders and challenging all the political parties, can now save it, at this late hour.

It can be done – the Swiss did it, to rein in their own government – and for themselves to claim the right to make the decisions concerning the country’s directions. The fact they succeeded with just one small but crucial provision, has made them the most successful and prosperous democracy in the world –  as we detail in our 100 Days website!

We need you to help. Join us at www.100days.co.nz and please donate on our website -to help us spread our essential movement as widely as possible to New Zealanders everywhere.

© Amy Brooke – Convener, and author of the essential reading (available on Kindle, or any good bookstore) The 100 Days – Claiming Back New Zealand – what has gone wrong and how we can control our politicians.

For further background information – http://www.amybrooke.co.nz